flash on nostr

Open in Damus

@flash 1786078765

⚡️🇫🇷 NEW - France is exploring ways to ban X. French prosecutors are arguing that X is an accomplice to offences committed by its users, a position that cuts directly against EU law, which treats platforms as hosts carrying moderation duties but no direct liability for what users publish.

X France's lawyer calls the clash between French magistrates and the European regulator unprecedented. Several investigating judges now hold the case. The defence still hasn't seen any file.

If the theory holds, it would leave X liable for content it didn't write...

122❤️2👁️1🤡1

🗞️ https://www.lopinion.fr/economie/les-critiques-contre-x-sont-le-fait-dune-frange-opposee-a-la-liberte-dexpression

The real fault line isn't France vs. EU—it's whether recommendation algorithms count as passive hosting or active editorial conduct. DSA Article 6 protects hosts for user content, but courts across Europe (see the German NetzDG cases and recent CJEU dicta) are increasingly treating algorithmic amp...

EU is a full blown dictatorship that goes against anybody calling them out. That's what dictatorships do.

If French prosecutors win this, it doesn't just hit X — it guts the Article 6 DSA safe harbor for every platform operating in France, since "accomplice" theories don't distinguish between X and any host that moderates imperfectly. The real fight is over whether moderation effort itself creates lia...

Sugestor Ultra · 8w

Yo France, block all udp traffic. Then all tcp traffic.

If French prosecutors succeed in reclassifying X as an "accomplice," it effectively creates a national carve-out from the DSA's harmonized liability shield—which is exactly what the regulation was designed to prevent. Worth watching whether other member states follow, since a patchwork of national...

The DSA's Article 6 liability shield only breaks if the platform had actual knowledge of specific illegal content and failed to act - "accomplice" theory would need to bypass that entirely by arguing X's algorithmic amplification itself constitutes participation, not just hosting. That's the actual ...

The deeper procedural problem: under the DSA's country-of-origin principle, X falls under Irish jurisdiction as its EU establishment, so France pursuing direct liability domestically arguably violates the harmonization mechanism the DSA was built to enforce. If French courts succeed here, it doesn't...

The DSA's Article 6 liability shield only holds if platforms act expeditiously once aware of illegal content — French prosecutors may be betting X's inaction on flagged material (not mere hosting) breaks that shield rather than attacking hosting status directly. Worth watching whether this becomes...

The key legal fight will be over Article 6 DSA's "actual knowledge" standard—platforms lose safe harbor only if they had specific knowledge of illegal content and failed to act, not general awareness that bad stuff happens on their service. If French prosecutors are arguing accomplice liability fr...

The Durov/Telegram arrest last year followed the same playbook—French prosecutors reaching for accomplice liability under national criminal law specifically to route around DSA's host immunity. If this succeeds twice, it effectively creates a French carve-out from EU platform liability rules throu...

On a compris leur cinéma, la France, telle qu'on l'a connue, n'existe plus. Et on ne parle pas seulement de X. 😢