Elon Musk's X refuses to assist French prosecutors, says probe serves a political agenda

[midian182]

Why it matters: Elon Musk's X is once again defying authorities' demands. On this occasion, the platform is refusing to comply with a probe launched by French prosecutors, part of what the company calls a "politically-motivated criminal investigation."

French prosecutors started investigating X in January over alleged manipulation of its algorithm and what they call "fraudulent data extraction." It was spurred by complaints from a French member of parliament and a senior official at a public institution.

The probe was stepped up earlier this month. Reuters writes that police have been enlisted to investigate the alleged actions by the company or its executives.

In a post on its Global Government Affairs account today, X wrote that it categorically denied the allegations made against it by French authorities. It added that the investigation undermines the platform's right to due process and threatens its users' rights to privacy and free speech.

X says that French authorities have requested access to its recommendation algorithm and real-time data about all user posts on the platform. The data will be analyzed by several experts to purportedly "uncover the truth" about X's operations.

X says the two experts who review its algorithm are David Chavalarias, director of the Paris Complex Systems Institute (ISC-PIF), and Maziyar Panahi, an AI platform leader at ISC-PIF. It claims that both have been openly hostile toward X in the past, and that Chavalarias runs a campaign called "Escape X," which encourages people to leave the platform.

French authorities have launched a politically-motivated criminal investigation into X over the alleged manipulation of its algorithm and alleged "fraudulent data extraction." X categorically denies these allegations.

This investigation, instigated by French politician Eric…

– Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) July 21, 2025

X says the individuals' involvement raises questions about the impartiality, fairness, and political motivations behind the investigation.

"X remains in the dark as to the specific allegations made against the platform. However, based on what we know so far, X believes that this investigation is distorting French law in order to serve a political agenda and, ultimately, restrict free speech," the post continues.

The company says that for these reasons, it has not acceded to the French authorities demands, which it has a legal right to do.

X also noted that French authorities have classified X as an organized gang, a characterization usually reserved for drug cartels or mafia groups. The move will allow French police to use extensive investigative methods, including wiretapping the personal devices of X employees.

While X owner Elon Musk and Donald Trump have fallen out, the President will likely be angry to see another American company being investigated in Europe.

Musk, meanwhile, has publicly supported Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who was arrested in France last year over allegations he allowed criminal activity on the app. Durov called his arrest an attack on free speech, which Musk echoed.

Permalink to story:

Elon Musk's X refuses to assist French prosecutors, says probe serves a political agenda

 

[kaosken]

Fuque the French! They went after Telegram, too.

 

[Kirby1]

Musk is not a defender of free speech, he's the exact opposite. Free speech doesn't mean you get to yell about the holocaust being fake to millions of people on Twitter, it means you don't have a rich guy deciding what people can and can't say online based on if he agrees with it or not.

Guy who had to own social media to avoid being banned is not a hero.

 

[wiyosaya]

Cite X for contempt of court. If X still doesn't comply, force its shutdown.

Maybe then fElon will listen. Maybe. His narcissism and overblown self-importance will likely get in the way - again.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Musk is not a defender of free speech, he's the exact opposite. Free speech doesn't mean you get to yell about the holocaust being fake to millions of people on Twitter, it means you don't have a rich guy deciding what people can and can't say online based on if he agrees with it or not.

Guy who had to own social media to avoid being banned is not a hero.

What you are defining is not "free speech", rather you are defining "regulated speech" or "privileged speech". It's a common fault many Europeans make when trying to claim they have free speech comparable to Americas.

When your government determines what you can or cannot say, you do not have free speech either. That is what Twitter was doing before Musk bought it, and there were many a rich guy who were making decisions on what was allowed on twitter. You also ignore that the reason Musk, and many others, were banned on twitter was because a rich guy disagreed with them on whatever subject they may have cared about.

Hypocrisy isnt a good look.

Cite X for contempt of court. If X still doesn't comply, force its shutdown.

Maybe then fElon will listen. Maybe. His narcissism and overblown self-importance will likely get in the way - again.

You guys need to get your Musk Derangement Syndrome checked out. When it was social media denying the Chinese or the Russian access to data, you had no issue and even cheered on their actions.

Fighting government overreach is a good thing, actually.

 

[Kirby1]

What you are defining is not "free speech", rather you are defining "regulated speech" or "privileged speech". It's a common fault many Europeans make when trying to claim they have free speech comparable to Americas.

