🚨TWITTER FILES – FRANCE
At this moment, the Trump administration is negotiating with the EU over final obstacles to a trade deal, one of which is European censorship of US social media platforms.
Many analysts believe the massive size of the EU will lead US social media firms to impose European censorship, including on Americans. Last year, the EU’s then-top digital censor, Thierry Breton, threatened action against Elon Musk after he announced a conversation on X with Donald Trump.
Now, new TWITTER FILES show a coordinated effort by France’s President Emmanuel Macron, legislators, and state-affiliated NGOs working together to force the world’s most influential social media platform to censor users for legal speech and influence Twitter’s worldwide “content moderation” for narrative control.
What’s more, TWITTER FILES - FRANCE reveals the birth of the censorship-by-NGO proxy strategy at the heart of the Censorship Industrial Complex:
— President Macron personally reached out to then-CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey;
— The timing of Macron’s action strongly suggests coordination with NGOs on a pressure campaign to win more censorship and demand sensitive user data from Twitter;
— The pattern of events indicates potentially illegal activity by various actors.
The TWITTER FILES FRANCE investigation was led by @McmahonPascal and @battleforeurope, and edited by @galexybrane and @shellenberger.
We are releasing the Files here on X and simultaneously publishing a comprehensive report by Clerótte and Fazi on France’s invention of the Censorship Industrial Complex.
At this moment, the Trump administration is negotiating with the EU over final obstacles to a trade deal, one of which is European censorship of US social media platforms.
Many analysts believe the massive size of the EU will lead US social media firms to impose European censorship, including on Americans. Last year, the EU’s then-top digital censor, Thierry Breton, threatened action against Elon Musk after he announced a conversation on X with Donald Trump.
Now, new TWITTER FILES show a coordinated effort by France’s President Emmanuel Macron, legislators, and state-affiliated NGOs working together to force the world’s most influential social media platform to censor users for legal speech and influence Twitter’s worldwide “content moderation” for narrative control.
What’s more, TWITTER FILES - FRANCE reveals the birth of the censorship-by-NGO proxy strategy at the heart of the Censorship Industrial Complex:
— President Macron personally reached out to then-CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey;
— The timing of Macron’s action strongly suggests coordination with NGOs on a pressure campaign to win more censorship and demand sensitive user data from Twitter;
— The pattern of events indicates potentially illegal activity by various actors.
The TWITTER FILES FRANCE investigation was led by @McmahonPascal and @battleforeurope, and edited by @galexybrane and @shellenberger.
We are releasing the Files here on X and simultaneously publishing a comprehensive report by Clerótte and Fazi on France’s invention of the Censorship Industrial Complex.
2. “President Macron wants to text Jack”
On October 14, 2020, Twitter’s Public Policy Director for France and Russia wrote, “President Macron's team has been asking me (again!) Jack's number because the President wants to text him some supporting words re our new policies and functionalities on Election integrity.”
There was one issue, though – Dorsey did not give out his contact information, even to heads of state. “I have already advised that he could send him a DM. I'll push back again, but wanted to double check with you first that indeed Jack never shares his number,” the policy director wrote.
Public requested a response from President Macron and did not hear back.
On October 14, 2020, Twitter’s Public Policy Director for France and Russia wrote, “President Macron's team has been asking me (again!) Jack's number because the President wants to text him some supporting words re our new policies and functionalities on Election integrity.”
There was one issue, though – Dorsey did not give out his contact information, even to heads of state. “I have already advised that he could send him a DM. I'll push back again, but wanted to double check with you first that indeed Jack never shares his number,” the policy director wrote.
Public requested a response from President Macron and did not hear back.
3. “Macron only sends texts to people he is close to and works frequently with…”
The first reply came from Twitter's Global Vice President of Public Affairs, who copied Vijaya Gadde, one of the platform's chief censors.
This Global Vice President of Public Affairs noted, “I know that Macron only sends texts to people he is close to and works frequently with colleagues and senior govt. leaders (like Angela Merkel) over text. [redacted] - could you pls. ask Jack if he would be willing to accept a text from Macron, and we will ask Macron's team only to share Jack's number with Macron? Thanks.”
Dorsey’s office replied, “Will circle w Jack. Is there an alternative? FYI: Jack doesn’t have a phone number (I swear) and only immediate team has his contact info to get a hold of him.”
“I am really pushing for DM but apparently Macron doesn’t use Twitter by himself and wants to do a personal note. Maybe a telegram or signal.”
This was followed by a review of various potential communication channels, including email, Signal, Telegram, and iMessage.
