Résumé

What are the consequences of the pandemic on citizenship in liberal democracies? While many academic discussions on this topic focus on the proportionality of the state of emergency and its respect for fundamental political rights, this article analyses another consequence of the pandemic on what the literature has called in recent years digital and informational “bio-citizenship”. Since WHO designated “infodemia” as a major public health issue, many online platforms have changed their moderation paradigm of health misinformation. As our review of Twitter and Facebook policies in the first two parts of this study shows, platforms no longer hesitate to treat health misinformation as potential harm to both the quality of online information and their users’ health. In the third and last part, we tackle the normative problems that the “somatisation of the bio-citizen” raises. Is it the case, as both platforms argue, that all content that could lead to risky behaviour must be removed? Does their libertarian philosophy require this type of suppression? Should we think with Zuckerberg that misinformation in health is more easily regulated thanks to recognised experts who can provide evidence-based answers? We argue that the platforms’ definition of harm creates confusion between error, danger, and rejection of health recommendations, which undermines their claim to guarantee freedom of expression.

Détails

Actions