When your government determines what you can or cannot say, you do not have free speech either. That is what Twitter was doing before Musk bought it, and there were many a rich guy who were making decisions on what was allowed on twitter. You also ignore that the reason Musk, and many others, were banned on twitter was because a rich guy disagreed with them on whatever subject they may have cared about.

Hypocrisy isnt a good look.

You guys need to get your Musk Derangement Syndrome checked out. When it was social media denying the Chinese or the Russian access to data, you had no issue and even cheered on their actions.

Fighting government overreach is a good thing, actually.

Always ready to argue in favor of being unable to see the forest through the trees. Pretty predictable at this point.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Always ready to argue in favor of being unable to see the forest through the trees. Pretty predictable at this point.

Do you have any counterargument that isnt a failed attempt at a snarky comeback?

 

[Kirby1]

Do you have any counterargument that isnt a failed attempt at a snarky comeback?

I'm sure anything I could say would be promptly dismissed by you with some petty phrasing like "Musk derrangment syndrom". You're not a serious person, you're just noise. There is no point in trying to debate you on anything. You lack the ability to process information without an extreme bias.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I'm sure anything I could say would be promptly dismissed by you with some petty phrasing like "Musk derrangment syndrom". You're not a serious person, you're just noise. There is no point in trying to debate you on anything.

If you could provide an argument that didnt rely on dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as "just noise" maybe you wouldnt be getting blown off in the comments.

You lack the ability to process information without an extreme bias.

The irony here is palpable.

 

[DrSuess]

At the end of the day if they don't comply with the government ban and block them from operating in the country. Musk or anyone else can't operate in a country and thumb their noses as the laws rules and regulations, courts while doing business in that country.

He should be careful if it escalates and the file a contempt warrant, Musk won't be able to step a foot in any EU country which would be a bigger blow to his other companies.

 

[Kirby1]

If you could provide an argument that didnt rely on dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as "just noise" maybe you wouldnt be getting blown off in the comments.

The irony here is palpable.

Blown off... multiple ppl already upvoted what I said. You're the only one arguing. No one is blowing me off but it's cute how you try to distort reality in real time even when there is clear text records of it all.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Blown off... multiple ppl already upvoted what I said. You're the only one arguing. No one is blowing me off but it's cute how you try to distort reality in real time even when there is clear text records of it all.

At least you can admit that what you find factually correct is based on a popularity contest.

At the end of the day if they don't comply with the government ban and block them from operating in the country. Musk or anyone else can't operate in a country and thumb their noses as the laws rules and regulations, courts while doing business in that country.

He should be careful if it escalates and the file a contempt warrant, Musk won't be able to step a foot in any EU country which would be a bigger blow to his other companies.

Well many buyers int he EU have turned away from Tesla already and Starlink isnt the cash cow it is in the US, so based on how much money twitter makes there, maybe he doesnt see a reason to continue business there?

I mean, its gonna take a long time, literal years, for the EU to go that far through all their bureaucracy, perhaps hes betting on fighting the French long enough its not seen as being worthwhile to pursue?

 

[Kirby1]

At least you can admit that what you find factually correct is based on a popularity contest.

Distorting reality again.

I didn't say that. I just said no one is blowing me off and the only one arguing here currently is you.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Distorting reality again.

I didn't say that. I just said no one is blowing me off and the only one arguing here currently is you.

You gotta have a stronger argument if you want to gaslight people. If you open with "well my post gets more updoots so there" then yeah, you're basing your truth on popularity. Claiming I "distort reality" doesnt change your actions.

 

[Kirby1]

You gotta have a stronger argument if you want to gaslight people. If you open with "well my post gets more updoots so there" then yeah, you're basing your truth on popularity. Claiming I "distort reality" doesnt change your actions.

Point to the part where anyone blew me off.

 

[koblongata]

Commie Europe

 

[Rumiku]

Always ready to argue in favor of being unable to see the forest through the trees. Pretty predictable at this point.

Theinsanegamer used valid (and well documented by this point in time that is neigh irrefutable) examples to state your assertion was factually wrong. Ignoring the myriad of logical fallacies you used and a few personal attacks in the ensuing back and forth banter, I'm genuinely curious where he was "matter of factly" incorrect, as you imply?

Quite succinctly, the United States is the only country where free speech can flourish with the least resistance and even then, we are curtailed in areas we should not (especially during a free-speech hostile administration). I'm quite thankful for Musk and his purchase of Twitter. Free speech does include a person being able to voice their opinion to all, without restriction, even on a platform like X. However, using an example of a newspaper, they can chose to print it on the front cover or relegate to "page 9" from which their mantra "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" is born from.

