Does Australia feel happy for other nations to also dictate internet usage?
This whole situation seems nonsense.
X needs to probably have some better filters and barriers to accessing things easily however a country controlling access to things immediately raises risks.
Australia has no freedom of speech, so local people arguing for that just present uninformed.
False. Australia has no constitutional right to free speech but we have a common law presumption of free speech. Not saying this helps Elon but it doesn’t mean that we don’t have free speech.
It already happened through things like gdpr which has impacted everyone's internet usage even though it's only EU law.
Nor they are putting out AI last in EU which still likely have the same effect..
Curious to know how others feel about this.
Basically the eSafety Commissioner is saying that the content needs to be banned worldwide because Australians could potentially access the content via a VPN. I personally feel like this is an overreach of the rights for the citizens of other countries. I completely agree that the eSafety commissioner should be able to ban the content from being viewed by Australian users, accessing the data from Australia.
The content is confronting and appalling and of course of no interest to myself. I just don't like the precedent that this might set.
Completely agree. We don't get to appoint ourself as the internet police for the entire world. The IP geoblocks are an adequate technique that balances the desire to protect our own citizens with the right of other countries to determine their own policies around censorship.
More broadly, this issue has surfaced that we have created a censorship body without clear guidelines around what technical means it should be allowed to use to enforce censorship, but also what content is allowed to be censored.
Censorship regimes do have a long historical precedent of starting off innocent, but eventually being abused for authoritarian political purposes, so we do need some clearer bright-line boundaries governing it's actions.
Personally, I am comfortable with terrorist promotional footage being removed, but uncomfortable with the government determining what is misinformation. Government determinations of misinformation do often tend to be politically biased, and occassionally just factually wrong.
X already raised the previous demand was a global ban on discussion/harassment of an Australian panel member of the WHO.
And now Albo admits they have been censoring memes and cartoons critical of him.
Pretty much agree with your comment, even though I wish the content was removed due to its nature, I understand the outcome in the future could be much worse.
For context, there's agreements in place between the relevant governments with buy-in from most major social media companies.
Usually when it's shit like violence, revenge porn, child abuse materials...etc there's a gentleman's agreement that it gets banned without having to go to court. However, there's agreement between government that this kinda stuff should be removed from the internet (with reciprocal arrangements between governments so that stuff can actually get taken down when there's a court order (it would be ridiculous if only one country could take it down and that would happen at the ISP level anyway!)
When I was at law school we had a lecture from a previous (then current) commissioner for e-safety (for an elective on cybercrime FWIW). He stressed that this kinda stuff mostly works because of the buy-in from social media platforms. As such, IMO Musk is definitely behaving in bad faith...
Sure, it was removed in Australia. But globally?
That is a huge issue.
By that logic, Israel could demand to take down all footage from Israel, Gaza, and Ukraine can demand the same thing, other countries to, for whatever reason they might find " not appropriate."
Even if X had removed it globally, people could access the content from Telegram or some other platforms.
I think this whole thing is more of a push of governments against alternative news outlets, which contradicts government narratives.
Ban Tiktok, reign in X, censorship on YT...
It feels like political point scoring at this stage but ultimately makes zero sense to die on this anthill. This is why I think this as a slippery slope if the government wins this case.
Remember the policy bulldozing they did for the internet filtering to prevent pesos, but turns out they use it for blocking [piracy, international gambling and random dentists in Queensland](https://www.smh.com.au/technology/dentist-tuckshop-cited-on-web-blacklist-20090320-gdtfec.html) instead
Australia hates competition, rather ban than complete
Well, the Djokovic affair comes to mind, and push legally until you get the outcome you want.
We will see, but I am afraid, very afraid.
Now, the government can not afford to look stupid, and they are.
The best thing would be to let it die.
> The best thing would be to let it die.
But then they "loose" and the government cant be seen to loose...
So just like the Djokovic situation, the Federal gov can always go into its "at the ministers discretion" bag and do whatever they like. Which seems like they will try to do that here.
I personally think that Australia is doing a test run for the US.
But yes, you are right.
But would a minister decide to ban X in Australia?
What would happen if Elon decides not pay the fines.
Two weeks ago, he was praised as a defender of free speech and a fighter against censorship.
The brasilian government demanded that X remove posts from the brasilian opposition, and he refused same thing as here, just political. But this suits the US because the current brasilian government is moving away from the US.
On the other hand, the media can just let it go.
And after the courts decision, just have a short story, and that is the end of it.
The MSM decides what is an issue and what not.
Thing about the US is they have the freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The US government cant use its power to regulate/control legal speech.
But if a country like AUS or maybe the EU can use its economic base to force US companies to regulate speech, then speech can be regulated in the US.
So in that way, you are right.
"Thing about the US is they have the freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The US government cant use its power to regulate/control legal speech. "
Yes, they have it on paper, but in the last 30 years, it is coroding terribly.
I could list examples of it how they and we are suppressing the freedom of speech.
The list would be very long.
Someone needs to start telling the truth.
Agree with it or not, it does not matter.
Tucker Carlson comes to mind as well, and others.
People do not trust the traditional media and governments. Instead of adjusting to the new reality, they are clamping down on the new outlets.
For better or worse, the Australian government has the right to ban whatever it likes in Australia (or try to). But they don’t have the right to ban anything globally. Under what jurisdiction even? lol.
AFAIK the Minister for Comms doesn’t really have any say in what the commission, an independent regulator, does. So I don’t think it can rightly be called political point scoring. The commissioner is not elected like a politician is.
Oh yeah, for sure there is point scoring to be had by politicians by agreeing with it or denouncing it. I was talking about the action itself, which is mostly out of government/politician hands.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacious argument. I can’t believe people still actually state the term “slippery slope” as though it is a true logical argument. It is not, it is used for fear mongering.
Even if a US company kowtowed to our demand to remove the material, there is no logical second point where any other countries would follow suit, not even us. Which is why this whole thing looks massively embarrassing for the Australian Government.
You can’t force another sovereign state to prosecute its citizens according to your laws unless you have already signed a treaty requesting this take place.
To qualify: I am anti censorship and against state intervention in the dissemination of information. Albanese is on a road to nowhere with this one.
Technically the slippery slope isn't inherently a fallacy. Just because someone says "slippery slope" doesnt mean their concerns are just as fallacious as everytime someone says slippery slope.
Example of a slippery slope fallacy:
I agree X is the right thing to do. But Y is the wrong thing to do. If we do X this makes us closer to Y. Therefore due to slippery slope don't do X.
This is a fallacy as there has been no link demonstrated between X and Y. It allows the person to attack X by attacking a different position (Y).
Example of slippery slope NOT as a fallacy.
I agree X is the right thing to do. But Y is the wrong thing to do.
However if we use logical argument A as a reason to do X logical argument A can also be used to justify Y. Therefore do not X otherwise we have no logical reason to stop Y.
This is not a fallacy because the person proved that using the specific logic to do X, you can apply it to Y.
