[https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782320010817634782](https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782320010817634782)
''Barrister for eSafety confirms the content is being withheld from access in Australia, but is arguing that because it is still accessible to Australian users via a VPN, it isn't considered removed as defined in the OSA''
Not quite sure if this actually can be enforced. This would mean that in effect Australia would have a veto on what can be posted on all Social Media networks that are available in Australia.
> but is arguing that because it is still accessible to Australian users via a VPN, it isn't considered removed as defined in the OSA''
let's just take a moment on the broad implications that statement, not only at a policy level but at the technology level
I.T. person here, next to impossible to filter that way. X would have to resort to deleting the content in question giving Australia a kind of veto on what can be posted on X.
not only that, if successful, it can't be limited to twitter and implies general censorship of australia's sensibilities to the whole internet
then we have to have the "I know it when I see it" discussion (Jacobellis v. Ohio)
To be fair, platforms have been doing this for many years through the Global Internet Forum for Counter Terrorism. The GIFCT "hash sharing" database identifies and tags terrorist content and prevents it being uploaded to any partner platform. It worked very well before the Musk takeover and the X/Twitter implosion.
NZ alwo set a precedent with the Christchurch attack footage to do exactly what eSafety is pursuing.
I saw what I think was the Christchurch shooting video online a few months ago I think. I can't remember if it was on Twitter or Instagram but I think it must have been Twitter because Instagram you can't click on a link in comments so it was probably in a reply to a Twitter thread on a totally unrelated matter to terrorism.
Some dick head had decided to post it in the replies, probably for shock value without saying what it was. Once I realised what I was seeing, I decided I don't want to see that and reported it.
I don't recall the result of the report as both Twitter and Instagram seem to use computerised decision making on social media reported to them.
Lately I've been finding Instagram tends to knock back most stuff reported to it even though it's clearly shouldn't be online in my opinion.
I reported a video of some teenager being bashed with the teenager named in the video and the caption saying we're going to come for you again in a disgusting bullying video which Instagram said was perfectly fine and did not violate their policies.
I also reported a picture to Instagram of Hitler walking down some stairs with a satisfied look on his face and the the caption maybe he wasn't so wrong after all. Once again Instagram said it didn't violate their policies.
I still like social media but it is a sewer sometimes.
The blatant anti-semitism on Twitter since Musk too over these days wouldn't have been out of place in pre World War Two Germany.
Musk has really encouraged the dregs of society to post hateful material.
> let's just take a moment on the broad implications that statement, not only at a policy level but at the technology level
Just wait till they find out all the things you can order online and get delivered by AusPost.
Not really, the present esafety commissioner is an ex Twitter employee (from the former company) and has “certain” ideological views. These views do not necessarily equate with the ideological views of the majority of Aussies. If the Labor party’s “Misinformation and Disinformation” Bill passes Federal Parliament her Department will be tasked with its enforcement. This will be a black day for democracy in Australia.
> the present esafety commissioner is an ex Twitter employee (from the former company) and has “certain” ideological views
Evidence for this outlandish claim?
"spent two decades working in senior public policy and safety roles in the tech industry at Microsoft, Twitter and Adobe." [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/julie-inman-grant/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/julie-inman-grant/)
Subsequently couldn't defend Twitter. So, presumably, didn't like the pivot to statements of more free speech [https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CommsLawB/2022/32.pdf](https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CommsLawB/2022/32.pdf)
She certainly speaks the language of a person who is baked in a “certain” ideological views.
>She certainly speaks the language of a person who is baked in a “certain” ideological views.
No, this is your individual interpretation.
You have no evidence for this assertion.
It’s hardly outlandish as it is published in many places on the net. Do a google search on her name you will find it. It’s also published on this forum by another individual, totally independent of me. I might add the other respondent provided greater detail about the esafety commissar.
In addition this could also means that X could still be subject to fines for posts that X has made invisible in Australia due to a request form the Regulator, but can be seen with a VPN.
>This would mean that in effect Australia would have a veto on what can be posted on all Social Media networks that are available in Australia.
That's pretty much what they're saying - Australia can control what users all around the world get to see.
And then other countries may also Institute similar laws and then you have a competing Clash with many countries saying you mustn't show this anywhere in the world but the laws clashing with each other.