If Musk was a "rich guy" and the true opposite of the previous owner, you yourself would be banned. He has not done that.

 

[Kirby1]

Theinsanegamer used valid (and well documented by this point in time that is neigh irrefutable) examples to state your assertion was factually wrong. Ignoring the myriad of logical fallacies you used and a few personal attacks in the ensuing back and forth banter, I'm genuinely curious where he was "matter of factly" incorrect, as you imply?

Quite succinctly, the United States is the only country where free speech can flourish with the least resistance and even then, we are curtailed in areas we should not (especially during a free-speech hostile administration). I'm quite thankful for Musk and his purchase of Twitter. Free speech does include a person being able to voice their opinion to all, without restriction, even on a platform like X. However, using an example of a newspaper, they can chose to print it on the front cover or relegate to "page 9" from which their mantra "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" is born from.

If Musk was a "rich guy" and the true opposite of the previous owner, you yourself would be banned. He has not done that.

What did I say that was factually wrong?

I don't use Twitter. If Musk owned Techspot, I probably would be banned.

I never said he was the opposite of the previous owner.

 

[toooooot]

It has been proven many times that telegram actually is used by criminal world.
I am a bit more skeptical regarding X, though. It is enough for me to know that a lot of people
hate it for allowing information that is banned on many so-called liberal platforms.
There is something that makes me doubt X's criminality even more when it comes to specific more progressive countries such as Germany, UK, or France. Their governments show automatic unity when it comes to specific topics, values, and groups. X has been known to defy those continually, ever since Musk bought Twitter. Those topics cannot even be considered independent topics as they have become the religion of progressive, enlightened liberal, people.
I suspect that the real crime of X was exactly that--disrespecting religion of these respected communities or people. The things they hold holy must not be mocked, criticized, or in some cases even talked about. And one thing I respect X for is refusing to do exactly that.

Just as an example, you tube has groups you can't criticize. Or rather you can but your comment will disappear without warning or a notification. I am not talking about foul mouthing calling for violence or calling names. Mention the community and negative context and Youtube will fix it. They have created holy cows for themselves; they made caste system like that in India. And no, they do not want to practice their religion themselves like some groups do. They want everyone to stand on their knees and worship. Anyone refusing to do will forever be found guilty of multiple crimes which must be punished.

 

[wiyosaya]

What you are defining is not "free speech", rather you are defining "regulated speech" or "privileged speech". It's a common fault many Europeans make when trying to claim they have free speech comparable to Americas.

When your government determines what you can or cannot say, you do not have free speech either. That is what Twitter was doing before Musk bought it, and there were many a rich guy who were making decisions on what was allowed on twitter. You also ignore that the reason Musk, and many others, were banned on twitter was because a rich guy disagreed with them on whatever subject they may have cared about.

Hypocrisy isnt a good look.

You guys need to get your Musk Derangement Syndrome checked out. When it was social media denying the Chinese or the Russian access to data, you had no issue and even cheered on their actions.

Fighting government overreach is a good thing, actually.

So I guess you are saying fElon does not have to obey the law, courts, or any other authority and you are advocating for Anarchy? In other words, fElon can do anything he damn well pleases? Good luck with that.

 

[Kirby1]

It has been proven many times that telegram actually is used by criminal world.
I am a bit more skeptical regarding X, though. It is enough for me to know that a lot of people
hate it for allowing information that is banned on many so-called liberal platforms.
There is something that makes me doubt X's criminality even more when it comes to specific more progressive countries such as Germany, UK, or France. Their governments show automatic unity when it comes to specific topics, values, and groups. X has been known to defy those continually, ever since Musk bought Twitter. Those topics cannot even be considered independent topics as they have become the religion of progressive, enlightened liberal, people.
I suspect that the real crime of X was exactly that--disrespecting religion of these respected communities or people. The things they hold holy must not be mocked, criticized, or in some cases even talked about. And one thing I respect X for is refusing to do exactly that.

Just as an example, you tube has groups you can't criticize. Or rather you can but your comment will disappear without warning or a notification. I am not talking about foul mouthing calling for violence or calling names. Mention the community and negative context and Youtube will fix it. They have created holy cows for themselves; they made caste system like that in India. And no, they do not want to practice their religion themselves like some groups do. They want everyone to stand on their knees and worship. Anyone refusing to do will forever be found guilty of multiple crimes which must be punished.