But why was Macron so desperate to get in contact with Dorsey?
The first reply came from Twitter's Global Vice President of Public Affairs, who copied Vijaya Gadde, one of the platform's chief censors.
This Global Vice President of Public Affairs noted, “I know that Macron only sends texts to people he is close to and works frequently with colleagues and senior govt. leaders (like Angela Merkel) over text. [redacted] - could you pls. ask Jack if he would be willing to accept a text from Macron, and we will ask Macron's team only to share Jack's number with Macron? Thanks.”
Dorsey’s office replied, “Will circle w Jack. Is there an alternative? FYI: Jack doesn’t have a phone number (I swear) and only immediate team has his contact info to get a hold of him.”
“I am really pushing for DM but apparently Macron doesn’t use Twitter by himself and wants to do a personal note. Maybe a telegram or signal.”
This was followed by a review of various potential communication channels, including email, Signal, Telegram, and iMessage.
But why was Macron so desperate to get in contact with Dorsey?
4. CONTEXT: Escalating lawfare and censorship under Macron’s presidency
France has long presented itself as the cradle of modern democratic ideals, born of the Revolution of 1789 and enshrined in the motto “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.” In reality, few Western governments have more sway on free speech than France.
The French government and its Censorship Industrial Complex have used various methods, including judicial intimidation, to demand censorship from social media platforms.
In August last year, French police arrested Pavel Durov, the founder of the social media company Telegram, and held him for four days. France indicted him on a staggering list of charges, including complicity in organized crime, criminal conspiracy, and facilitating terrorism.
Durov has alleged that the director of France's foreign intelligence service urged him to suppress conservative voices on Telegram in the wake of Romania’s presidential election rerun, which followed its cancellation.
France has long presented itself as the cradle of modern democratic ideals, born of the Revolution of 1789 and enshrined in the motto “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.” In reality, few Western governments have more sway on free speech than France.
The French government and its Censorship Industrial Complex have used various methods, including judicial intimidation, to demand censorship from social media platforms.
In August last year, French police arrested Pavel Durov, the founder of the social media company Telegram, and held him for four days. France indicted him on a staggering list of charges, including complicity in organized crime, criminal conspiracy, and facilitating terrorism.
Durov has alleged that the director of France's foreign intelligence service urged him to suppress conservative voices on Telegram in the wake of Romania’s presidential election rerun, which followed its cancellation.
5. “This case is largely about painting Twitter as a dangerous actor in the press.”
Macron’s request for Dorsey’s number appears to be linked with the simultaneous launch of a lawsuit by four French government-linked NGOs against Twitter.
“We were sued back in the spring by four NGOs claiming that we are not doing enough to address hate speech in France (and comparing us unfavorably with Facebook and others),” wrote Karen Colangelo, Associate Director of Litigation, Regulatory, and Competition at Twitter, in an October 19, 2020, email to colleagues. “They seek to have an expert appointed to examine our reporting and enforcement systems.”
Colangelo didn’t think the goal of the NGOs was to win the lawsuit, which was without merit. Rather, she said, “This case is largely about painting Twitter as a dangerous actor in the press.”
The lawsuit was filed against Twitter by the French NGOs SOS Racisme, SOS Homophobie, the Union of Jewish Students of France (UEJF), and J’accuse, claiming that Twitter failed to remove hate speech in a timely manner.
These NGOs appear to be backed by the French government and the EU. SOS Racisme is a partner in an EU program, and UEJF is a member of the European Union of Jewish students, which receives support from the EU. SOS Homophobie receives funding from the French government, and is affiliated with the EU through its international LGBTQ youth program.
The NGOs did not respond to our request for comment.
Macron’s request for Dorsey’s number appears to be linked with the simultaneous launch of a lawsuit by four French government-linked NGOs against Twitter.
“We were sued back in the spring by four NGOs claiming that we are not doing enough to address hate speech in France (and comparing us unfavorably with Facebook and others),” wrote Karen Colangelo, Associate Director of Litigation, Regulatory, and Competition at Twitter, in an October 19, 2020, email to colleagues. “They seek to have an expert appointed to examine our reporting and enforcement systems.”
Colangelo didn’t think the goal of the NGOs was to win the lawsuit, which was without merit. Rather, she said, “This case is largely about painting Twitter as a dangerous actor in the press.”
The lawsuit was filed against Twitter by the French NGOs SOS Racisme, SOS Homophobie, the Union of Jewish Students of France (UEJF), and J’accuse, claiming that Twitter failed to remove hate speech in a timely manner.
