Published April 20, 2022
Oh, definitely, if Emmanuel Macron had been elected in 2017, how many reforms and changes he could have made to this much-needed country! However, as the second round of the presidential election approaches, the same candidate is multiplying his proposals on heterogeneous topics to attract the grace of the voters.
Which allows us to discover in the course of an interview granted to one of the usual reverence newspapers that now has strong ideas about the Internet and social media.
For him, social media is certainly harmful, and perhaps as harmful as anonymity!
With his usual gluttony, the press hurried to firmly label his desire “Facebook dismantling”while here it must be understood that the candidate for a new presidential term essentially wants to put in place stronger control over social media platforms, in particular by banning anonymity in one way or another.
And since these networks are both a public service and a French one, it is easy to imagine that the task will be so easy: in the same way that it was very simple ban one site or another simply by blocking your domain name (which blocks almost nothing), which has been simple to prevent Internet users from circumventing censorship and bans (either by using VPN or alternative sites), it will be strong simple again to prevent professionals from accessing the networks they want to reach.
By the way, the few countries that really try to prevent access to the Internet and are partly successful are examples of democracy like China or North Korea. So we won’t be surprised to see Emmanuel Macron take the example of these states here. After all, it is the French president who managed to park more than 60 million of his fellow citizens at home and only allowed them to leave with a small role of self-humiliation. It is this same president who also managed to make people believe that going to bars for a drink, to restaurants to eat or to the cinemas to see a painting was a signposted privilege distributed only to responsible citizens and officially designated as such …
Therefore, allowing access only to certain Internet platforms, and only to certain populations, is just an additional step that will not pose any intellectual difficulty for the entire political clique that currently exists.
And if we can agree on the addictive and sometimes harmful aspect of these networks, this is even more worrying, as this addiction shows above all the will of each and every one to escape from a situation every time. of which, however, the current president is directly responsible: he cannot fail to notice the parallels between the increase in addiction to the most degrading television programs, the most toxic social networks and the deteriorating faster than the quality of the economic, political, and social debates of contemporary Western society, and the accompanying cultural and moral decline.
There is no possibility: the intellectual collapse of all Western media explains the increasingly massive transfer of citizens to alternative media where the level is not better, but where hypocrisy is otherwise absent at least various degrees of lesser magnitude. Just look at the journalistic shipwrecks as The world, Le Figaro On Release, the crazy mediocrity of state radio and television, it is enough to compare what they were 30 or 50 years ago with the intellectual diarrhea that everyone is currently producing in a continuous stream to understand that these social networks are they have been more attracted to the public if they allowed at least some of the openly dissenting opinions to be expressed. The emergence of new platforms (Gettr, Rumble, etc.) is currently part of the same dynamic.
Of course, this has been well understood by the current leaders, who for some years have been constantly trying to put an end to it, both by politicians and by the leaders of these platforms, who have clearly measured interest. to play as much as possible the game of those who currently have the money, power, and means of coercion.
However, Emmanuel Macron’s desire to govern, regulate, dismantle and control the thinking of the citizens does not stop there, as it also evokes the anonymity for which the tenant of the Elysée has a strong opinion.
In a democratic society, there should be no anonymity. You can’t walk down the hooded street. On the Internet, people are allowed, because they are hooded behind a nickname, to say the worst abjections.
Again, the analysis of the official representative of McKinsey rue du Faubourg St Honoré is a bit short: it is much more the absence of risk that pushes one and the other to take “the worst abjections”.
In addition, Macron is no different when, from the beginning of his term, he puts on his ridiculous nonsense and outrageous sophistry, especially because he is constantly protected by his bodyguards and his security service. From the nervousness he shows when he has to talk to everyone during the election, it seems obvious that without this protection and without the security of taking any risks, his tongue would be less well hung.
The same thing happens everywhere, on the street or on social media: education and good manners are all the more present as relentless retaliation will be applied in the event of non-compliance. The current laxity of justice in the face of the abuses observed in the streets easily explains the increase in what is modestly described as incivility or harassment and which in its day would have deserved its perpetrators firm beatings as well deserved as educational. . The current overflow and congestion of justice by the myriad crimes without victims and its complete disorganization by an uninterrupted legislature reassures by its slowness and laxity those who want “get rid of the worst abjections”.
There’s no way: anonymity doesn’t play a role, unlike virtual security “the worst abjections”⁇
More pragmatically, anonymity on the Internet is a chimera: the authorities already know how to find you if they want to, and few really know how to maintain their anonymity or effectively protect their privacy and identity on the networks.
Finally, we must remember that this anonymity, in addition to being necessary for the vote, what can be more democratic? – has also been used throughout history by those whose words were too sulphurous for the power that existed: from pre-revolutionary anonymous pamphlets to pseudonyms in newspapers, anonymity has not been used exclusively to dump insults, but it has become habitually indispensable. by providing texts and arguments to opponents, especially politicians. The disappearance of anonymity allows to force the silence to certain opponents without subtlety and to crush the dissent.
And it is, in fact, to the latter that the little Marquis of the Elysée really points, who no longer suffers, so that we can make fun of his politics and his painful television speeches. Forgetting that it is not because we have nothing to hide that we have an obligation to show everything, Macron once again shows his true face as a little tyrant for wanting to rule anonymity and social media.
On the web