Since this article doesn't even try to explain what is actually going on here and just focuses on Musk whining about it, I will explain here:

The French authorities are claiming X uses its algorithms to puish one sided information. Or in other words, Musk softbans people he doesn't like while propping up people he does.

There is already plenty of evidence that he does this, it's nothing new.

 

[rhavenn]

Theinsanegamer used valid (and well documented by this point in time that is neigh irrefutable) examples to state your assertion was factually wrong. Ignoring the myriad of logical fallacies you used and a few personal attacks in the ensuing back and forth banter, I'm genuinely curious where he was "matter of factly" incorrect, as you imply?

Quite succinctly, the United States is the only country where free speech can flourish with the least resistance and even then, we are curtailed in areas we should not (especially during a free-speech hostile administration). I'm quite thankful for Musk and his purchase of Twitter. Free speech does include a person being able to voice their opinion to all, without restriction, even on a platform like X. However, using an example of a newspaper, they can chose to print it on the front cover or relegate to "page 9" from which their mantra "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" is born from.

If Musk was a "rich guy" and the true opposite of the previous owner, you yourself would be banned. He has not done that.

The 1st amendment only protects you from the government shutting you down. Private businesses are free to ban you for whatever reason they want unless you're in a protected class and they ban you for protected class reasons. ie: being white and wanting to spout insane bullshit is not a protected class. Yelling "fire" or "bomb" in a theatre is not "free speech". Spouting conspiracy theories and bull **** to the internet is also not "free speech". If a private company wants to ban you for that...that's not a violation of your free speech. It just means they don't like you and/or how you impact their bottom line and/or their "public image". If the government arrests you for it then that's a violation of your free speech.

r/conservative has no problem banning and shadow banning anyone they don't like. By your definition that's a violation of my free speech and I should be able to post aything I want on that sub-reddit.

The problem is that X is now, under Musk, more about "free speech" that Musk or the right-wing likes and less about actual free speech since Musk has a history of de-platforming people he disagrees with.

The US government is also less about free speech under Trump then at anytime in its history. Arresting and, when they can get away with it, deporting people they disagree with or don't like. Threatening people with lawsuits and "shutting them down" when they disagree with Trump policy or make fun of Trump. That's a violation of people's 1st amendment rights.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

The 1st amendment only protects you from the government shutting you down. Private businesses are free to ban you for whatever reason they want unless you're in a protected class and they ban you for protected class reasons. ie: being white and wanting to spout insane bullshit is not a protected class. Yelling "fire" or "bomb" in a theatre is not "free speech". Spouting conspiracy theories and bull **** to the internet is also not "free speech". If a private company wants to ban you for that...that's not a violation of your free speech. It just means they don't like you and/or how you impact their bottom line and/or their "public image". If the government arrests you for it then that's a violation of your free speech.

There is an eternal debate on how far that right extends. For internet forums, for example, under the classification of section 230a as a "platform" they are not supposed to be able to ban conversation because they do not like it, that would fall under the rights of a publisher, not a platform. They've long hid behind the exception given for content that is distasteful or immoral but that has put section 230 under attack.

r/conservative has no problem banning and shadow banning anyone they don't like. By your definition that's a violation of my free speech and I should be able to post aything I want on that sub-reddit.

Yes I agree with you. And those in the subreddit would have the right to downvote you to oblivion resulting in your posts no longer appearing.

BTW, two wrongs do not make a right. It isnt right that r/conservative bans people who disagree with them ideologically, anymore than it makes sense for r/liberal to do the same.

The problem is that X is now, under Musk, more about "free speech" that Musk or the right-wing likes and less about actual free speech since Musk has a history of de-platforming people he disagrees with.

Yes, there is a problem there. Twitter is still far more "pro free speech" then it was under Jack, where voices to the right of Stalin were repeatedly muted or banned.

It's also a serious problem Reddit, Facebook, Tiktok, ece also have, but interestingly nobody likes to call them out, perhaps because of the way they lean?

The US government is also less about free speech under Trump then at anytime in its history. Arresting and, when they can get away with it, deporting people they disagree with or don't like. Threatening people with lawsuits and "shutting them down" when they disagree with Trump policy or make fun of Trump. That's a violation of people's 1st amendment rights.

Here we are going to disagree. Those being arrested and deported are here ILLEGALLY, that is why they are being deported. Not because they disagree with Trump. It sure helps that those who disagree with him scream like foghorns making it real easy for ICE to pick them up, but plenty who are silent are also being deported, and rightfully so, as they are breaking the law being here illegally.