These NGOs appear to be backed by the French government and the EU. SOS Racisme is a partner in an EU program, and UEJF is a member of the European Union of Jewish students, which receives support from the EU. SOS Homophobie receives funding from the French government, and is affiliated with the EU through its international LGBTQ youth program.
The NGOs did not respond to our request for comment.
6. “They are concerned that we let users Tweet anonymously”
Following a mediation session with the NGOs on November 7, 2020, Colangelo updated her colleagues: “The NGOs articulated their concerns, which, broadly speaking, are (1) they feel we are not actioning hate speech quickly enough (and, in their view, sometimes not at all), (2) they want additional transparency into how we handle hate speech reports and proactively monitor for hate speech content, and (3) they are concerned that we let users Tweet anonymously — they believe this allows perpetrators of hate speech to evade detection/punishment.”
After a third mediation session, Colangelo noted, “We had our third session today and actually made some minor progress. They asked us specifically about five particular accounts that they believe should be suspended. We are going to re-review those accounts and see whether there is a basis to suspend.”
Twitter appeared ready to cooperate with French censors.
Following a mediation session with the NGOs on November 7, 2020, Colangelo updated her colleagues: “The NGOs articulated their concerns, which, broadly speaking, are (1) they feel we are not actioning hate speech quickly enough (and, in their view, sometimes not at all), (2) they want additional transparency into how we handle hate speech reports and proactively monitor for hate speech content, and (3) they are concerned that we let users Tweet anonymously — they believe this allows perpetrators of hate speech to evade detection/punishment.”
After a third mediation session, Colangelo noted, “We had our third session today and actually made some minor progress. They asked us specifically about five particular accounts that they believe should be suspended. We are going to re-review those accounts and see whether there is a basis to suspend.”
Twitter appeared ready to cooperate with French censors.
7. “I am not surprised that they are trying now to go back to court and make some public statement…”
Twitter executives knew the timing of the NGOs’ lawsuit was not coincidental.
“From a public policy standpoint,” wrote Audrey Herblin-Stoop, Twitter’s Public Policy Director for France and Russia, to her colleagues, “as you all may remember, their announcement of the lawsuit was made right before the final reading of the Avia bill and was aimed to support the vote of the bill.”
The Avia bill was the new French censorship law, ostensibly intended to “combat online hate speech” and censor illegal content.
“So,” she added, “I am not surprised that they are trying now to go back to court and make some public statement just ahead of the comeback of the hate speech regulation in the coming weeks.”
The supposedly “nongovernmental” organizations’ lawsuit thus appears to have not been a spontaneous response to online abuse but part of a broader, coordinated effort by the French government, in which state-funded and politically connected NGOs acted in concert with government actors, including President Macron himself, to pressure social media companies to censor, and strengthen the hand of the French state in censoring its political opponents.
Twitter executives knew the timing of the NGOs’ lawsuit was not coincidental.
“From a public policy standpoint,” wrote Audrey Herblin-Stoop, Twitter’s Public Policy Director for France and Russia, to her colleagues, “as you all may remember, their announcement of the lawsuit was made right before the final reading of the Avia bill and was aimed to support the vote of the bill.”
The Avia bill was the new French censorship law, ostensibly intended to “combat online hate speech” and censor illegal content.
“So,” she added, “I am not surprised that they are trying now to go back to court and make some public statement just ahead of the comeback of the hate speech regulation in the coming weeks.”
The supposedly “nongovernmental” organizations’ lawsuit thus appears to have not been a spontaneous response to online abuse but part of a broader, coordinated effort by the French government, in which state-funded and politically connected NGOs acted in concert with government actors, including President Macron himself, to pressure social media companies to censor, and strengthen the hand of the French state in censoring its political opponents.
8. CONTEXT: France invented the Censorship Industrial Complex 53 years ago
From royal censors to revolutionary tribunals, Napoleonic decrees to Vichy oppression, France’s history has long been defined by the tug-of-war between censorship and free speech.
France’s 1972 Pleven Law was a direct response to mounting political tensions and disputes over mass migration. Ostensibly aimed at combating racism by criminalizing incitement to hatred, defamation, or insults based on race, ethnicity, or religion, the law empowered two state-accredited, partially state-funded NGOs to act as “private prosecutors” with the power to initiate criminal indictments as third parties.
This created a potent weapon: NGOs, often ideologically driven and well-resourced, could launch costly, reputation-destroying lawsuits against critics or dissenting voices, imposing in effect a system at the root of the DSA and its “trusted third parties” tasked with censoring the internet.