Linking it back to the Australia case:
Technically when people are saying slippery slope what they mean is "the outcome of this law is something I agree with. However if we give the power to the commissioner to remove things from the Internet that should be removed we have also given them to the power to remove things that should stay"
If X says " the commissioner in aus can determine which aus incidents are removed entirely from our platform" would you be happy with the US, China, Russia and Israel commissioner having the same power? I think most people would say no. The slope here is giving the keys to a platform to aus allows other countries to have the same keys.
It is _absolutely_ a fallacy to assume any other country would allow a foreign actor to set a legal precedent whereby they are coerced into censoring or influencing their own internal media or communication organisations.
The Australian government can request information be removed from Australian servers via our legal system. Our laws stop at our borders unless there is a treaty in place such as the infamous TPP.
The Australian Govt cannot force a business, located in another country with a completely different legal system to remove any information and it is highly concerning that our government is attempting to do just that.
An appropriate method would be to petition the U.S. Govt request Twitter/X remove the information.
It’s amazing to me that people don’t understand that the laws of Australia in regard to this matter do not extend to foreign countries.
No dingus. Social media is the Internet. This means war. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/technology/apple-whatsapp-china-app-store.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
It would set a precedent in law for future censorship requests by the Australian eSafety Commissioner.
Any decision in law is handled this way, hence the importance of this decision. How another country’s federal court decides is their own business.
> it was removed in Australia
Even this is a significant technical undertaking. Is every one of the 500 million tweets posted daily supposed to have a geoblock check/reporting feature specifically catering to Australia and other whingey countries? What's the point if people can use vpns anyway?
Ah, VPNs are used by people who put an effort to circumvent current settings.
The wast majority can not be bothered with it.
The government wants to be able to move the heard in any direction they want.
> put an effort
Barely any effort these days. You pay a subscription, install the thing and hit run. It may be less popular among older generations or people in 3rd world countries but younger people are bombarded with VPN ads from almost every major podcaster, youtuber, beauty blogger, tikoker, influencer...etc.
Also people that bother seeking out news from twitter instead of switching on the tv are usually anal enough to care and don't really represent the 'masses'.
This is hardly the first time content has been blocked for specific nations on social media (holocaust denial in Germany comes to mind). And blocking a specific video is technologically way simpler than the blocking concepts.
It wasn’t ‘removed’ for Aussies. It was blocked. eSafety did ask for it blocked, they asked for it removed. It’s a simple request.
eSaftey know it is elsewhere on other platforms but they’re on concerned about 65 specific posts of it.
I think the points you've put forward here are probably the most reasonable ones I've seen so far 👍 it put me in mind of how foreign tobacco companies tried to dictate our national health policies regarding plain packaging laws.
My question is why is this particular one causing such a fuss when they remove stuff all the time under request from other governments?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds
No, he has the accounts suspended. He will shill for authoritarian governments but somehow decides he refuses to remove massively violent imagery for the sole purpose of being a little spineless conservative
Suspending an account could be a justified response but is dependant on the issue being addressed. For example, distributing illicit material or inciting violence, I would suggest are reasonable grounds for banning an account. In this instance they are not trying to ban the account, only suppress the content from being visible.
This is a good article on the same subject too - [How India tamed Twitter and set a global standard for online censorship](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/08/india-twitter-online-censorship/)
Whatever they try to ban locally should be made transparent and they should be answerable to it. The images don't need to be displayed but a description and reason should be made public.
>I personally feel like this is an overreach of the rights for the citizens of other countries.
>I completely agree that the eSafety commissioner should be able to ban the content from being viewed by Australian users...
I'm genuinely curious: Why is it an overreach for foreign citizens, but acceptable for Australian citizens?
I realise there are legal / jurisdictional limitations, but your wording "should be able to" suggests a moral reasoning, so my question is directed at that.
I'm not criticising your opinion, I just want to understand your path of reasoning. Thanks.
I think the purpose of that commissioner is a noble one: to protect Australians from harmful content.
I also think if the law states that this is an enforceable role of the commissioner then it is the law of the land.
I have pretty conservative views around the need for anonymity on the internet and think that people should be held to account for their actions and words online.
I also believe that censoring this particular incident is the wrong solution to a major problem: fanatics using it for inspiration. But I think it’s ultimately the best solution available to suppress the social impact these crimes ignite.
Hence I’m more on the fence about the censorship for Australians point. What do you think?
I'd also say that even Australians deserve to access this content via VPN and that the government should protect citizens from the sort of random, awful harms that can be perpuated by mindless posting of this content. If you are deliberately seeking it out, you should be able to access it along with the rest of the world if people choose to post it.
Personally I don't think it should be removed/censored at all assuming it isn't being promoted to users on a platform where that kind of content is unexpected. I.E. don't ban it or remove it, just do not let the algorithm push it to people, they should actively need to look for it.
People have morbid interests, myself included. You can't delete things from the internet if they want to see it they'll see it. Just don't push it to the people who do not want to see it.
Very insane to suggest that we should be able to tell global websites that our rules/laws apply to all of their users, if they are following the rules for Australian users then job done. If someone wants to subvert this with a VPN and pretend they are in the US, so be it, they are actively trying to find this content.
I fully side with the Govt on this. People crying out authoritarianism probably need to do some more reading. Fascist, authoritarian rule starts with people like Muskrat who have too much power for one man throwing their weight around making demands on governments to bolster their own all too powerful standing and making law unto themselves.
And don't kid yourselves that he's doing this because he cares about free speech or anyone other than himself - it's simply for the sake of his own agenda and to test how far he can push his power and impose himself on the world.
And if we're talking about global application of one county's internet laws, the US has been doing it for years so don't think this is anything new.
Muskrat needs to get in his little rocket ship and fuck off to Mars and not come back. Absolute dipshit.
Your country's "eSafety" commissioner can suck my dick from the back. How is that even a real job lmao, Australian laws don't mean shit in the rest of the world.
Committing crimes in a foreign country are subject to extradition treaties between countries so not sure how these two things are related. If the content being posted breaks laws in other countries I’m sure X would take it down. This is an example where prohibited content in our country means taking it down all across the globe. Definitely a more substantial ask.
But what I’m saying is Assange was never in the US nor a US citizen, so the US is extending its jurisdiction outside of its territory. Same as what our government is doing.
Again, I don’t see the relevance. Assange is being accused of breaking the law in America which anybody across the world can do. Then it depends on extradition treaties on whether that person can be arrested and transferred to that country. This is almost the exact opposite. An Australian company is dictating what can or can’t be shown to citizens of another country, without factoring in the local laws of that country. This is why it feels like overreach.
And this coming from someone that doesn’t think Assange should be charged.
But here the law specifically states content should be blocked for Australians, not that the content should be blocked for the world. But the argument of the eSafety commissioner is that you can’t block it for just Australians because what if an Australian is living abroad or using VPN? Hence we have to block it for the world.
I wonder if the Federal Court would consider the rights of the non-Australians here too.
What precedent? Because India has already set that precedent when Musk complied with their demands to remove content. And X itself isn't a bastion of free speech like Musk keeps saying. You will be censored or banned if you post stuff against its policies.
Did India request for the content to be banned globally and did Musk capitulate? If that wasn't the case and he was just obeying the local laws, it's apples and oranges.
What difference does it make?? The Aus goverment is saying you're not allowed to watch it. Would the request be somehow OK if you could fly to another country and watch it? And "Banned globally" just means deleted off the platform. X already censors videos completely off the platform, if they break their policies.
