By Matthieu Buge, who has worked on Russia for the magazine l’Histoire, the Russian film magazine Séance, and as a columnist for Le Courrier de Russie. He is the author of the book Le Cauchemar russe (‘The Russian Nightmare’)
By Matthieu Buge, who has worked on Russia for the magazine l’Histoire, the Russian film magazine Séance, and as a columnist for Le Courrier de Russie. He is the author of the book Le Cauchemar russe (‘The Russian Nightmare’)
First, a bit of recent history. In 2015, after the Maidan coup in Kiev and the beginning of the confrontation between Russia and the West, the EU created the East StratCom Task Force to fight foreign disinformation campaigns supposedly orchestrated by Russia.
This agency is a part of the European External Action Service and its goal is to fight Russian activities and promote EU ones in eastern countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, etc. It’s not double standards, it’s a basic war for influence. So far, nothing surprising.
Following suit, in 2021, the French authorities created VIGINUM, the Vigilance and Protection against Foreign Digital Interference Service, a national agency working as a watchdog for foreign interference in elections – incidentally, months before Macron’s reelection after his first disastrous mandate. You know, just to be sure that ‘dictatorships’ and ‘illiberal democracies’ don’t meddle in the democratic process.
That was already quite ridiculous, but France goes further.
Arguing that people never had access to this much information in history, the Senate’s Culture Committee launched a mission on the “gray areas of information in the digital space.” The report, presented in July 2026, makes 56 recommendations, describing a media landscape profoundly transformed by digital platforms (such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, etc.), content creators, and AI. The rapporteurs are worried because algorithms are not neutral tools and contribute to amplifying sensationalist, polarizing, and misleading content.
Thinking about how to adapt to the media landscape evolution, they suggest establishing financial support for creators of news content “that meets editorial quality criteria” (that is, combating hate speech, protecting minors, respecting human dignity, and so on – the usual pretexts). Financial support under conditions – in other words, a leash. Indeed, the internet and AI have changed the world of information forever and the entire structure of the industry has to be reshaped – or it will reshape itself dialectically. But for the political authorities, the issue goes far beyond the future of mainstream media: It has a direct impact on… once again (sigh)… ‘democratic functioning’.
The report’s main warning concerns the 2027 election campaigns. Considering that France already has VIGINUM to detect foreign interference, they wonder: “Are we protected from all risk of internal interference? Our answer to this question is clearly no. We are vulnerable, and it is real,” the rapporteurs say.
So now, after the external threat, they are afraid that there could be a threat from within. What threat? Theoretically, Macron cannot be reelected in 2027, but he has already planted close associates in the politico-administrative structures of the French state. Nothing to be scared of. “What would happen if a prominent figure, a school of thought, or a political party with substantial financial resources decided to use them to further a political agenda, employ social media as a weapon?” the senators ask.
To address this threat, they recommend the creation of an “independent observatory on disinformation” before the next presidential election.
So, Macron’s regime has a new twisted Orwellian concept: ‘internal interference’ in one’s own domestic affairs. And an ‘independent’ observatory will have to check if French citizens think right, especially before they get politically organized. There is no such thing as an independent observatory. Never. Even the Yellow Vests protests – though absolutely not politically organized – wouldn’t be possible in this context. The freedom of speech the French government boasts about all the time is a myth.
To be honest, with all the freedom-destroying laws, censorship organs, and fact-checkers, and knowing people who had to run away from France to avoid jail because of their opinions, I thought this was already the case. But now it’s apparently an official political direction. The senators said a bill should soon be drafted. Welcome to a democracy where you’re supposed to be politically engaged because it is, as they say, a duty, but where a commission will tell you if you can talk or not – or be financially harassed through endless lawsuits, or sent to jail. Who knows?
There’s only one conclusion to draw: For decades, the European elites managed their people so badly that they eventually could only feel threatened. And indeed, threatened beasts do exhibit defensive aggression.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2026. All rights reserved.
This website uses cookies. Read RT Privacy policy to find out more.