The Pleven Law opened Pandora’s box. The 1980s witnessed an explosion of NGOs frequently acting as proxies for political parties or interest groups. These groups relentlessly lobbied for accreditation and expanded powers to initiate indictments in new domains, such as sexual orientation, turning lawfare into a core political strategy. Over time, the scope of speech that could be penalized or censored expanded dramatically.
Starting in the early 2010s, these groups initiated a string of legal actions against Twitter over allegedly hateful content, targeting antisemitic hashtags, Holocaust denial, or homophobic abuse.
By 2012, France was already the global leader in censorship requests to Twitter, demanding “pre-bunking” measures.
From royal censors to revolutionary tribunals, Napoleonic decrees to Vichy oppression, France’s history has long been defined by the tug-of-war between censorship and free speech.
France’s 1972 Pleven Law was a direct response to mounting political tensions and disputes over mass migration. Ostensibly aimed at combating racism by criminalizing incitement to hatred, defamation, or insults based on race, ethnicity, or religion, the law empowered two state-accredited, partially state-funded NGOs to act as “private prosecutors” with the power to initiate criminal indictments as third parties.
This created a potent weapon: NGOs, often ideologically driven and well-resourced, could launch costly, reputation-destroying lawsuits against critics or dissenting voices, imposing in effect a system at the root of the DSA and its “trusted third parties” tasked with censoring the internet.
The Pleven Law opened Pandora’s box. The 1980s witnessed an explosion of NGOs frequently acting as proxies for political parties or interest groups. These groups relentlessly lobbied for accreditation and expanded powers to initiate indictments in new domains, such as sexual orientation, turning lawfare into a core political strategy. Over time, the scope of speech that could be penalized or censored expanded dramatically.
Starting in the early 2010s, these groups initiated a string of legal actions against Twitter over allegedly hateful content, targeting antisemitic hashtags, Holocaust denial, or homophobic abuse.
By 2012, France was already the global leader in censorship requests to Twitter, demanding “pre-bunking” measures.
9. Macron Leads Censorship Effort
The year 2016 marked an inflection point in the state’s crackdown on online speech. Events like Brexit, Trump’s victory, the Arab Spring, and France’s Yellow Vest movement, organized via social media, convinced elites that “information disorders” represented an existential threat to their power. A consensus thus emerged: digital platforms needed to be regulated to curb the rise of populism.
This led Macron to launch a legislative onslaught. Under Macron’s presidency, France:
— mandated that platforms implement "misinformation detection”;
— gave platforms a 24-hour window to remove “hateful” content, and required platforms to remove “deepfakes”;
— launched VIGINUM, a counter-disinformation agency created in July 2021, which likely played a role in the contentious cancellation of the first round of Romania’s 2024 presidential election.
This pattern of activity suggests a concerted effort by Macron and his allies to police global speech and elections.
The year 2016 marked an inflection point in the state’s crackdown on online speech. Events like Brexit, Trump’s victory, the Arab Spring, and France’s Yellow Vest movement, organized via social media, convinced elites that “information disorders” represented an existential threat to their power. A consensus thus emerged: digital platforms needed to be regulated to curb the rise of populism.
This led Macron to launch a legislative onslaught. Under Macron’s presidency, France:
— mandated that platforms implement "misinformation detection”;
— gave platforms a 24-hour window to remove “hateful” content, and required platforms to remove “deepfakes”;
— launched VIGINUM, a counter-disinformation agency created in July 2021, which likely played a role in the contentious cancellation of the first round of Romania’s 2024 presidential election.
This pattern of activity suggests a concerted effort by Macron and his allies to police global speech and elections.
10. “—we were planning to confidentially disclose some information sought by the NGOs to them in exchange for them dropping the suit”
The NGOs would not settle, despite Twitter’s efforts to cooperate. And so Twitter caved, offering to censor its platform — for all users — in exchange for an end to the lawfare.
“An update on the French hate speech matter: back in January we thought we were nearing a settlement,” wrote Twitter’s Associate Director of Litigation, Regulatory, and Competition on February 23, 2021,”[W]e were planning to confidentially disclose some information sought by the NGOs to them in exchange for them dropping the suit. After some weeks (and, apparently, in-fighting among the plaintiffs), they came back to us with a counter-offer that was ultimately unacceptable.”
What made the counter-offer unacceptable, she explained, is that “they have refused to make any firm commitment to drop their lawsuit.”
In other words, even with access to Twitter’s data, the NGOs wanted to continue their suit. Why?
The answer appears to be to create public pressure for greater platform censorship. And Twitter execs knew it.