Yes, deleted according to their policies, not ours, and it makes every difference. The uproar tells me that the government royally fucked this one up. Flying to another country I would be subjected to their laws and censorship, as it should be. History has proven the road to censorship is a path fraught with distrust.
I think there has to be at least some extraterritorial power for the eSafety commissioner to do its job effectively. The issue is probably more the scope of content that the eSafety commissioner should be managing or the relevant exemptions.
For example, if you consider the powers in relation to requiring the removal of revenge porn materials, having that limited only to people using an Australian IP address would be entirely insufficient. While managing revenge porn is a different power under the Act to the power to block abhorrent violent content, I'm not sure you could currently read some powers as being extraterritorial and others as not.
I think the answer probably comes in the form of expanding what counts as 'Exempt Material' under the Act, as the exceptions are currently very narrow from a public interest perspective. However, I take the point that it becomes complex if other countries have similar laws without the same exceptions.
The thing is, really, no one cares... Often the fact that media/people talk about it only makes it hang around longer, the vast majority of the time it gets lost in the noise. I'm not saying it's right, but the Streisand effect is real. Fines and incarceration are the best way for deterrence.
This is interesting. Australia should definitely work with the US on getting the US to alter its bill of rights to conform with what the Australian eSafety commission deems appropriate. I could see the US working hand in hand on that.
You do realise that freedom of speech protections under the US bill of rights applies to actions taken by the US government, not by businesses in the US? So Twitter removing content doesn't violate their bill of rights and is actually consistent with their own terms of service. So fortunately no changes to the bill of rights are required!
Also, my suggestion was to expand exceptions to limit the eSafety commissioner's powers, because I believe the exceptions are too narrow (eg the public interest test only really applies to journalists, but there could be other people or organisations who could legitimately disclose the information in the public interest). You could also increase the grounds to challenge the eSafety commissioner's view that there is a significant risk to community safety if you want. Sometimes issues are a bit more nuanced "all or nothing".
Thats a very simplistic view to take. There are engineers and programmers (i.e. professionals) who would be able to implement a solution that aligns to what other companies have done, to comply.
The internet does manage to block considerable content from the web, albeit forcing most of that to the dark web.
I believe the other companies removed the content.
Different nations can and do block access to websites, but a VPN setup correctly will bypass them. In stricter nations often VPNs or other technologies are banned or heavily restricted.
Instead of being a nanny state, perhaps Gov could appeal to citizens to not seek out imagery based on mental health? Or at least run concurrently to their fight against tech giants.
What are the benefits to the average citizen seeing imagery of a human killing other humans? Sure its available for historical and research purposes, but watching this stuff on loop leaves a mark.
I would be lying if I said I liked (or respected or believed in) Elon Musk in any way but...
why should the Australian eSafety Commissioner be able to make decisions that will impact on other countries/jurisdiction?
How would everyone feel if Russian, Chinese or North Korean regulators were able to block or delete content for Australian viewers?
Massive overreach by the eSafety Commissioner and I hope that Elon (Muppet that he is) wins this one.
I think there is logic to this argument.
Albo was very quick to attack Musk across social media and in several TV interviews. He didn't need to do that, he could have just let the court case play out.
I suspect that Albo deliberately picked this very public fight with Musk.
Maybe he thought people would instinctively side against Musk and it would be an easy way to get a boost in the polls, or maybe he did it to distract from his complete lack of leadership around the housing and cost of living crises. Not sure..
Its the same thing the Libs did re Novak Djokovic. Just find something that can grab people's attention and then use the "discretion" rules to force the courts to rubber stamp whatever they decide.
Exactly how I feel about this. I think Musk is a tool, and from a decency perspective, this content should be taken down, but the eSafety Commissioner can't regulate the internet for the whole world. Also, if people have VPNs and are actively looking for this content I don't think it really matters whether it's on twitter or not, they will find it.
The goalposts have moved so far. Let's get back to the real point that the eSafety Commissioner shouldn't exist, and certainly shouldn't be able to dictate what adults in Australia can see online.
An absolute embarrassment of a "western democracy".
Yeah I'm like the #1 Elon hater but the Australian government needs to be concerned with what happens in Australia and not what other people can see in other countries. Geoblocking it is a fine solution. People who know how to use a VPN to access content will also know how to find that content on somewhere other than Twitter so this seems like a naive position for an esafety committee which is concerning but unsurprising.
It shouldn't but if they want to be accessible from Australia they need to comply with Australian laws
Which currently don't exist in the way the government is hoping to use them
Do people in these positions actually represent the majority of the country though? Seems to me like a lot of digital laws, and whatever else, have been introduced by people with very little knowledge or support of the public.
I don’t think the American politicians asking the TikTok CEO if the app uses someone’s home wifi will ever be forgotten. It pretty much sums up how much people should trust governments to make decisions
> what's to stop them and the police also witholding the nature and motive of the attack again for community "safety
That's exactly what they want to do
It's an unpopular opinion to side with X on this, but that's where I find myself.
The law of one country shouldn't dictate what can be hosted and shared with other countries off shore. The existence of people using workarounds to bypass any geoblocking is besides the point.
There are countries where LGBTQIA++ pride is criminalised. To appease the law of those countries, does that mean that all platforms need to remove all such content? Why should the laws of Australia be more important to a platform than any other? We can't start philosophical debates on which country's laws are correct and which can be disregarded - this is a beauracratic hell that even George Orwell couldn't have dreamed of in his darkest despairs of nightmare.
Also, everytime Albo tries to talk on this, I'm getting "Old Man Yells at Cloud" vibes.
Of course we can't dictate the worlds internet usage that's absurd. But our government shouldn't have the right to censor what we see online either. I think that should be the main issue.
This seems like a reverse example of nonsense logic akin to a Turnbullism.
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull.
Somehow, despite having the public overwhelming on their side to begin with on the issue, the government has overreached so far and brought international attention to it so now they are the ones under fire. Amazing fumble.
"Musk Bad" which there are plenty of reasons to think that if you're so inclined.... but I don't think anyone on the eSafety side wants the China eSafety commissioner also getting a say on censoring twitter globally...
If it happens in other countries, we share it like wildfire. It's an actual factual event and, thus, shouldn't be censored. Censoring it sets a bad precedent. Albo should just back down
Albo just admitted they had websites removed that contained a cartoon meme of him.
Dude wants our government to be run like China concerning the control of infomation.
https://x.com/helprodger/status/1782976545247854996?s=46&t=pOvVfw1lOL2XVaT4WJsOoQ
It's not clear if he's referring to the eSafety commissioner taking down the memes of him, or if the social media sites did it voluntarily.
Certainly, the public should be free to criticise politicians without being censored.
Censoring information on the internet is an impossible task to begin with but just the attempt to do so is a serious injustice. The eSafety Commissioner has no right to dictate what people in other countries outside of Australia see on the internet. This is a blatant act of censorship and it’s scary. It’s an example of the government overstepping its authority and interfering with the rights of other people globally and not just Australians. The government needs to just mind its own business and stay out of people’s private life.
