The intensification of scrutiny of the social media platform X by the French authorities is a high point in the process of the regulation of powerful technology companies in Europe. In early February, the prosecutors of the cybercrime division in the Paris prosecutor office raided the offices of X in the French capital and officially asked Elon Musk to testify before them later this year. The shift is an indication that what started as a small investigation on digital practices has now grown into a larger one on how the platform functions, controls information and censors information.
The X case investigation is more than one year old, and the investigation had been quietly going through the judicial system of France when it started to come to the limelight. Centrally, the investigation explores claims of algorithms being abused and data being stolen through unfair methods, which casts doubt on whether the company inner frameworks favorably boost the presence of certain content or rob users. According to French prosecutors, the investigation is no longer just a technical issue, but has progressed to a level of legal and ethical liability that is associated with digital platforms of such huge global scale.
The raid of the Paris office of X was conducted with the consent of cybercrime unit, which is a department, which usually deals with frauds, misuse of data and use of technology to commit crimes. These searches are not that common among large international media outlets, and the fact that the French government is taking the case seriously. It is also stated that internal documents, communications, and technical records that may provide some insight into the way the X algorithms operate and data is collected, processed, and maybe exploited are under investigation.
Prosecutors, as well as the office search, directed Elon Musk and the former chief executive officer of X, Linda Yaccarino, to appear before the prosecutors on April 20. The company has also summoned other employees of the company as witnesses. Although a summons is not a sign of guilt, it puts top management in the context of the investigation as well, which supports the notion that responsibility over digital platforms goes all the way to the top management.
The prosecutor office of Paris has indicated that the investigation has been expanded after complaints of the operations of artificial intelligence systems of X. This new investigation also incorporates the new claims related to the processing and sharing of unlawful materials, such as the detection and sharing of images depicting a child-pornographic content and the infringement of image rights with sexually explicit deepfakes. Such claims, in case proven, will put the company in the harsh criminal liability of the French laws, which hold stringent acts to platforms to stop and erase such contents.
In a bigger picture, the case tracks the growing aggressive attitude of Europe towards the giant technology corporations, especially the ones that are located in the United States. The argument by European regulators is not new, as they have always contended that social media platforms have enormous influence over the conversations of the people and do their business with minimal transparency. This inquiry into X is happening amidst a period where the free speech argument, the responsibility of platforms, and the responsibility of algorithms are becoming hot topics across the Atlantic.
Elon Musk has already dismissed the charges that are the foundation of the investigation. He disregarded the first probe was released last year by saying it was a politically-driven criminal investigation, and that X faced a regulatory action more based on an ideological dispute than a legal one. It is one of the few personal comments that Musk offered on the French case. After the office search and summons that followed the recent office search, there was no immediate comment that was made by X or the X leadership.
There is no disagreement around this investigation that exists in a vacuum. There has been a long history of uneasy relations between European regulators and U.S. technology companies, influenced by the data privacy, content moderation, and dominance of the market issues. The regulatory backdrop of Europe, reinforced by legislations like the Digital Services Act, focuses on consumer protection and responsibility of platforms, which is frequently incompatible with American beliefs on free speech and business freedom. It is strongly viewed that the investigation of X forms a part of this broader regulatory change and not an independent enforcement case.
The case confuses the observers in the technology and legal circles on the issue of ruling over algorithms and their interpretation by regulators. Algorithms are frequently characterized as neutral instruments but the decisions that they take when designing can substantively impact on what users perceive, post, and think. Researching the supposed algorithmic bias demands technical knowledge as well as legal understanding of what should be abusiveness or manipulation in computer systems. The given challenge is what makes the X investigation especially important, as it could allow setting the future standards of transparency and accountability of algorithms.
The inquiry has a human aspect as well that will be heard even outside the law. The social media sites have penetrated in the daily lives to such a degree that they influence discussion, identity and even political movements. People will lose trust in those platforms fast when such claims are associated with spreading harmful or illegal content. The regulators, in their turn, are pressured to take strict action and yet not to overstep and suppress free expression or innovation.
With the hearing in April in the offing, the result of the investigation is still unknown. The prosecutors in France have not said that they are likely to file charges and the legal proceedings may take months or even years. What is evident though is that the case against X is a defining point in the changing dynamic of relationships between governments and world technology firms. It highlights an increase in the standards of the need that platforms not only needs to innovate but also act in an open, accountable, and lawful manner.