“We anticipate negative press on the ‘failure’ of the mediation, and comms has prepared a reactive statement,” the litigation director wrote. “It is likely the NGOs will try to paint us as failing to cooperate/negotiate in good faith and that we don’t care about/intentionally profit from hate speech. While I believe these characterizations are false and made in bad faith, these are the common themes we have heard from the NGOs throughout the mediation.”
The NGOs would not settle, despite Twitter’s efforts to cooperate. And so Twitter caved, offering to censor its platform — for all users — in exchange for an end to the lawfare.
“An update on the French hate speech matter: back in January we thought we were nearing a settlement,” wrote Twitter’s Associate Director of Litigation, Regulatory, and Competition on February 23, 2021,”[W]e were planning to confidentially disclose some information sought by the NGOs to them in exchange for them dropping the suit. After some weeks (and, apparently, in-fighting among the plaintiffs), they came back to us with a counter-offer that was ultimately unacceptable.”
What made the counter-offer unacceptable, she explained, is that “they have refused to make any firm commitment to drop their lawsuit.”
In other words, even with access to Twitter’s data, the NGOs wanted to continue their suit. Why?
The answer appears to be to create public pressure for greater platform censorship. And Twitter execs knew it.
“We anticipate negative press on the ‘failure’ of the mediation, and comms has prepared a reactive statement,” the litigation director wrote. “It is likely the NGOs will try to paint us as failing to cooperate/negotiate in good faith and that we don’t care about/intentionally profit from hate speech. While I believe these characterizations are false and made in bad faith, these are the common themes we have heard from the NGOs throughout the mediation.”
11. “We should be cognisant of the precedent we are setting here which could trigger more asks of this nature into the future.”
Twitter also agreed to send a letter from CEO Jack Dorsey to the NGOs, promising stronger action in the future.
The “plaintiffs in the UEJF hate speech case are now suggesting that they would be willing to settle the case so long as we provide them with a letter from Jack indicating that he is aware of the case and that the company is committed to fighting hate speech,” wrote Twitter attorney Karen Colangelo on March 9, 2021. “If we can really get the case to go away by just providing this letter, litigation recommends we provide it.”
“I think Jack will be supportive,” responded Twitter Acting General Counsel, Sean Edgett, a few hours later.
Twitter’s head of public policy responded, “We're supportive of this move and will work with our comms colleagues on the inevitable press cycle that will follow if this letter is leaked. We should also be cognisant of the precedent we are setting here which could trigger more asks of this nature into the future.”
Twitter also agreed to send a letter from CEO Jack Dorsey to the NGOs, promising stronger action in the future.
The “plaintiffs in the UEJF hate speech case are now suggesting that they would be willing to settle the case so long as we provide them with a letter from Jack indicating that he is aware of the case and that the company is committed to fighting hate speech,” wrote Twitter attorney Karen Colangelo on March 9, 2021. “If we can really get the case to go away by just providing this letter, litigation recommends we provide it.”
“I think Jack will be supportive,” responded Twitter Acting General Counsel, Sean Edgett, a few hours later.
Twitter’s head of public policy responded, “We're supportive of this move and will work with our comms colleagues on the inevitable press cycle that will follow if this letter is leaked. We should also be cognisant of the precedent we are setting here which could trigger more asks of this nature into the future.”
12. “Notably, the lawsuit was very strategically timed…”
On March 10, 2021, Colangelo wrote up a brief for Edgett to share with Dorsey on why they wanted the letter. “The lawsuit is one part of a larger effort in France to paint Twitter as a bad actor. Notably, the lawsuit was very strategically timed to begin ‘testing’ of our response rate the day after we announced that our response times would be impacted by COVID-19, many of the ‘hateful’ Tweets included in the 88% we did not remove are not actually illegal under French law or actionable under our TOS, and the suit was publicly announced to coincide with the introduction of the Avia hate speech bill which, according to its author, was motivated by Twitter’s refusal to remove hate speech.”
Then, on March 23, Colangelo told her colleagues that the NGOs had “changed their minds” about the letter from Jack Dorsey and “decided that it was insufficient.” The good news, she said, was that “the mediators (who have the ear of the judge) are frustrated with the NGOs and believe they acted in bad faith.”
On July 6, 2021, Twitter’s French attorney announced that the Court had dismissed NGOs claims based on lack of standing but ordered Twitter to give the NGOs “any documents relating to the resources dedicated to fighting hate speech… the number, location, nationality and language of the persons assigned to moderation…the number of reports from users of the French platform of its services, concerning apology for crimes against humanity and incitement to racial hatred” and related information.