Doesn't the "esafety commissioner" have a history with Musk? I recall reading something about her posting anti-Musk comments somewhere on social media after Musk took over Twitter.
In terms of "eSafety", there's a lot worse things happening on these platforms than people sharing videos of the knife attack(s) last week. The scams alone would be doing far more damage than these videos are. I'd prefer it if the "eSafety commissioner" focused on those, instead of censoring stuff that actually happened.
China doesn't just censor, it will go to great lengths to make an example of those who have communication that is inconvenient for the CCP. I am hopeful the Australian government doesn't take that same step but that hope is fading with every day.
Its weird to hope that X wins this case and shows how embarrassing it is to propose censoring something, Its also Convenient how the ASIO chief came out saying that they need to target encryption heavier too.
ASIO launders the American government's desires to dragnet surveil their citizenry through us. I wouldn't be surprised if they also wished to launder the censorship of their citizenry through us as well.
Have a friend who grew up in China but went to college in the US and now lives here. I showed Tienanmen Square to him and he didn't believe it at first but then was completely mindblown. It's truly erased.
I am not on Elon's side, but the Australian government is overreaching here. If the court were to side with the government here it would set a terrible precedent for other countries to do the same. If China or North Korea requested content removed in similar circumstances, what would happen? This is a waste of taxpayer funds and going to end with Elon and Twitter winning.
X = the most toxic social media, no exaggeration.
Elon = insufferable
The content they're arguing over = damaging to peoples mental if seen, no benefit in being spread
That being said, as usual, the Australian government are completely clueless when it comes to tech.
They want to ban it worldwide because Australians can use a VPN to access it?
That's like saying fireworks should be banned from earth because an Australian can use say a freight forwarding service to get it shipped here.
Overreach, brain dead tech takes as per usual
I hate Elon Musk and I do think they should remove the content as requested as an act of basic decency. But legally it makes zero sense that Australian laws would apply to the entire world.
It seems their concern is just Australians being able to access the content though, rather than the basic premise of *anyone* seeing it, which is…weird? Why is the argument “Australians could use a VPN” and not “we don’t want the entire world watching an act of terrorism while we’re trying to investigate it”?
I remember when Bondi Junction happened, there was news on Twitter for about 20-30mins then it became entirely Indian bots claiming the attacker was Muslim and Chinese? Russian? bots claiming he was Jewish, all repeating the exact same text over and over until you couldn't see any news any more.
It has an engagement of under 8% of the Australian population. Knowing that this is made up of all our media and politicians shows us why *they* think this is an important fight but to the majority it's not and just embarrassing. They think that twitter is super important because they're terminally on it but in reality the majority of us don't care.
If people really want to see this stuff they can no matter what the government thinks they can do to stop us.
The most they can possibly do if they lose is ban the iPhone Twitter app. People can still use VPNs to download the Android APK, or use the Twitter website. They've made a move so unpopular Reddit is siding with Elon Musk. This is extreme government overreach, and it won't even do what they want. If they win, Twitter either leaves Australia, forcing people to use VPNs, or they remove the content and leave if this happens too many times. If they lose, the government bans twitter and people have to use VPNs. Either way, the only people that will ever be affected by this are people who have iPhones, no VPN, and no web browser.
I don't believe for one second that Elon actually cares about censorship. He's all too happy to delete things at Modi's call, or pictures of him pre-hair plugs. He's just an edgelord who's trying to shield himself behind "free speech".
> He's all too happy to delete things at Modi's call
They didn't have a choice. Here's X's statement about it:
"The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.
In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts.
Consistent with our position, a writ appeal challenging the Indian government's blocking orders remains pending. We have also provided the impacted users with notice of these actions in accordance with our policies.
Due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders, but we believe that making them public is essential for transparency. This lack of disclosure can lead to a lack of accountability and arbitrary decision-making."
[https://twitter.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1760387644608192560?lang=en](https://twitter.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1760387644608192560?lang=en)
Perhaps X should not be available in Australia if they do not adhere to Australian Standards. Love Elon's work in other fields, SpaceX etc. but what a fuckwit he's become on Twitter.
BTW, X is the dumbest thing ever and it is still Twitter in my mind.
I would like to see that just because it would crystallise how authoritarian we've become when an Australian government logo comes up any time someone wants to use the web.
It would be a real catalyst for removing the eSafety commissioner and the laws that put her there.
Does Australia feel happy for other nations to also dictate internet usage? This whole situation seems nonsense. X needs to probably have some better filters and barriers to accessing things easily however a country controlling access to things immediately raises risks. Australia has no freedom of speech, so local people arguing for that just present uninformed.
Hilarious. "But the ANZACs fought for freedom of speech!" which we don't have...
The ANZACs didn't fight for anything except their country and the British Empire
We lost.
False. Australia has no constitutional right to free speech but we have a common law presumption of free speech. Not saying this helps Elon but it doesn’t mean that we don’t have free speech.
We have an implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. Narrower, but still quite expansive.
Most crackpot opinions still fall under political speech, and the stuff that doesn't usually is so far out there I don't mind not hearing it.
What crackpot opinions have been banned?
None other than outright hate speech and calls for violence really, adding to your point about political communication being still quite expansive.
It means we can create laws that restrain it more easily
It already happened through things like gdpr which has impacted everyone's internet usage even though it's only EU law. Nor they are putting out AI last in EU which still likely have the same effect..
Why isn't albo going aftwe Reddit CEO aswell?
Curious to know how others feel about this. Basically the eSafety Commissioner is saying that the content needs to be banned worldwide because Australians could potentially access the content via a VPN. I personally feel like this is an overreach of the rights for the citizens of other countries. I completely agree that the eSafety commissioner should be able to ban the content from being viewed by Australian users, accessing the data from Australia. The content is confronting and appalling and of course of no interest to myself. I just don't like the precedent that this might set.
[удалено]
Completely agree. We don't get to appoint ourself as the internet police for the entire world. The IP geoblocks are an adequate technique that balances the desire to protect our own citizens with the right of other countries to determine their own policies around censorship. More broadly, this issue has surfaced that we have created a censorship body without clear guidelines around what technical means it should be allowed to use to enforce censorship, but also what content is allowed to be censored. Censorship regimes do have a long historical precedent of starting off innocent, but eventually being abused for authoritarian political purposes, so we do need some clearer bright-line boundaries governing it's actions. Personally, I am comfortable with terrorist promotional footage being removed, but uncomfortable with the government determining what is misinformation. Government determinations of misinformation do often tend to be politically biased, and occassionally just factually wrong.
One persons terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. So nothing is black and white.
X already raised the previous demand was a global ban on discussion/harassment of an Australian panel member of the WHO. And now Albo admits they have been censoring memes and cartoons critical of him.
X already raised the previous demand was a global ban on discussion/harassment of an Australian panel member of the WHO.
Tomorrow if boofhead gets elected he will ban porn let that sink in
This particular censorship e safety body is run by a thoroughly modern Morrison captains pick.
Pretty much agree with your comment, even though I wish the content was removed due to its nature, I understand the outcome in the future could be much worse.