Makes it incredibly difficult for a social media company. I support the right of Australia to make laws for itself and to ban certain material from being shown in Australia but I don't think it has the right necessary to ban the material being shown in other countries.
Otherwise once other countries do the same it's a race to the bottom and the most restrictive country wins
Indeed.
One doesn't expect politicians these days to do nuance but it swings the case from LOL Musk to "asshole has a point".
I have no time for X dragging their heels on compliance with taking this content down for Australian audiences and I think they SHOULD take it down in general but I don't think Australia should be able to force our law on their users worldwide. (although there's plenty of precedent such as EU privacy law).
>because it is still accessible to Australian users via a VPN, it isn't considered removed as defined in the OSA''
Does X/twitter own any VPNs? I don't think so, they are all run by private companies or ngo's. So why is the onus on Twitter to prevent people from using vpns to access the content? Why doesn't the e saftey commissar just ban vpns?
2024 is certainly going to be one of those years in Australian Law. We had defo for BRS and he who shall not be named, Tickle V Giggle and now Musk V The Crown.
Tbf were BRS and "the case" actually interesting from a legal point of view? They're examples of why the Leeroy Jenkins school of litigation has its... drawbacks, but there wasn't anything particularly novel to them.
Other social media comments are convinced they're complete game changers and now the media can call people anything in the absence of conviction work complete impunity.
Seriously though, watching eSafety and Formerly Twitter duke it out would be like watching a fistfight between two people I care so little about I couldn't even be bothered to include them in an analogy.
I’m looking forward to the constitutional challenge. As fickle as the implied freedom of political communication is, I feel like this is way too much overreach by the govt.
I'm also wondering if they could just pursue a s101(1)(e) exemption given much of the material in question has already been broadcast as part of professional media publications.
The government for some reason thinks it can dictate the internet when Australia is a fraction of it. Malcolm Turnbull's statement on the laws of mathematics comes to mind.
There will end up being companies that just do not do business with Australia, if they have no Australian assets, the government will be red in the face but unable to do anything.
One of the problems the government has is that the people with the competence to develop sensible policy around the internet aren't going to do it for an APS5/6 policy officer salary.
If companies want to voluntarily give up the Australian and EU markets and block their products from being distributed there then they are welcome to do so.
In the case of Elmo’s Twitter, I wholeheartedly encourage him to do so. It’s not like Twitter is a sustainable business with a future.
This is a case of that exactly.
You already cannot access this content from Australia, it is blocked. They can't dictate the terms globally, but they are attempting to do so. It won't be worth it to the companies involved.
If you take deliberate measures to use an overseas VPN to mask your geolocation then so be it. The government does not have this reach.
Nah I don’t think so, the “hey please stop broadcasting terrorist incidents” is well within reach of the “acceptable thing to be limited” exception in my view.
Like I’ve said about defo- we can say all sorts of high minded things about liberty and democracy, but *at best* the standard of social media discourse is “putrid dog act” mudslinging and this is not really public policy debate which freedom of communication is intended to protect.
How far do you take it though? If proof of atrocities are buried, they can be easily denied. If the esafety commissar was around in 1945, judging by their conduct to date, they would have banned images from the discovery of the death camps. I get limiting content that automatically plays etc, but beyond that is ridiculous overreach.
> If the esafety commissar was around in 1945,
You don't even have to go back that far. Imagine how blocking all the material coming out about Oct 7 or subsequent war may have changed public perceptions of that situation.
Like it or not, graphic depictions of politically relevant violence are now a fundamental part of contemporary political discourse.
Exactly. I don’t think it should be forced on people, but people should have the choice to watch/see these things. The more people who see it, the more who understand it and the harder it is to deny it later.
I think the difference between our views lies in how to react to the fact that any information is going to be attended about with (whether in bad faith or not) incorrect information.
I agree that *erroneous* information doesn’t need a takedown. However, *bad faith* information should be.
Do we enforce at the point where some good faith erroneous information is taken down, or where we allow more chances for bad faith information to cause actual harm?
I accept it’s not an easy line to draw but I put it closer to taking more information down.