On August 16, 2021, a Twitter executive in Ireland emailed Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker, former General Counsel of the FBI, to say that “the French Constitutional Court handed down its decision on Friday on the new French law that places requirements on Twitter to take a number of significant steps in respect to how we treat content moderation in France. The bill will be enacted by the President in the next few days and enforceable immediately.”
On March 10, 2021, Colangelo wrote up a brief for Edgett to share with Dorsey on why they wanted the letter. “The lawsuit is one part of a larger effort in France to paint Twitter as a bad actor. Notably, the lawsuit was very strategically timed to begin ‘testing’ of our response rate the day after we announced that our response times would be impacted by COVID-19, many of the ‘hateful’ Tweets included in the 88% we did not remove are not actually illegal under French law or actionable under our TOS, and the suit was publicly announced to coincide with the introduction of the Avia hate speech bill which, according to its author, was motivated by Twitter’s refusal to remove hate speech.”
Then, on March 23, Colangelo told her colleagues that the NGOs had “changed their minds” about the letter from Jack Dorsey and “decided that it was insufficient.” The good news, she said, was that “the mediators (who have the ear of the judge) are frustrated with the NGOs and believe they acted in bad faith.”
On July 6, 2021, Twitter’s French attorney announced that the Court had dismissed NGOs claims based on lack of standing but ordered Twitter to give the NGOs “any documents relating to the resources dedicated to fighting hate speech… the number, location, nationality and language of the persons assigned to moderation…the number of reports from users of the French platform of its services, concerning apology for crimes against humanity and incitement to racial hatred” and related information.
On August 16, 2021, a Twitter executive in Ireland emailed Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker, former General Counsel of the FBI, to say that “the French Constitutional Court handed down its decision on Friday on the new French law that places requirements on Twitter to take a number of significant steps in respect to how we treat content moderation in France. The bill will be enacted by the President in the next few days and enforceable immediately.”
13. Macron Attempts to Circumvent French Law
The apparent coordination between the NGOs, the hate speech bill, and Macron’s attempt to contact Dorsey could easily be seen as attempts to circumvent the law. Under French law, the state is barred from imposing preemptive censorship — a practice referred to internally at Twitter as “proactive monitoring.”
The government has attempted to bypass the law by using state-funded NGOs as enforcers, acting public pressure and strategic litigation to coerce platforms into moderation practices that exceed their legal obligations. Under Macron, the state is determined to undermine the international “country-of-origin” standard, which holds that digital content must comply with the laws of the country where it is produced, not where it is consumed.
The apparent coordination between the NGOs, the hate speech bill, and Macron’s attempt to contact Dorsey could easily be seen as attempts to circumvent the law. Under French law, the state is barred from imposing preemptive censorship — a practice referred to internally at Twitter as “proactive monitoring.”
The government has attempted to bypass the law by using state-funded NGOs as enforcers, acting public pressure and strategic litigation to coerce platforms into moderation practices that exceed their legal obligations. Under Macron, the state is determined to undermine the international “country-of-origin” standard, which holds that digital content must comply with the laws of the country where it is produced, not where it is consumed.
14. Miss France's attorney demands censorship: "What would have happened if Twitter was around in 1942? Would they have allowed Hitler to speak?"
The NGOs cited displeasure with how Twitter was handling alleged online harassment of Miss France. "Despite Plaintiffs' initial insistence that they were done with the mediation, for the first time, Plaintiffs have expressed that they may be willing to drop their case if we give them some information about our moderation practices."
On February 23, 2021, Twitter attorney Colangelo wrote to her colleagues, “Note that there was a hearing today on the request from Miss France, April Benayoum, for us to disclose information about various accounts that were allegedly making anti-semitic comments about her.”
Benayoum had sued Twitter for failing to act quickly. “Plaintiffs have expressed they may be willing to drop their case if we give them some information about our moderation practices,” wrote Colangelo to her colleagues in January.
But, as with the NGOs, her main goal appeared to be negative publicity — and the acquisition of internal Twitter Data.
“Ms. Benayoum's attorney made a number of emotional arguments that might get press attention,” wrote Colangelo, “including talking about the Holocaust, WWII, Adolf Hitler, etc. -- one question he posed to the court is ‘What would have happened if Twitter was around in 1942? Would they have allowed Hitler to speak?’”
Benayoum’s lawsuit demanded extensive internal data from Twitter, including dates and times of Tweet and account removal, and details about Twitter’s process for removing tweets proactively.
While the court on April 13, 2021, dismissed most of her claims and acknowledged that Twitter France had no operational control over moderation, which was managed by Twitter International in Ireland, they still ordered disclosures of data relating to reports made to French authorities. The case concluded in a confidential settlement, demonstrating once again how legal action can pressure platforms into concessions.