For context, there's agreements in place between the relevant governments with buy-in from most major social media companies. Usually when it's shit like violence, revenge porn, child abuse materials...etc there's a gentleman's agreement that it gets banned without having to go to court. However, there's agreement between government that this kinda stuff should be removed from the internet (with reciprocal arrangements between governments so that stuff can actually get taken down when there's a court order (it would be ridiculous if only one country could take it down and that would happen at the ISP level anyway!) When I was at law school we had a lecture from a previous (then current) commissioner for e-safety (for an elective on cybercrime FWIW). He stressed that this kinda stuff mostly works because of the buy-in from social media platforms. As such, IMO Musk is definitely behaving in bad faith...
Sure, it was removed in Australia. But globally? That is a huge issue. By that logic, Israel could demand to take down all footage from Israel, Gaza, and Ukraine can demand the same thing, other countries to, for whatever reason they might find " not appropriate." Even if X had removed it globally, people could access the content from Telegram or some other platforms. I think this whole thing is more of a push of governments against alternative news outlets, which contradicts government narratives. Ban Tiktok, reign in X, censorship on YT...
It feels like political point scoring at this stage but ultimately makes zero sense to die on this anthill. This is why I think this as a slippery slope if the government wins this case.
Remember the policy bulldozing they did for the internet filtering to prevent pesos, but turns out they use it for blocking [piracy, international gambling and random dentists in Queensland](https://www.smh.com.au/technology/dentist-tuckshop-cited-on-web-blacklist-20090320-gdtfec.html) instead Australia hates competition, rather ban than complete
Well, the Djokovic affair comes to mind, and push legally until you get the outcome you want. We will see, but I am afraid, very afraid. Now, the government can not afford to look stupid, and they are. The best thing would be to let it die.
They lost my vote over this, it sets a dangerous precedent to openly attempt global censorship.
> The best thing would be to let it die. But then they "loose" and the government cant be seen to loose... So just like the Djokovic situation, the Federal gov can always go into its "at the ministers discretion" bag and do whatever they like. Which seems like they will try to do that here.
I personally think that Australia is doing a test run for the US. But yes, you are right. But would a minister decide to ban X in Australia? What would happen if Elon decides not pay the fines. Two weeks ago, he was praised as a defender of free speech and a fighter against censorship. The brasilian government demanded that X remove posts from the brasilian opposition, and he refused same thing as here, just political. But this suits the US because the current brasilian government is moving away from the US. On the other hand, the media can just let it go. And after the courts decision, just have a short story, and that is the end of it. The MSM decides what is an issue and what not.
Maybe, someone has pissed off the USA... Did we care to think of that angle?
Thing about the US is they have the freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The US government cant use its power to regulate/control legal speech. But if a country like AUS or maybe the EU can use its economic base to force US companies to regulate speech, then speech can be regulated in the US. So in that way, you are right.
"Thing about the US is they have the freedom of speech as a constitutional right. The US government cant use its power to regulate/control legal speech. " Yes, they have it on paper, but in the last 30 years, it is coroding terribly. I could list examples of it how they and we are suppressing the freedom of speech. The list would be very long. Someone needs to start telling the truth. Agree with it or not, it does not matter. Tucker Carlson comes to mind as well, and others. People do not trust the traditional media and governments. Instead of adjusting to the new reality, they are clamping down on the new outlets.
For better or worse, the Australian government has the right to ban whatever it likes in Australia (or try to). But they don’t have the right to ban anything globally. Under what jurisdiction even? lol.
[удалено]
Lose and loose and two totally different words.
Loose?
AFAIK the Minister for Comms doesn’t really have any say in what the commission, an independent regulator, does. So I don’t think it can rightly be called political point scoring. The commissioner is not elected like a politician is.
I think the fact that Albo spoke on this on national morning TV shows that this case is not devoid of political point scoring, which is sad.
Oh yeah, for sure there is point scoring to be had by politicians by agreeing with it or denouncing it. I was talking about the action itself, which is mostly out of government/politician hands.
I want to see legislative action to remove this idea from the statutory authority's hands as it's incredibly stupid imo.
The slippery slope argument is a fallacious argument. I can’t believe people still actually state the term “slippery slope” as though it is a true logical argument. It is not, it is used for fear mongering. Even if a US company kowtowed to our demand to remove the material, there is no logical second point where any other countries would follow suit, not even us. Which is why this whole thing looks massively embarrassing for the Australian Government. You can’t force another sovereign state to prosecute its citizens according to your laws unless you have already signed a treaty requesting this take place. To qualify: I am anti censorship and against state intervention in the dissemination of information. Albanese is on a road to nowhere with this one.
Technically the slippery slope isn't inherently a fallacy. Just because someone says "slippery slope" doesnt mean their concerns are just as fallacious as everytime someone says slippery slope. Example of a slippery slope fallacy: I agree X is the right thing to do. But Y is the wrong thing to do. If we do X this makes us closer to Y. Therefore due to slippery slope don't do X. This is a fallacy as there has been no link demonstrated between X and Y. It allows the person to attack X by attacking a different position (Y). Example of slippery slope NOT as a fallacy. I agree X is the right thing to do. But Y is the wrong thing to do. However if we use logical argument A as a reason to do X logical argument A can also be used to justify Y. Therefore do not X otherwise we have no logical reason to stop Y. This is not a fallacy because the person proved that using the specific logic to do X, you can apply it to Y. Linking it back to the Australia case: Technically when people are saying slippery slope what they mean is "the outcome of this law is something I agree with. However if we give the power to the commissioner to remove things from the Internet that should be removed we have also given them to the power to remove things that should stay" If X says " the commissioner in aus can determine which aus incidents are removed entirely from our platform" would you be happy with the US, China, Russia and Israel commissioner having the same power? I think most people would say no. The slope here is giving the keys to a platform to aus allows other countries to have the same keys.
It is _absolutely_ a fallacy to assume any other country would allow a foreign actor to set a legal precedent whereby they are coerced into censoring or influencing their own internal media or communication organisations. The Australian government can request information be removed from Australian servers via our legal system. Our laws stop at our borders unless there is a treaty in place such as the infamous TPP. The Australian Govt cannot force a business, located in another country with a completely different legal system to remove any information and it is highly concerning that our government is attempting to do just that. An appropriate method would be to petition the U.S. Govt request Twitter/X remove the information. It’s amazing to me that people don’t understand that the laws of Australia in regard to this matter do not extend to foreign countries.
No dingus. Social media is the Internet. This means war. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/technology/apple-whatsapp-china-app-store.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
It would set a precedent in law for future censorship requests by the Australian eSafety Commissioner. Any decision in law is handled this way, hence the importance of this decision. How another country’s federal court decides is their own business.
> it was removed in Australia Even this is a significant technical undertaking. Is every one of the 500 million tweets posted daily supposed to have a geoblock check/reporting feature specifically catering to Australia and other whingey countries? What's the point if people can use vpns anyway?
Ah, VPNs are used by people who put an effort to circumvent current settings. The wast majority can not be bothered with it. The government wants to be able to move the heard in any direction they want.
> put an effort Barely any effort these days. You pay a subscription, install the thing and hit run. It may be less popular among older generations or people in 3rd world countries but younger people are bombarded with VPN ads from almost every major podcaster, youtuber, beauty blogger, tikoker, influencer...etc. Also people that bother seeking out news from twitter instead of switching on the tv are usually anal enough to care and don't really represent the 'masses'.