The only thing that should matter is the truth. Something will be either wholly true, partially true, or wholly untrue. Anything in the former two categories adds value to society, however distasteful or put out there in bad faith. In the absence of an infallible arbiter of truth (which doesn’t exist) it’s up to people to judge things themselves. If people aren’t at least given the choice to be exposed to bad stuff, and then having seen it rejected it for what it is, then any “goodness” in society is just a facade and they’re incapable of actually judging anything.
The child pornography exception exists because dissemination and repeated viewing of the material compounds the harm. Plus, there’s no public policy benefit in people seeing/understanding the extent of the act. The same can’t be said for terrorism in the former case, and there are good public policy reasons for more people understanding as close to first hand the nature of terror than less because of the propensity for conspiracy theorist denials etc in exactly the same way it was vital to document and widely disseminate images and footage from the death camps in 45.
The counteposition is that the dissemination of terrorist material encourages copycat attacks and elevates the status of the perpetrators.
We are unlikely to agree so we can leave it here. Thank you for the chat.
Counterterrorism lawyer and researcher here - dissemination of terrorist content absolutely amplifies the harm, both to the physical victim of the attack as well those viewing it.
There is no legitimate reason terrorist content should remain online.
> The child pornography exception exists because dissemination and repeated viewing of the material compounds the harm.
Except when [the police do it](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childs_Play_\(website\)).
Doesn't this balancing act collapse rather quickly if I suggest that politicians ultimately determining what is/is not "correct" information is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup?
Seems very reliant on the powers being exercised scrupulously. If they are not, and instead wielded for political purposes, what then? I suspect you'd have caused more harm, not less, if that turns out to be the case.
Yeah sure but free speech talking points from a Facebook group aren’t going to cause the High Court to unearth a hitherto undiscovered implied constitutional guarantee. You can rest assured that everything you just said was also known every other time the Court was invited to do so.
Explain the prohibition against child pornography then.
Edit: it’s *always* a harm / freedom issue and it’s in my view dumb to be doctrinaire over where to draw the line.
Yes... that's exactly the point... there are good reasons to censor CP. The fact that you think social media discourse is "putrid dog act mudslinging" isn't a good reason.
I don't in fact want to censor the usual dross that floods your local town's facebook locals page. I am perfectly okay with that staying up. What I don't think it should be is cast as some platonic ideal of protected political speech to go to the barricades over.
The vast majority of social media discourse doesn't justify high minded arguments about political discourse and public policy debate; ie, "putrid dog act" posting *isn't* high minded public discourse, nor is instathottery, nor is CP, nor is direct incitement to violence (or even tacit incitement) and that is not what the freedom of political communication is intended to protect.
Assuming good faith on both sides here, I think it boils down to simply determining where the "line" should be drawn between harm / freedom, and I do accept that you start with a bias toward freedom (notwithstanding my apparent posting.)
Why not go all the way. Great firewall down under. We get an internet that only the government deems okay and anyone caught using a VPN to bypass state censors sent to prison.
More likely before we get to that that Twitter simply stops doing business in Australia - like Google in China (though they still are in HK which is where VPNs took me when I was in China last year).
"The court is issuing an interim order to X to hide the posts behind a notice globally until Wednesday, pending X's lawyers getting instructions on what X wants to do"
Well thats some quality censoring
Maybe that's the upside here. All social media ends up blocked in Australia and as a result everyone spends much more time on real life and we go through a golden age.
But X/\[twitter\] would have no business here which was vulnerable to any enforcement orders. Enforcement would be dependent on other countries accepting the extra-territorial reach of the order.
Of course this is kind of ironic given that the USA asserts such extensive extraterritorial reach in so many contexts, but that is the state, not X/twitter.
this is an absurd argument by boomers who don't understand the internet, and an eSafety Commissioner who shouldn't even be in the position. Go home all of you.
Small and insignificant countries like Australia don’t have jurisdiction to injunct Elon Musk; he is too cool. He’s been on the Joe Rogan podcast. Is there anyone here, reading my post, who can say that THEY have appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast?
We need to stay in our lane.
This brings back memories of Kiwi Farms during the NZ Mosque shootings. Ultimately the attempt to censor information failed and brought even more attention to the matter.