On June 7, 2022, Twitter settled with Miss France.
The NGOs cited displeasure with how Twitter was handling alleged online harassment of Miss France. "Despite Plaintiffs' initial insistence that they were done with the mediation, for the first time, Plaintiffs have expressed that they may be willing to drop their case if we give them some information about our moderation practices."
On February 23, 2021, Twitter attorney Colangelo wrote to her colleagues, “Note that there was a hearing today on the request from Miss France, April Benayoum, for us to disclose information about various accounts that were allegedly making anti-semitic comments about her.”
Benayoum had sued Twitter for failing to act quickly. “Plaintiffs have expressed they may be willing to drop their case if we give them some information about our moderation practices,” wrote Colangelo to her colleagues in January.
But, as with the NGOs, her main goal appeared to be negative publicity — and the acquisition of internal Twitter Data.
“Ms. Benayoum's attorney made a number of emotional arguments that might get press attention,” wrote Colangelo, “including talking about the Holocaust, WWII, Adolf Hitler, etc. -- one question he posed to the court is ‘What would have happened if Twitter was around in 1942? Would they have allowed Hitler to speak?’”
Benayoum’s lawsuit demanded extensive internal data from Twitter, including dates and times of Tweet and account removal, and details about Twitter’s process for removing tweets proactively.
While the court on April 13, 2021, dismissed most of her claims and acknowledged that Twitter France had no operational control over moderation, which was managed by Twitter International in Ireland, they still ordered disclosures of data relating to reports made to French authorities. The case concluded in a confidential settlement, demonstrating once again how legal action can pressure platforms into concessions.
On June 7, 2022, Twitter settled with Miss France.
15. “Twitter's moderation… can undermine public order and the proper functioning of our society.”
French courts in 2022 prosecuted then-Twitter France CEO, Damien Viel for alleged “non compliance with a judicial injunction” and “complicity to libel.”
The issue? A unit of the Ministry of Interior posted a picture of a high-ranking civil servant inspecting policemen tasked with enforcing Covid lockdowns, and replies from Twitter users compared the French Police to those of Philippe Petain’s Nazi-collaborationist regime. Twitter users dubbed the high-ranking civil servant a “Nazi,” and called for “hanging him at the Liberation.”
The litigation appears to have been part of the pressure campaign to expand Twitter’s transparency and hate speech obligations in France. The Versailles prosecutor launched an investigation for libel of a public official and delivered an injunction to Twitter for user ID information.
But Twitter France’s CEO did not have access to any user data, which were stored by Twitter International Corporation in Ireland. After the Versailles prosecutor decided Twitter had not responded quickly enough, he charged Viel on the grounds of “the total failure of Twitter's moderation, which has become a completely asocial network that can undermine public order and the proper functioning of our society.”
French courts in 2022 prosecuted then-Twitter France CEO, Damien Viel for alleged “non compliance with a judicial injunction” and “complicity to libel.”
The issue? A unit of the Ministry of Interior posted a picture of a high-ranking civil servant inspecting policemen tasked with enforcing Covid lockdowns, and replies from Twitter users compared the French Police to those of Philippe Petain’s Nazi-collaborationist regime. Twitter users dubbed the high-ranking civil servant a “Nazi,” and called for “hanging him at the Liberation.”
The litigation appears to have been part of the pressure campaign to expand Twitter’s transparency and hate speech obligations in France. The Versailles prosecutor launched an investigation for libel of a public official and delivered an injunction to Twitter for user ID information.
But Twitter France’s CEO did not have access to any user data, which were stored by Twitter International Corporation in Ireland. After the Versailles prosecutor decided Twitter had not responded quickly enough, he charged Viel on the grounds of “the total failure of Twitter's moderation, which has become a completely asocial network that can undermine public order and the proper functioning of our society.”
16. “How likely do you think a raid is on the Twitter France office?”
It was a show trial that failed to persuade the judge. “Damien was just perfect,” wrote Twitter’s French attorney in a July 9, 2021 email to Twitter executives about the hearing. “The police officer was very courteous and hardly convinced by the usefulness of his mission and by the instructions he received.”
Still, Twitter’s French lawyer warned, “the prosecutor could increase the pressure on Twitter France by ordering a raid on the company's Paris premises. I don't know what he could find there. However, the risk does exist and we would need to discuss it.”
“How likely do you think a raid is on the Twitter France office?” asked the Associate Director of Litigation, Regulatory, and Competition.
