France launches criminal probe of X over alleged algorithm ‘manipulation’

Scope and Legal Basis of the Probe

• Commenters note the investigation targets “alteration of the functioning of an automated data processing system” and “fraudulent extraction of data” by an organized group, under France’s cybercrime articles (323-2, etc.).
• A legal analysis (cited in the thread) argues that secretly distorting a recommendation algorithm can be punished like hacking, even when done by the platform itself.
• Some stress this is still just an investigation, not formal charges, and that French law hinges heavily on intent.

Is Changing Your Own Algorithm a Crime?

• One camp is alarmed that anti‑hacking provisions might be extended to owners modifying their own systems, calling it dangerous overreach.
• Others respond that the key issue is deceptive manipulation of users for political influence; if intent to distort public debate is proven, the analogy to hacking could hold.
• There is speculation that even without criminal findings, the probe could push X toward being treated as a “publisher” rather than a neutral host.

Algorithmic Bias, Foreign Interference, and Evidence

• Some argue that amplifying far‑right or extremist content, including via Grok’s antisemitic and racist outputs, fits “disproportionate propagation” and potentially foreign interference.
• Skeptics say engagement-driven algorithms naturally favor more active (often right‑leaning) users and that small experiments showing bias are weak evidence.
• There is debate over what counts as “disproportionate” and whether bias is intentional or emergent.

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech and Democratic Norms

• Multiple comments contrast US-style broad speech protections with French/EU limits on hate speech, Holocaust denial, and incitement; some insist these limits enhance freedom for minorities, others see them as censorship.
• One side worries this is part of a broader European trend toward surveillance, de-anonymization, and “social credit”-style control.
• The counterpoint: other media (TV, radio, print, outdoor ads) are already tightly regulated in elections; social platforms with opaque algorithms should not be exempt.

Data Demands and Cross-Border Concerns

• Some propose subpoenaing X for data on suspected foreign-influence accounts (IP, email, VPN use) and banning the service if it does not comply.
• Others warn this is a “fishing expedition” that could let any state obtain data on dissidents under a vague “foreign influence” label, citing worries about authoritarian misuse.

Political Motivation and Partisan Framing

• Several see the probe as politically motivated, tied to hostility toward Musk/X and to European fears about rising right-wing influence online.
• Others reply that holding a powerful platform and its billionaire owner accountable under democratically enacted law is precisely what the rule of law requires, and that platforms long ago passed the “just hosting” line.