« Internal interference »: totalitarian regimes dreamed of it, the French far right did. On the pretext of fighting manipulation, the report presented to the Senate on the “grey areas of information” is yet another attempt to attack the foundations of democracy and freedom of expression in our country. Assimilating political influence exercised by citizens, media, parties or content creators into a form of “internal interference” constitutes a major paradigm shift. An electoral campaign precisely aims to convince, contest the incumbent power and influence voters’ choices. That is the very essence of representative democracy. The proposals mentioned in this report raise questions. Subjecting content creators or podcasters to Arcom (controlled by the socialist ecosystem), setting up mechanisms to flag viral content for account suspension or algorithmic limitation, favoring state media (whose bias toward the left, sometimes radical, is known) on video platforms, or creating a category of content considered “grey areas”, all open the way to an administrative assessment of what would be acceptable or not in political debate. Many researchers remind us that the virality of content does not equate to its effect on voting. Electoral behavior responds to multiple determinants (social, economic, cultural or familial), and the direct effects of social networks on changes in voting remain largely debated in scientific literature. Freedom of expression protects opinions that disturb as much as those that reinforce power. It also protects the right to disseminate analyses, interpretations and critiques, even when they are controversial. In a rule‑of‑law state, it is not up to an administrative authority to pre‑designate which opinions might alter the sincerity of the vote. The best response to contestable information is not preventive censorship but pluralism, contradiction and debate. A solid democracy rests on citizens capable of confronting arguments, not on a state tasked with filtering opinions it deems too influential or harmful. Finally, if one really wanted to address the issue of internal interference, two striking examples come to mind, obviously absent from the report: the remarkable campaign of promotional press releases that benefited Emmanuel Macron in 2017 and the broadcast by public service of the eco‑film Home, 48 hours before the European elections vote in 2009. But, obviously, there will always be good and bad “internal interferences”… And we know how much the agonizing macronism, official press or socialist state would use this totalitarian concept to their advantage if it were to move from senatorial madness to a law of the Republic. PS: It is useful to look into the political orientation and funding of the “Science Feedback” study on which this report is based. A lawsuit for interference can hide a real interference. __📲 Share on X! 👉 Join Identité Libertés!