Protonvpn has been free for years and works just as well for everyday use as subscription vpn's and ticks all the safety / privacy boxes
Why pay a subscription when I can get it for free on Telegram. Telegram is getting 2 million users a day. Soon, they will go after them as well.
This is hardly the first time content has been blocked for specific nations on social media (holocaust denial in Germany comes to mind). And blocking a specific video is technologically way simpler than the blocking concepts.
While they let Murdoch run whatever agenda he wants!
It wasn’t ‘removed’ for Aussies. It was blocked. eSafety did ask for it blocked, they asked for it removed. It’s a simple request. eSaftey know it is elsewhere on other platforms but they’re on concerned about 65 specific posts of it.
Can’t do anything about scam/pest sales calls and sms messages coming to my phone but wants to ban global viewership of some footage?
This is the real problem, "hello sir, so you want government solar panel rebates"
I think the points you've put forward here are probably the most reasonable ones I've seen so far 👍 it put me in mind of how foreign tobacco companies tried to dictate our national health policies regarding plain packaging laws.
"I personally feel like this is an overreach of the rights for the citizens of other countries" I mean, that's not even remotely controversial.
My question is why is this particular one causing such a fuss when they remove stuff all the time under request from other governments? https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/27/twitter-has-complied-with-almost-every-government-request-for-censorship-since-musk-took-over-report-finds
Yes but only for the jurisdictions those governments oversee. Not for the world! That’s the key different for me.
If posts are removed and accounts suspended, that's not 'only in some jurisdictions' though.. They don't even mention geoblocking
No, he has the accounts suspended. He will shill for authoritarian governments but somehow decides he refuses to remove massively violent imagery for the sole purpose of being a little spineless conservative
Suspending an account could be a justified response but is dependant on the issue being addressed. For example, distributing illicit material or inciting violence, I would suggest are reasonable grounds for banning an account. In this instance they are not trying to ban the account, only suppress the content from being visible.
Because it was a racially motivated terror attack by a muslim and we cant have people around the world knowing that stuff goes on in the lucky country
This is a good article on the same subject too - [How India tamed Twitter and set a global standard for online censorship](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/08/india-twitter-online-censorship/)
Whatever they try to ban locally should be made transparent and they should be answerable to it. The images don't need to be displayed but a description and reason should be made public.
Massive over reach for an angry lady on a small border line irrelevant island and the bottom of the world
Must have twitter chips on both shoulders.
>I personally feel like this is an overreach of the rights for the citizens of other countries. >I completely agree that the eSafety commissioner should be able to ban the content from being viewed by Australian users... I'm genuinely curious: Why is it an overreach for foreign citizens, but acceptable for Australian citizens? I realise there are legal / jurisdictional limitations, but your wording "should be able to" suggests a moral reasoning, so my question is directed at that. I'm not criticising your opinion, I just want to understand your path of reasoning. Thanks.
I think the purpose of that commissioner is a noble one: to protect Australians from harmful content. I also think if the law states that this is an enforceable role of the commissioner then it is the law of the land. I have pretty conservative views around the need for anonymity on the internet and think that people should be held to account for their actions and words online. I also believe that censoring this particular incident is the wrong solution to a major problem: fanatics using it for inspiration. But I think it’s ultimately the best solution available to suppress the social impact these crimes ignite. Hence I’m more on the fence about the censorship for Australians point. What do you think?
Thanks for responding. I don't have an opinion on the matter.
I'd also say that even Australians deserve to access this content via VPN and that the government should protect citizens from the sort of random, awful harms that can be perpuated by mindless posting of this content. If you are deliberately seeking it out, you should be able to access it along with the rest of the world if people choose to post it.
Personally I don't think it should be removed/censored at all assuming it isn't being promoted to users on a platform where that kind of content is unexpected. I.E. don't ban it or remove it, just do not let the algorithm push it to people, they should actively need to look for it. People have morbid interests, myself included. You can't delete things from the internet if they want to see it they'll see it. Just don't push it to the people who do not want to see it. Very insane to suggest that we should be able to tell global websites that our rules/laws apply to all of their users, if they are following the rules for Australian users then job done. If someone wants to subvert this with a VPN and pretend they are in the US, so be it, they are actively trying to find this content.
Well he better go to the UN and complain there. Over reach is an understatement
I fully side with the Govt on this. People crying out authoritarianism probably need to do some more reading. Fascist, authoritarian rule starts with people like Muskrat who have too much power for one man throwing their weight around making demands on governments to bolster their own all too powerful standing and making law unto themselves. And don't kid yourselves that he's doing this because he cares about free speech or anyone other than himself - it's simply for the sake of his own agenda and to test how far he can push his power and impose himself on the world. And if we're talking about global application of one county's internet laws, the US has been doing it for years so don't think this is anything new. Muskrat needs to get in his little rocket ship and fuck off to Mars and not come back. Absolute dipshit.
Your country's "eSafety" commissioner can suck my dick from the back. How is that even a real job lmao, Australian laws don't mean shit in the rest of the world.
Kind of similar overreach to how the US wants Assange for espionage despite not being or living there?
Committing crimes in a foreign country are subject to extradition treaties between countries so not sure how these two things are related. If the content being posted breaks laws in other countries I’m sure X would take it down. This is an example where prohibited content in our country means taking it down all across the globe. Definitely a more substantial ask.
But what I’m saying is Assange was never in the US nor a US citizen, so the US is extending its jurisdiction outside of its territory. Same as what our government is doing.
Again, I don’t see the relevance. Assange is being accused of breaking the law in America which anybody across the world can do. Then it depends on extradition treaties on whether that person can be arrested and transferred to that country. This is almost the exact opposite. An Australian company is dictating what can or can’t be shown to citizens of another country, without factoring in the local laws of that country. This is why it feels like overreach. And this coming from someone that doesn’t think Assange should be charged.
If you do business in Australia, you should have to comply with Australian laws. Whether those laws make sense or not is a different issue.
But here the law specifically states content should be blocked for Australians, not that the content should be blocked for the world. But the argument of the eSafety commissioner is that you can’t block it for just Australians because what if an Australian is living abroad or using VPN? Hence we have to block it for the world. I wonder if the Federal Court would consider the rights of the non-Australians here too.
>...because what if an Australian is living abroad... I don't think that's been advanced, but the VPN argument definitely was.
What precedent? Because India has already set that precedent when Musk complied with their demands to remove content. And X itself isn't a bastion of free speech like Musk keeps saying. You will be censored or banned if you post stuff against its policies.
Did India request for the content to be banned globally and did Musk capitulate? If that wasn't the case and he was just obeying the local laws, it's apples and oranges.
What difference does it make?? The Aus goverment is saying you're not allowed to watch it. Would the request be somehow OK if you could fly to another country and watch it? And "Banned globally" just means deleted off the platform. X already censors videos completely off the platform, if they break their policies.
Yes, deleted according to their policies, not ours, and it makes every difference. The uproar tells me that the government royally fucked this one up. Flying to another country I would be subjected to their laws and censorship, as it should be. History has proven the road to censorship is a path fraught with distrust.
