French Radio And Television Newscasters Say 'Au Revoir' To Facebook And Twitter

Too Much Free Time

from the paging-george-carlin dept

Say what you will about France (go ahead! — that’s why we have comment threads!), but it’s never been afraid to look reality right in the eye and attempt to legislate around it. The French government seems to profoundly misunderstand the internet, an ignorance which has resulted in some of the worst legislation ever passed and some of the most wrongheaded judicial decisions ever handed down.

Here’s a brief recap of France’s legislative/judicial prowess:

• Introduced HADOPI, the anti-piracy initiative better known as "three strikes," which was recently condemned by the U.N. as "a violation of civil rights" due to its ability to kick certain users off the internet if it doesn’t approve of their activity. (See also: Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iran.)
• A French court declared that including the word "torrent" in your URL equals an admission of copyright infringement. (If one word = pleading guilty, god help the people at the Mole Station Nursery — update: removed the link, because the nursery folks appear to have moved on to a new link, and “someone else” has taken over the old one.)
• Passed a data retention law that required an incredible amount of user data (including passwords and verification questions) be gathered by ISPs, who are also required to log every action by every user of their services. (See also: above "See also" list.)

I could go on and on (and on — I haven’t even made it through the first page of search results yet) but you get the idea. If there’s an internet-related issue that could possibly be handled badly, the French government has always been there to do just that.

Here’s the latest in a long line of intellectually stunted decrees, via Business Insider:

This week we learned that France’s broadcasting regulator had just issued another decree: henceforth, hosts of television and radio programmes must refrain from uttering the words “Facebook” and “Twitter” on the air.

Thus, a French news anchor is not allowed to say to viewers: “For more information on this breaking story, follow us on Twitter.” Nor is any television or radio presenter allowed to mention a programme or network Facebook page. If Facebook or Twitter make the news, they can be mentioned on a strictly “information” basis. But no urging the audience to connect via Facebook or Twitter to learn more, ask questions, give their opinions, and so on.

[We’ll pause briefly here for a collective rest-of-the-civilized-world interpretive dance known familiarly as the "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot." Additional exclamation points, question marks and incredulous expletives may be added as needed.]

No, wait! There’s a reason for this! Ecoute:

The CSA maintained that any on-air mention of a programme’s Facebook page or Twitter feed constitutes ”clandestine advertising” for these social networks because they are commercial operations. In a word, French television and radio programmes cannot be seen to be promoting Facebook and Twitter as commercial brands.

“Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition,” CSA spokesperson Christine Kelly said. “This would be a distortion of competition. If we allow Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it’s opening a Pandora’s Box — other social networks will complain to us saying, ‘why not us?’”

Really? Twitter and Facebook have competitors? I know there are alternatives out there, but nothing I would consider a "competitor" (which would presume some sort of actual "competition"). Myspace? Seriously? Maybe a half-decade ago (or longer). As for Twitter, who else is out there? Tumblr (Blogging for people who don’t like writing.™)? whatihadforbreakfast.com?

So, if it isn’t a protectionist policy propping up development of Le Facebeauque, what is it? Business Insider’s Matthew Fraser has a theory:

The obvious answer is that regulators like to impose rules, if only to make themselves feel important. That reflex is particularly in evidence in a heavily regulated society like France with an omnipresent state…

But there is another, more plausible, explanation. Facebook and Twitter are, of course, American social networks. In France, they are regarded — at least implicitly — as symbols of Anglo-Saxon global dominance — along with Apple, MTV, McDonald’s, Hollywood, Disneyland, and other cultural juggernauts. That there is a deeply-rooted animosity in the French psyche towards Anglo-Saxon cultural domination cannot be disputed; indeed, it has been documented and analysed for decades. Sometimes this cultural resentment finds expression in French regulations and laws, frequently described, and often denounced, by foreigners as protectionism.

Without a better theory in my back pocket, I’m inclined to agree. And like any policy that ignores two of the biggest rules of the internet (and sometimes, real life itself), the Law of Unintended Consequences and the Streisand Effect, it will be interesting to see what sort of backlash develops among the French themselves. The rest of the world hardly needs any more ammunition.

Filed Under: censorship, france
Companies: facebook, twitter