“ The mortality figures are bogus, inflated, manipulated… », « the disease is milder than the flu », « we are in the presence of a masquerade […] for the sake of a malevolent and despotic fist […] promote the dominant and paedo-satanic classes “. In the midst of the Covid-19 crisis, Google had inoculated itself with a vaccine to combat the contents of France Soir.
Strengthened by its general conditions of use, which in particular prohibit the dissemination of false medical information, at the antipodes of “ consent by WHO experts, the company had simply deleted and demonetized the publisher.
On February 4, 2021, France Soir disappeared from Google Search. Shortly thereafter, the same fate for her YouTube channel. On 14 August the contract “ AdSense it was disabled. A little digital death.
Xavier Azalbert, editorial director of the newspaper, hastened to denounce a “ violation of freedom of expression » and to the « viability of a media outlet After this global delisting, France Soir has lost 60% of its audience, the site said in an editorial.
Before the commercial court, the press title demanded the sum of 3.6 million euros from Google, as well as a clarification of the rules of the Google Terms and the establishment of an agreement to settle the complaint on Google News.
On 6 September the consular judges ruled on the merits. Decision we transmit below. Central Question: Did Google make a mistake by enforcing these T&Cs and kicking the publisher out of its ecosystem? Not at all, it basically explains the decision.
freedom of expression
In defense of its interests, France Soir has draped itself behind Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression.
With this closure of the taps, the company was deprived of the opportunity to express themselves », and its readers, from that « to inquire “. Unjustified censorship, obstruction, unpredictability… big words rain down.
On the other hand, Google argues that Article 10 would only apply in relations between the state and the person, not between private individuals. In these horizontal relationships, the GCU, the famous general conditions of use, reign above all else.
These conditions have been issued precisely to accept only the articles “ reliable and high quality “, advances the digital giant, threshold of requirements that France Soir would have been structurally incapable of respecting. The title no longer had at the time of review by the CPPAP [Commission paritaire des publications et des agences de presse, ndlr] of its authorization as an online medium at the material time, only two journalists, including one responsible for conducting interviews on YouTube “.
With 4,150 articles published between October 2019 and February 2021, it was therefore “ materially impossible to guarantee the reliability and quality of these which for the vast majority are actually reader forums “.
Google not only deletes content contrary to medical consent, but also “ many unsigned items “, another indelicacy with the clauses in force.
“ Just as a media has the right to have its editorial line respected, so a host, a platform, the designer of a search engine are free to dictate access rules to their media in order to protect their characteristics and image On the contrary, still maintains the online service, opening its doors to any media could devalue its brand and melt its advertising revenue.
When freedom of expression no longer rhymes with indexing
The sentence of the commercial court has consecrated the reading grid of France Soir: the publisher can invoke article 10 of the ECHR to denounce a possible violation of his freedom of expression.
Important if anything, this victory in principle did not benefit the newspaper, when the facts came to the test.
According to the court, it is not because Google makes online services available to Internet users free of charge that they become public services.
So no rules it doesn’t force Google to make them accessible to any media that wants to “. In the field of freedom of expression, there is no unconditional right to be quoted on Google News. And Google is perfectly entitled to remove those who violate its selection rules from the list.
On YouTube, the same treatment, even if Google hosts the videos uploaded by Internet users. This status does not prevent him from freely issuing the conditions of eligibility for his service. to ensure its quality and fitness for purpose “.
Anyone who uploads videos to the platform accepts the rules. Rules that the commercial court considers to be a “ great clarity “especially when Google bans content that claims the Covid-19 vaccine would cause” the death », « alter the genetic heritage », that there have been no deaths caused by this epidemic, etc.
In a healthy but necessary step, remember that “ a publisher’s right to freedom of expression is not superior to a platform’s right to freedom to issue rules determining the conditions of eligibility for its service in order to guarantee its image, quality and compliance with its object, object which he is completely free to define within his freedom of enterprise “.
Given the multiple warnings received by France soir, it concludes that these multiple cancellations did not lead to a violation of the newspaper’s freedom of expression.
No abuse of dominant position
France Soir has equally vainly invoked abuse of a dominant position.
His thesis? If Google removed it, it was mainly for “ not to pay him a fee for his articles in related rights “.
This payment, as a reminder, follows a copyright directive, implemented in France in 2019. It obliges online intermediaries who accept articles to negotiate with publishers and news agencies for a possible compensation.
Furthermore, the title claims, the sanitary regulations, present in the T&Cs, were unilaterally imposed on it. However, they lack transparency, without anyone knowing what a “ medical consent “. Furthermore, they would be discriminatory, while YouTube refers to Professor Raoult’s IHU channel, and even “ disproportionate “, as only a fraction of France Soir’s articles dealt with Covid-19.
If the debate around Google’s dominance has not folded, the commercial court has not found any abuse.
Medical consent?
On the contrary, the practices implemented were considered “ reasonable “, based on “ objective justifications », two criteria born of European jurisprudence.
In its analysis, the ruling did not question the validity of the “ medical consent » o the relevance of the recommendations of the health authorities. It is not his task to enter into these scientific considerations.
He simply found that these rules were “ goals “, as they” they do not depend on the arbitrariness and subjectivity of Google “. And there is a “ consent ” taken from the opinions of the Academy of Medicine and the COVID Scientific Council. Since, “ if a media wishes to have access to Google services, it is sufficient that it does not publish unverified information that differs from the consent “.
Brutal, but simple. And France Soir could not ignore these rules, since the publisher positioned itself as an average “ challenge consensus to advance science “.
The argument of neighboring rights
The neighboring rights argument was also unsuccessful, because prior to its de-listing, the title “ he had not made any claims for compensation for his articles Obviously, the publisher remains free to refer the matter to the Competition and Market Guarantor Authority.
In short, France Soir had indeed published information in direct opposition to the “ medical consent “, authorized only by Google and… known to the press editor. Without delving into the legitimacy of this consensus, the ruling could only reveal multiple violations of these rules accepted and understood by the title, despite several warnings that remained unanswered.
The delisting was not deemed disproportionate or discriminatory, YouTube for example had already deleted a million videos accused of disinformation about Covid-19.
He added that “ a single reporter is supposed to have written or proofread more than ten articles or op-eds per working day “. materially impossible verify the veracity of the volunteer contributor forums, the quality of the signatories and do any research “.
Particularly detailed, the decision evacuates other critical issues, in particular on the contractual ground, of the European Platform-to-Business regulation, of the law on trust in the digital economy relating to the responsibility of hosts such as YouTube.
The headline of the press also invoked a violation of consumer law, but the court did not understand” in this capacity, France Soir invokes a provision of law enacted in the exclusive interest of consumers “.
In short, all his requests were denied. France Soir was ordered to pay Google LLC €10,000, plus another €10,000 to Google France, as well as €50,000 to Google Ireland Limited, for legal costs. Contacted, her lawyer tells us that she is ” analyzing the judgment with my client and France Soir will issue a press release on this matter. »
.
https://saratrader.s3-tastewp.com/2023/01/19/france-soirs-editorial-line-tested-by-googles-tcs/
Comments
Post a Comment