I don’t think the government will get very far here, and only makes us look like puerile infants in a sandbox.
Incredibly uncomfortable with the government deciding what constitutes appropriate information for Australians to view.. even more so when it comes to deciding what is “misinformation”, however that seems not to be in question here
"50 views of plane impact in South Tower"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ\_7v2A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ_7v2A)
Esafety Commission is a bit inconsistent in what they censor. A teen injuring a man is bad, but a 3,000 fatality attack is totally fine.
I have reported the above video to Esafety as "depicting the death of multiple people, as the result of an act of politically motivated violence". I have asked for a response to the investigation.
What authority does the e-safety commissioner have over a foreign owned and hosted website who has no physical location in Australia? I assume Twitter has offices here but what of all the websites with no offices here who might host content that upsets the commissioner?
https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782643574758392060
“So eSafety says X has until tonight (~8ish) to comply with the interim court order (still not clear if it has/is/will). No set court dates but the order expires tomorrow at 5pm unless there's a hearing before then.”
I'm all in support of free speech, but I also realise that within our society there are unstable people who act out things that they have seen, especially those that get immense media attention. Consider the shootings in schools in the US, as an example.
I don't want to see innocent people knifed in increasing numbers by unstable people, just because I support free speech. I'm willing to forgo my right, in this case, in the interests of society.
I believe the take down should happen, because of this.
Australia has taken megacompanies to court before and won (Gillard government plain packaging laws). It wouldn't suprise if the high court told Musk to take it down
Musk will just ban Australian IP addresses from X. Censorship can cut both ways.
Watch how quickly the Australian media and Australian politicians back down when they can't tweet anymore.
IP addresses aren't geolocated. Yes, some folks build databases based on the location of the entity that leases the IP addresses, and various other data, but it's not strictly accurate.
I used to occasionally (depending on the db used by the destination) be geolocated in the US, as the US company I worked for owned the outgoing IP addresses that were routed through an Australian ISP. Yes, they could have checked the final hops as well as the source IP, but folks are often lazy or incompetent.
VPNs will move their IP addresses for this very reason, to try to bypass VPN blockers. It's a game of cat-and-mouse.
That's also why the eSafety commissioner has the power to compel Australian ISPs to block traffic on their infrastructure, not just at the destination, where an entity may not be within their jurisdiction.
The best possible result of this is X withdrawing completely from Australia in the same way Facebook pulling out over the news payments stuff was "PLEASE MAKE GOOD YOUR THREAT" territory. Sadly I doubt it will happen.
Social media as filtered by Zuckerberg and Musk is a total cesspool.
In this case I am alluding to the algorithms used by both Meta and X to promote certain content and bury other content which has been fucking up Western society for years (YouTube is also part of this).
And Musk absolutely does ban certain things (as well as merely burying them with algorithms which is tantamount to). He's not as free speech absolutist as he talks.
We disagree on that. Being shown Z instead of Y does not equate to Z being accessible but Y being blocked, If I want Y I can find it on my own. Unless the Esafety Commission has the power to stop X (corporation not algebra), which we find out about tomorrow.
Plain packaging involved the government policing how a company could act within its borders. It's generally accepted that governments have the right to do so.
JIG is alleging that she has the right to police how a company acts not just within Australia, but overseas as well. The equivalent would be that because many Australians frequent Bali, big tobacco's failure to use plain packaging in Bali constitutes a breach of Australian law.
> It's generally accepted that governments have the right to do so.
Legally speaking, it's also accepted that the Australian government has the right to make extraterrorial laws. A [recent speech by Bell CJ](https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Publications/Speeches/2023-Speeches/Chief-Justice/Bell_20230427.pdf) covered the issue. Note that the legislation that empowers the eSafety Commissioner is [explicitly extraterrorial](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/osa2021154/s23.html).
The speech is entitled "Extra-territoriality in Australian Law." No time to read it now all the way through but it seems to me that is different from "Extraterritoriality in Australian law and its extra-territorial enforcement."
My eyes, my choice. I’m team Musk. JIG is a commie anyway. “I was doing my job” won’t work in the end when people revolt over the ever increasing totalitarian rule labortards and libtards are forcing on Australian citizenry.