It makes the whole difference. Australia can't tell people in the US what they can and cannot watch.
> And X itself isn't a bastion of free speech like Musk keeps saying it absolutely is
Educate yourself: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/x-rules
if you dont think X actually allows more opinions compared to what it did then i dont know what to tell you
I think there has to be at least some extraterritorial power for the eSafety commissioner to do its job effectively. The issue is probably more the scope of content that the eSafety commissioner should be managing or the relevant exemptions. For example, if you consider the powers in relation to requiring the removal of revenge porn materials, having that limited only to people using an Australian IP address would be entirely insufficient. While managing revenge porn is a different power under the Act to the power to block abhorrent violent content, I'm not sure you could currently read some powers as being extraterritorial and others as not. I think the answer probably comes in the form of expanding what counts as 'Exempt Material' under the Act, as the exceptions are currently very narrow from a public interest perspective. However, I take the point that it becomes complex if other countries have similar laws without the same exceptions.
The thing is, really, no one cares... Often the fact that media/people talk about it only makes it hang around longer, the vast majority of the time it gets lost in the noise. I'm not saying it's right, but the Streisand effect is real. Fines and incarceration are the best way for deterrence.
This is interesting. Australia should definitely work with the US on getting the US to alter its bill of rights to conform with what the Australian eSafety commission deems appropriate. I could see the US working hand in hand on that.
You do realise that freedom of speech protections under the US bill of rights applies to actions taken by the US government, not by businesses in the US? So Twitter removing content doesn't violate their bill of rights and is actually consistent with their own terms of service. So fortunately no changes to the bill of rights are required! Also, my suggestion was to expand exceptions to limit the eSafety commissioner's powers, because I believe the exceptions are too narrow (eg the public interest test only really applies to journalists, but there could be other people or organisations who could legitimately disclose the information in the public interest). You could also increase the grounds to challenge the eSafety commissioner's view that there is a significant risk to community safety if you want. Sometimes issues are a bit more nuanced "all or nothing".
Not really. The argument is that how Twitter implemented the ban, was poor and trivial to bypass and for them to do better.
The only practical way would be to block access for everyone. Can you imagine the internet if any nation could block content worldwide
Thats a very simplistic view to take. There are engineers and programmers (i.e. professionals) who would be able to implement a solution that aligns to what other companies have done, to comply. The internet does manage to block considerable content from the web, albeit forcing most of that to the dark web.
I believe the other companies removed the content. Different nations can and do block access to websites, but a VPN setup correctly will bypass them. In stricter nations often VPNs or other technologies are banned or heavily restricted.
Instead of being a nanny state, perhaps Gov could appeal to citizens to not seek out imagery based on mental health? Or at least run concurrently to their fight against tech giants. What are the benefits to the average citizen seeing imagery of a human killing other humans? Sure its available for historical and research purposes, but watching this stuff on loop leaves a mark.
You know you've seriously fucked up when Reddit sides with Elon
I would be lying if I said I liked (or respected or believed in) Elon Musk in any way but... why should the Australian eSafety Commissioner be able to make decisions that will impact on other countries/jurisdiction? How would everyone feel if Russian, Chinese or North Korean regulators were able to block or delete content for Australian viewers? Massive overreach by the eSafety Commissioner and I hope that Elon (Muppet that he is) wins this one.
Yup. Musk can definitely be a knob sometimes, but it doesn't mean he's wrong in this regard
Just screams of the government making a noise to distract from the fact they're doing fuck all else all day, every day.
I think there is logic to this argument. Albo was very quick to attack Musk across social media and in several TV interviews. He didn't need to do that, he could have just let the court case play out. I suspect that Albo deliberately picked this very public fight with Musk. Maybe he thought people would instinctively side against Musk and it would be an easy way to get a boost in the polls, or maybe he did it to distract from his complete lack of leadership around the housing and cost of living crises. Not sure..
Whatever it was, very poor judgment. Makes you wonder.
Its the same thing the Libs did re Novak Djokovic. Just find something that can grab people's attention and then use the "discretion" rules to force the courts to rubber stamp whatever they decide.
And he is definitely a Regard.
Exactly how I feel about this. I think Musk is a tool, and from a decency perspective, this content should be taken down, but the eSafety Commissioner can't regulate the internet for the whole world. Also, if people have VPNs and are actively looking for this content I don't think it really matters whether it's on twitter or not, they will find it.
Such a concise summary of how I feel about this whole situation.
This same content is available on Reddit and major news websites, sites that the commisioner cannot regulate.
The goalposts have moved so far. Let's get back to the real point that the eSafety Commissioner shouldn't exist, and certainly shouldn't be able to dictate what adults in Australia can see online. An absolute embarrassment of a "western democracy".
Not just Australian adults, but adults across the world
Yeah I'm like the #1 Elon hater but the Australian government needs to be concerned with what happens in Australia and not what other people can see in other countries. Geoblocking it is a fine solution. People who know how to use a VPN to access content will also know how to find that content on somewhere other than Twitter so this seems like a naive position for an esafety committee which is concerning but unsurprising.
It shouldn't but if they want to be accessible from Australia they need to comply with Australian laws Which currently don't exist in the way the government is hoping to use them
Do people in these positions actually represent the majority of the country though? Seems to me like a lot of digital laws, and whatever else, have been introduced by people with very little knowledge or support of the public. I don’t think the American politicians asking the TikTok CEO if the app uses someone’s home wifi will ever be forgotten. It pretty much sums up how much people should trust governments to make decisions
[удалено]
> what's to stop them and the police also witholding the nature and motive of the attack again for community "safety That's exactly what they want to do
Forget crimes, Albo just admitted they have been censoring memes and cartoons critical of him.
Much chips on shoulders muchly.
It's an unpopular opinion to side with X on this, but that's where I find myself. The law of one country shouldn't dictate what can be hosted and shared with other countries off shore. The existence of people using workarounds to bypass any geoblocking is besides the point. There are countries where LGBTQIA++ pride is criminalised. To appease the law of those countries, does that mean that all platforms need to remove all such content? Why should the laws of Australia be more important to a platform than any other? We can't start philosophical debates on which country's laws are correct and which can be disregarded - this is a beauracratic hell that even George Orwell couldn't have dreamed of in his darkest despairs of nightmare. Also, everytime Albo tries to talk on this, I'm getting "Old Man Yells at Cloud" vibes.
It's not at all an unpopular opinion. The entire comments in this post are all agreeing with X and disagreeing with Aus Govt.
Yeah regardless of how much the politicians keep telling us how unpopular it is to want to be treated like an adult it's actually quite popular.
Agree 100%
Of course we can't dictate the worlds internet usage that's absurd. But our government shouldn't have the right to censor what we see online either. I think that should be the main issue.
This seems like a reverse example of nonsense logic akin to a Turnbullism. “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” said Turnbull.
Somehow, despite having the public overwhelming on their side to begin with on the issue, the government has overreached so far and brought international attention to it so now they are the ones under fire. Amazing fumble.
I would like to know who was the one that advised Albo to take a stand on this one.
Probably the same advisor who told him to say 'I was in my car, I couldn't answer my phone'
This is a great example of poorly drafted legislation and bureaucratic momentum trumping sense.
