All those who said "Yes", you are ready for a new far-left totalitarianism. If freedom of expression exists, then one must be able to say everything, including anything at all. Why would flat-earthers have the right to speak and not Holocaust deniers? The fact that people deny historical realities, for example, should not be punished. They have the right to believe it and the fact that they hold this view allows us to debate with them. We must now stop asking for laws from a State that has only made things worse.

Pseudo-social networks provide users with tools that allow them - and even facilitate - the dissemination of messages whose content may be legally reprehensible.

I would gladly consider these facts from the legal perspective of "commission by omission".

The minimum conditions for the existence of an omission are recognised by the fact that the perpetrator has not performed a certain defined act, when they could have done so.

Is the monitoring of network usage by those responsible a moral or legal duty?

According to an extract from a 1991 Federal Supreme Court decision, "an improper omission offence is committed when the occurrence of the result through action is expressly threatened with criminal sanction, and the accused through their action could have effectively prevented the result..."

To study this question, one can refer to the excellent publication by Adrian Dan (UNIGE archives 2015) which I have partially quoted.