X are simultaneously saying they've not been made aware of the allegations, but that they deny the allegations, and that the allegations are politically motivated.
What a time we live in, where things like antisemitism and supremacist views are framed as mere political inclinations that are unreasonably threatened by other people, even minorities, having rights.
You're trying to imply there's some contradiction between the three statements, but there really isn't. For one, X never claimed "they've not been made aware of the allegations". The exact wording used in the article was "it “remains in the dark” about the specific allegations", which is different than not being aware of the allegations at all. Moreover it's not contradictory to deny allegations that you're not aware of the specifics about. For instance, if someone accused you of saying a racist thing, but didn't reference a specific incident, it'd be pretty reasonable to both claim you're "in the dark about the specific allegations", and to deny it. It'd also be reasonable to claim it's politically motivated, if for instance it was coming from someone you had beef with.
(In other words: prove it. I get as many counterexamples as my lawyers can dream .)
Robert T. McGraw, Criminal Law: The Use of Inconsistent Defenses, 26 Marq. L. Rev. 167 (1942).
Offering inconsistent defense has got to be thing in France, particularly during criminal prosecution.
The French legal system has been completely revamped by Napoleon far after the US independence, and has been so successful that countries invaded by Napoleon have retained his system after being freed from him.
Meanwhile the us system is still based on a mediaeval system where nothing is ever certain and everything depends on how good a lawyer you can pay.
I get why you are outraged, but also: inform yourself. This is exactly what even minimally competent defense does and should look like.
“ French authorities have requested access to X’s recommendation algorithm and real-time data about all user posts on the platform in order for several “experts” to analyze the data and purportedly “uncover the truth” about the operation of the X platform. One of those “experts” is David Chavalarias, who spearheads the “Escape X” campaign. Formerly known as “HelloQuitteX”, the campaign is dedicated to encouraging X users to leave the platform. A second “expert,” Maziyar Panahi, has previously participated in research projects with David Chavalarias that demonstrate open hostility towards X.”
Considering the prevalence of far right figures in politics right now then, if you're correct, I'd take that one on the chin.
Want a more balanced approach? Don't have 4chan ass kisser as your CEO.
X is one social network that indeed does not suppress some of the far right opinions. All the others social media are mostly left leaning and leaving content that is blatantly racist but targeting only one kind of people that they deemed ok to discriminate based on some crazy ideas that you cannot be racist against a majority.
Only people who have no opinion on twitter and "Roman salute" Musk should be allowed to have a look at his algorithms!