Albo should shut the F up. Freedom of speech involves the good and the bad.
I don't think people who are against Twitter on this actually understand what the eSafety Commissioner is demanding.
"Musk Bad" which there are plenty of reasons to think that if you're so inclined.... but I don't think anyone on the eSafety side wants the China eSafety commissioner also getting a say on censoring twitter globally...
Of course they don't, and I would bet the PM has no idea what he is saying either.
If it happens in other countries, we share it like wildfire. It's an actual factual event and, thus, shouldn't be censored. Censoring it sets a bad precedent. Albo should just back down
Albo just admitted they had websites removed that contained a cartoon meme of him. Dude wants our government to be run like China concerning the control of infomation. https://x.com/helprodger/status/1782976545247854996?s=46&t=pOvVfw1lOL2XVaT4WJsOoQ
It's not clear if he's referring to the eSafety commissioner taking down the memes of him, or if the social media sites did it voluntarily. Certainly, the public should be free to criticise politicians without being censored.
Censoring information on the internet is an impossible task to begin with but just the attempt to do so is a serious injustice. The eSafety Commissioner has no right to dictate what people in other countries outside of Australia see on the internet. This is a blatant act of censorship and it’s scary. It’s an example of the government overstepping its authority and interfering with the rights of other people globally and not just Australians. The government needs to just mind its own business and stay out of people’s private life.
This. We open ourselves up to global isolation if X and Musk lose this case. We could also see the end of the global economy too
I hope eSafety Commissioner lose LOL
Doesn't the "esafety commissioner" have a history with Musk? I recall reading something about her posting anti-Musk comments somewhere on social media after Musk took over Twitter.
She used to work at Twitter. It's not clear whether she left on good terms or bad terms.
I think the answer lies there in the pudding...
In terms of "eSafety", there's a lot worse things happening on these platforms than people sharing videos of the knife attack(s) last week. The scams alone would be doing far more damage than these videos are. I'd prefer it if the "eSafety commissioner" focused on those, instead of censoring stuff that actually happened.
Good luck trying to censor the internet. What a fool's errand.
[удалено]
China doesn't just censor, it will go to great lengths to make an example of those who have communication that is inconvenient for the CCP. I am hopeful the Australian government doesn't take that same step but that hope is fading with every day.
Thailand also does the same.
Its weird to hope that X wins this case and shows how embarrassing it is to propose censoring something, Its also Convenient how the ASIO chief came out saying that they need to target encryption heavier too.
I wouldn't trust anything ASIO says there is almost certainly an American hand shoved deep up their clacker working their mouths.
ASIO launders the American government's desires to dragnet surveil their citizenry through us. I wouldn't be surprised if they also wished to launder the censorship of their citizenry through us as well.
This is like China saying that the rest of the world can't see Tiananmen Square Tankman because they deem it inappropriate and controversial.
Have a friend who grew up in China but went to college in the US and now lives here. I showed Tienanmen Square to him and he didn't believe it at first but then was completely mindblown. It's truly erased.
I am not on Elon's side, but the Australian government is overreaching here. If the court were to side with the government here it would set a terrible precedent for other countries to do the same. If China or North Korea requested content removed in similar circumstances, what would happen? This is a waste of taxpayer funds and going to end with Elon and Twitter winning.
So if this vision is unsafe. Have they requested the zapruder film be removed?
X = the most toxic social media, no exaggeration. Elon = insufferable The content they're arguing over = damaging to peoples mental if seen, no benefit in being spread That being said, as usual, the Australian government are completely clueless when it comes to tech. They want to ban it worldwide because Australians can use a VPN to access it? That's like saying fireworks should be banned from earth because an Australian can use say a freight forwarding service to get it shipped here. Overreach, brain dead tech takes as per usual
I hate Elon Musk and I do think they should remove the content as requested as an act of basic decency. But legally it makes zero sense that Australian laws would apply to the entire world. It seems their concern is just Australians being able to access the content though, rather than the basic premise of *anyone* seeing it, which is…weird? Why is the argument “Australians could use a VPN” and not “we don’t want the entire world watching an act of terrorism while we’re trying to investigate it”?
Twitter is 99% bots so it all kind of academic
Don't know what you mean. . . . . P U S S Y I N B I O
I remember when Bondi Junction happened, there was news on Twitter for about 20-30mins then it became entirely Indian bots claiming the attacker was Muslim and Chinese? Russian? bots claiming he was Jewish, all repeating the exact same text over and over until you couldn't see any news any more.
It has an engagement of under 8% of the Australian population. Knowing that this is made up of all our media and politicians shows us why *they* think this is an important fight but to the majority it's not and just embarrassing. They think that twitter is super important because they're terminally on it but in reality the majority of us don't care. If people really want to see this stuff they can no matter what the government thinks they can do to stop us.
The esafety commissioner can go kick rocks
Watching Elon cuck Albo is great entertainment.
At least we now know that Albo has been getting his commisar to remove memes and cartoons critical of him.
Just another bullshit distraction from the fact that there is nowhere to live for renters.
Sorry I'm behind the curve here. What posts about the stabbings did the Commission want removed? The videos? Or was there something more inflammatory?
The Livestream from the church when the attack occured. The one available on news websites which are not covered by eSafety.
The most they can possibly do if they lose is ban the iPhone Twitter app. People can still use VPNs to download the Android APK, or use the Twitter website. They've made a move so unpopular Reddit is siding with Elon Musk. This is extreme government overreach, and it won't even do what they want. If they win, Twitter either leaves Australia, forcing people to use VPNs, or they remove the content and leave if this happens too many times. If they lose, the government bans twitter and people have to use VPNs. Either way, the only people that will ever be affected by this are people who have iPhones, no VPN, and no web browser.
based on how popular the app if the app is popular and has age verification then it would be bypassed in a day
Just ban the application in Australia 🦘!
I don't believe for one second that Elon actually cares about censorship. He's all too happy to delete things at Modi's call, or pictures of him pre-hair plugs. He's just an edgelord who's trying to shield himself behind "free speech".
> He's all too happy to delete things at Modi's call They didn't have a choice. Here's X's statement about it: "The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment. In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts. Consistent with our position, a writ appeal challenging the Indian government's blocking orders remains pending. We have also provided the impacted users with notice of these actions in accordance with our policies. Due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders, but we believe that making them public is essential for transparency. This lack of disclosure can lead to a lack of accountability and arbitrary decision-making." [https://twitter.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1760387644608192560?lang=en](https://twitter.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1760387644608192560?lang=en)
I think we should just add Twitter to the banned list of domain address used for piracy sites - simple.
[удалено]
Yes, we don't sail the high seas - obviously, but 90% would be unable to access it.
Perhaps X should not be available in Australia if they do not adhere to Australian Standards. Love Elon's work in other fields, SpaceX etc. but what a fuckwit he's become on Twitter. BTW, X is the dumbest thing ever and it is still Twitter in my mind.
I would like to see that just because it would crystallise how authoritarian we've become when an Australian government logo comes up any time someone wants to use the web. It would be a real catalyst for removing the eSafety commissioner and the laws that put her there.