In a thought-provoking commentary published by The Economic Times, writer Ateesh Tankha explores the growing phenomenon of digital platforms exhibiting excessive loyalty to dominant narratives—often more than the institutions or figures they claim to support. Drawing from the historical French idiom plus royaliste que le roi (more royalist than the king), the article critiques how online platforms, particularly professional networks, have begun to enforce ideological conformity with zeal that surpasses even the original source of authority.
Key Highlights
The phrase plus royaliste que le roi originates from post-Napoleonic France, describing reactionary lawmakers who resisted any reform—even more than the monarchy itself.
Tankha uses this analogy to describe how platforms today censor dissenting views, even when those views challenge power structures in a nuanced or historically grounded way.
A recent example involved the removal of a comment criticizing the European Jewish Congress’s stance on the Gaza conflict, despite the comment being framed within a broader humanitarian context.
Historical Parallels and Modern Echoes
The article revisits the Chambre Introuvable of 1815 France, a legislative body so rigid in its loyalty to the monarchy that it refused to entertain constitutional reforms after the revolution. Tankha draws a parallel to today’s digital platforms, which often act as ideological gatekeepers:
These platforms remove content that challenges dominant narratives, even when such content is factually accurate or morally grounded.
The enforcement of community guidelines is increasingly opaque, with little room for contextual interpretation or historical nuance.
In some cases, platforms appear to act preemptively, anticipating backlash rather than responding to actual violations.
The Gaza Controversy and Platform Bias
Tankha recounts a personal experience where a comment he posted on a professional networking platform was removed for violating community standards. The comment questioned the European Jewish Congress’s rejection of a Swedish art installation that compared the suffering in Gaza to the Holocaust.
The EJC argued that such comparisons distorted history and trivialized Jewish suffering.
Tankha countered that suffering should never be trivialized, regardless of context, and that the installation was a call for empathy, not equivalence.
The platform’s decision to remove the comment, without explanation or appeal, exemplified the plus royaliste mindset—defending a position more aggressively than its originators.
Implications for Free Expression and Digital Governance
This incident raises broader questions about the role of platforms in shaping public discourse:
Are platforms becoming ideological enforcers rather than neutral facilitators?
Should historical and political commentary be subject to the same moderation standards as hate speech or misinformation?
How can platforms balance sensitivity with intellectual freedom, especially in matters of global conflict and human rights?
Tankha argues that platforms must evolve beyond binary moderation models and embrace contextual understanding, especially when dealing with complex geopolitical issues.
Final Thoughts
The phrase more loyal than the king serves as a cautionary metaphor for our digital age. As platforms gain influence over public dialogue, their responsibility to uphold nuance, fairness, and historical literacy becomes paramount. Blind loyalty to dominant narratives risks silencing important conversations and undermining the very freedoms these platforms were built to protect.
In an era where algorithms and guidelines increasingly dictate what can be said, the need for thoughtful moderation and open discourse has never been more urgent.
Sources: The Economic Times