“It is quite impossible to assess how important the risk of a raid is,” the lawyer answered. I can only say that it does exist and the Prosecutor has such power within the frame of a criminal investigation.”
The case ended with Viel and Twitter France being cleared of all charges in March 2022.
It was a show trial that failed to persuade the judge. “Damien was just perfect,” wrote Twitter’s French attorney in a July 9, 2021 email to Twitter executives about the hearing. “The police officer was very courteous and hardly convinced by the usefulness of his mission and by the instructions he received.”
Still, Twitter’s French lawyer warned, “the prosecutor could increase the pressure on Twitter France by ordering a raid on the company's Paris premises. I don't know what he could find there. However, the risk does exist and we would need to discuss it.”
“How likely do you think a raid is on the Twitter France office?” asked the Associate Director of Litigation, Regulatory, and Competition.
“It is quite impossible to assess how important the risk of a raid is,” the lawyer answered. I can only say that it does exist and the Prosecutor has such power within the frame of a criminal investigation.”
The case ended with Viel and Twitter France being cleared of all charges in March 2022.
17. France is now going after Elon Musk’s X
In July 2025, a Paris prosecutor launched a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X and its management for alleged interference with an IT system, fraudulent data extraction, and foreign interference.
These are significant cybercrime offenses that carry penalties under the criminal code, including up to ten years in prison and a fine of €300,000.
Why is France prosecuting X? The answer appears to be that it wants to force X into compliance with French government-approved narratives.
The courts have also targeted Marine Le Pen, France’s leading opposition figure. A court found her guilty of embezzling EU funds — for political campaigning purposes — and sentenced her to four years in prison. The punishment includes a five-year ban on holding public office. The court ordered this penalty to take place before Le Pen can appeal, which prevents her from competing in the presidential race, in which she is the frontrunner. For identical charges, the current Prime Minister was acquitted.
In July 2025, a Paris prosecutor launched a criminal investigation into Elon Musk’s X and its management for alleged interference with an IT system, fraudulent data extraction, and foreign interference.
These are significant cybercrime offenses that carry penalties under the criminal code, including up to ten years in prison and a fine of €300,000.
Why is France prosecuting X? The answer appears to be that it wants to force X into compliance with French government-approved narratives.
The courts have also targeted Marine Le Pen, France’s leading opposition figure. A court found her guilty of embezzling EU funds — for political campaigning purposes — and sentenced her to four years in prison. The punishment includes a five-year ban on holding public office. The court ordered this penalty to take place before Le Pen can appeal, which prevents her from competing in the presidential race, in which she is the frontrunner. For identical charges, the current Prime Minister was acquitted.
18. The US Must Resist Global Censorship
The TWITTER FILES - FRANCE reveals a previously unknown aspect of the rise of the Censorship Industrial Complex, which is that nation’s role in pioneering government censorship-by-NGO proxy, which was at the heart of the US Department of Homeland Security’s censorship efforts.
The active involvement of Macron underscores the high importance the government put on influencing social media platforms to create, control, and censor narratives.
And Macron’s apparent coordination with NGOs and members of Parliament on a Twitter pressure campaign reveals a high level of thought, calculation, and strategy, similar to the “influence operations” and censorship advocacy that Intelligence Community-adjacent NGOs carried out in the US and other nations.
The Trump administration has said it is committed to free speech diplomacy and may be pursuing that with Europe. The TWITTER FILES - FRANCE dramatically illustrates the importance of protecting the First Amendment, and why US companies should operate under it, and not a lower standard of free speech.
The TWITTER FILES - FRANCE reveals a previously unknown aspect of the rise of the Censorship Industrial Complex, which is that nation’s role in pioneering government censorship-by-NGO proxy, which was at the heart of the US Department of Homeland Security’s censorship efforts.
The active involvement of Macron underscores the high importance the government put on influencing social media platforms to create, control, and censor narratives.
And Macron’s apparent coordination with NGOs and members of Parliament on a Twitter pressure campaign reveals a high level of thought, calculation, and strategy, similar to the “influence operations” and censorship advocacy that Intelligence Community-adjacent NGOs carried out in the US and other nations.
The Trump administration has said it is committed to free speech diplomacy and may be pursuing that with Europe. The TWITTER FILES - FRANCE dramatically illustrates the importance of protecting the First Amendment, and why US companies should operate under it, and not a lower standard of free speech.
19. Read the full investigation by @McmahonPascal and @battleforeurope here:
/ENDcivilizationworks.org/cw-master-blog…
/ENDcivilizationworks.org/cw-master-blog…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