The lawsuit thing is pot calling kettle black. Left leaning politicians have had absolutely no issue with lashing out at anyone who calls out their policies or makes fun of them. Two wrongs do not make a right, and those in glass houses should not throw stones. No, Trump should not be threatening his critics with lawsuits; as you pointed out it is a violation of free speech and may even fall under journalistic suppression, and no, I do not feel sorry for those critics, who more often then not froth at the mouth merely thinking of Captian Cheeto, for bringing this upon themselves after a decade of unhinged meltdowns over everything any conservative does they disagree with. They deserve each other.

Since this article doesn't even try to explain what is actually going on here and just focuses on Musk whining about it, I will explain here:

The French authorities are claiming X uses its algorithms to puish one sided information. Or in other words, Musk softbans people he doesn't like while propping up people he does.

There is already plenty of evidence that he does this, it's nothing new.

To add some context: ALL social media platforms do this, it's nothing new. You dont see France going after left leaning platforms, however. Thus, Musk has labeled it as a politically motivated attack. Twitter itself was absolutely guilty of doing this, at the government's request, before Musk bought them, and france never went after them back then either. They waited until it was cool to hate Musk, and until he was no longer under the direct protection of being right next to Trump, before attacking.

The only difference now is Musk owns them, and it's cool to hate Musk now, so everyone is jumping on the dogpile. That is a very dangerous stance that often spirals out of control. The EU should be very well aware of what happens when your world leaders begin attacking people over political lines.

So I guess you are saying fElon does not have to obey the law, courts, or any other authority and you are advocating for Anarchy? In other words, fElon can do anything he damn well pleases? Good luck with that.

Well that escalated quickly. I said that Musk is right to resist government overreach, just like Apple has done with the UK refusing to put backdoors in their cloud service or hand over data to the UK government. Strangely, you dont seem to be going after Tim Cook. Google has also repeatedly resisted foreign governments demanding they hand over information. Where is your attacks on Sundar Pichai?

This is why I said before you are suffering from Musk Derangement Syndrome. You're holding him and twitter to a completely different set of standards based on your personal hatred of the man. I never advocated for Anarchy. I believe any citizen has the right to resist and engage in civil disobedience to laws they feel are overreaching or unconstitutional. That doesnt stop if the guy is rich.

 

[Rumiku]

What did I say that was factually wrong?

To start was:

Musk is not a defender of free speech, he's the exact opposite.

The literal opposite to "defender of free speech" would be a censorship czar. This is false. The prior regime that operated X/Twitter was shown to censor conservatives and coverage they did not agree with or entertain, including up to conspiracy with the former administration, such as the Hunter Biden laptop story and COVID-19 related issues and treatments, to name a few.

You lack the ability to process information without an extreme bias.

This could be said as more subjective, but in context of what was stated, it is defensively objective. He did not have extreme bias in the statements; they were provided "matter of factly".

I don't use Twitter. If Musk owned Techspot, I probably would be banned.

If Musk owned Techspot, based solely on how he has handled X factually, you would be ensured protection.

Guy who had to own social media to avoid being banned is not a hero.

Unless otherwise said, he purchased it to preserve freedom of speech. Prior to, it was quite dark in the social media sphere for anyone not touting the party lines.

Always ready to argue in favor of being unable to see the forest through the trees. Pretty predictable at this point.

You're not a serious person, you're just noise.

Personal attacks; it added nothing and weakens your refutation attempts.

Always ready to argue in favor of being unable to see the forest through the trees.

Logical fallacy: a type of Ad Hominem. A personal attack on the character; dismissal.

Free speech doesn't mean you get to yell about the holocaust being fake to millions of people on Twitter, it means you don't have a rich guy deciding what people can and can't say online based on if he agrees with it or not.

Logical fallacy: False Analogy. Neither point describes the issue of free speech.

Blown off... multiple ppl already upvoted what I said. You're the only one arguing.

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum. Just because an idea is popular, does not mean it's correct.

I never said he was the opposite of the previous owner.

Musk is not a defender of free speech, he's the exact opposite.

If Musk was a "rich guy" and the true opposite of the previous owner, you yourself would be banned. He has not done that.

And I never implied you said he was the exact opposite. I used the phrase "true opposite" in regards to your context of opposite: That of being opposite to free speech. And in that context, the opposite of free speech would be a censorship czar (or other phrase, idiom or adjective).


Also, forgive me for not replying quickly enough. We're entertaining guests, much to my dismay.

 

[Inthenstus]

France is a terrorist state, we’ve know this for years, it will only get worse. The EU is doomed by 2035.