Comment by eddythompson80
10 days ago
One wonders how much of the French foreign policy is affected by an online influencer trolling campaign.
10 days ago
One wonders how much of the French foreign policy is affected by an online influencer trolling campaign.
Pretty significantly actually.
For example, the violence in New Caledonia was instigated on TikTok by Azeri disinfo networks [0][1] due to French support of Armenia, which itself is due to French support for Greece+Cyprus against Turkiye, who is the primary patron for Azerbaijan.
Algeria has been doing something similar [2] due to French support of Morocco, and China's UFWD aligned groups have done something similar in the French Pacific [3]
Unless you're insisting I'm a troll or a bot, which I strongly disagree with. I've worked closely with EMEA (and especially French institutions and businesses) in my current career and previously when I worked in the policy space. I just kvetch on HN because it's not significantly on any radar yet and the anonymity is appreciated.
[0] - https://www.politico.eu/article/france-accuse-azerbaijan-fom...
[1] - https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/azerbaijans...
[2] - https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-roots-o...
[3] - https://www.aspi.org.au/report/when-china-knocks-door-new-ca...
I would push back on this. That is in large part French propaganda in service of French interests—manufacturing consent for continuing French imperialism over their maltreated colonies; and delegitimizing narratives that speak counter to that—delegitimizing the political voice of the people actually living there. Which they do flagrantly: the French mainland government has done wide-scale internet censorship in New Caledonia[0,1] to suppress anti-French-government speech—a human rights atrocity.
That's not to claim there's no foreign interference. I'm sure there's a large kernel of truth in that French claim. But hammering on that point is a form of dehumanization: it's to say people who disagree you, having been misled, no longer have the right to a voice, and are fair game to be silenced. That's atrocity. That's bad-faith rationalization by an actor pointing authoritarian weapons at their adversary, which they were intending to do anyway.
It's difficult to speak with nuance on this dilemma: that every political debate in existence, today, is saturated with bad-faith actors, allying with both sides. But people tend to view this through one lens, selectively amplifying the bad-faith on the other side—as if it entirely invalidates them, instantly wins the debate—while minimizing it on their own side. If you don't want your voice silenced because of what other people, who are not you, said—you should not advocate doing that to other people. If you don't to wake up one day with all your favored newspapers and media sites blocked by government order—you should not wish for that to happen to other people.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/french-tiktok-ban-new-caledo... ("French TikTok block in overseas territory sets ‘dangerous precedent,’ critics warn")
[1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/tech/news/french-court-void... ("A French court ruled today that last year's ban on TikTok in New Caledonia was illegal and disproportionately infringed rights and freedoms")
> I would push back on this. That is in large part French propaganda in service of French interests—manufacturing consent
Ilham Aliyev, the dictator of Azerbaijan, has publicly pledged to help French territories secure independence [0] and hosted separatists with full state honors on multiple occasions
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/azerbaijans-president-pledges-...
> That is in large part French propaganda in service of French interests—manufacturing consent for continuing French imperialism over their maltreated colonies; and delegitimizing narratives that speak counter to that—delegitimizing the political voice of the people actually living there
That could be true, if there weren't 3 referendums organised to give those people a voice in deciding their fate. They all failed, progressively more in favour of New Caledonia remaining part of France.
After the last one, and the announcement the end of the franchise restrictions to ensure that those referendums gave a fair chance to the pro-independence indigenous people, a targeted propaganda campaign stoked rioting. People were waving Azeri flags while rioting ffs!
> But hammering on that point is a form of dehumanization: it's to say people who disagree you, having been misled, no longer have the right to a voice, and are fair game to be silenced
It's the misleading group that was attempted to be silenced, not the people. The people in question had been given three referendums to give their voice, via official channels. Rioting because Azeris told them so isn't a legitimate way to voice concerns.