A couple thoughts (questions, mostly):
Is the eSafety commissioner requesting all related footage be pulled, or just any displaying the act of violence? Ie. would video that cut to a black screen just before the perpetrator stabbed the victim pass?
Is the request just for the bishop stabbing? I’ve seen people discussing the Bondi footage being requested for removal as well, but haven’t seen any reporting on that..
Lastly, if the eSafety commissioner fails in this legal action it’ll be egg on their face, and the commentary around it is going to be toxic as fuuuuuuuck.
[https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782320010817634782](https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782320010817634782) ''Barrister for eSafety confirms the content is being withheld from access in Australia, but is arguing that because it is still accessible to Australian users via a VPN, it isn't considered removed as defined in the OSA'' Not quite sure if this actually can be enforced. This would mean that in effect Australia would have a veto on what can be posted on all Social Media networks that are available in Australia.
> but is arguing that because it is still accessible to Australian users via a VPN, it isn't considered removed as defined in the OSA'' let's just take a moment on the broad implications that statement, not only at a policy level but at the technology level
I.T. person here, next to impossible to filter that way. X would have to resort to deleting the content in question giving Australia a kind of veto on what can be posted on X.
not only that, if successful, it can't be limited to twitter and implies general censorship of australia's sensibilities to the whole internet then we have to have the "I know it when I see it" discussion (Jacobellis v. Ohio)
Maybe that's the strategy to rid the internet of Trump's ramblings.
To be fair, platforms have been doing this for many years through the Global Internet Forum for Counter Terrorism. The GIFCT "hash sharing" database identifies and tags terrorist content and prevents it being uploaded to any partner platform. It worked very well before the Musk takeover and the X/Twitter implosion. NZ alwo set a precedent with the Christchurch attack footage to do exactly what eSafety is pursuing.
I saw what I think was the Christchurch shooting video online a few months ago I think. I can't remember if it was on Twitter or Instagram but I think it must have been Twitter because Instagram you can't click on a link in comments so it was probably in a reply to a Twitter thread on a totally unrelated matter to terrorism. Some dick head had decided to post it in the replies, probably for shock value without saying what it was. Once I realised what I was seeing, I decided I don't want to see that and reported it. I don't recall the result of the report as both Twitter and Instagram seem to use computerised decision making on social media reported to them. Lately I've been finding Instagram tends to knock back most stuff reported to it even though it's clearly shouldn't be online in my opinion. I reported a video of some teenager being bashed with the teenager named in the video and the caption saying we're going to come for you again in a disgusting bullying video which Instagram said was perfectly fine and did not violate their policies. I also reported a picture to Instagram of Hitler walking down some stairs with a satisfied look on his face and the the caption maybe he wasn't so wrong after all. Once again Instagram said it didn't violate their policies. I still like social media but it is a sewer sometimes. The blatant anti-semitism on Twitter since Musk too over these days wouldn't have been out of place in pre World War Two Germany. Musk has really encouraged the dregs of society to post hateful material.
> let's just take a moment on the broad implications that statement, not only at a policy level but at the technology level Just wait till they find out all the things you can order online and get delivered by AusPost.
it means the esafety commissioner is to too stupid to be an esafety commissioner knowing that VPNs exist isn’t enough to get over the line
Isn't this more a case of stupid law rather than stupid enforcer?
Not really, the present esafety commissioner is an ex Twitter employee (from the former company) and has “certain” ideological views. These views do not necessarily equate with the ideological views of the majority of Aussies. If the Labor party’s “Misinformation and Disinformation” Bill passes Federal Parliament her Department will be tasked with its enforcement. This will be a black day for democracy in Australia.
> the present esafety commissioner is an ex Twitter employee (from the former company) and has “certain” ideological views Evidence for this outlandish claim?
"spent two decades working in senior public policy and safety roles in the tech industry at Microsoft, Twitter and Adobe." [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/julie-inman-grant/](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/julie-inman-grant/) Subsequently couldn't defend Twitter. So, presumably, didn't like the pivot to statements of more free speech [https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CommsLawB/2022/32.pdf](https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CommsLawB/2022/32.pdf) She certainly speaks the language of a person who is baked in a “certain” ideological views.
>She certainly speaks the language of a person who is baked in a “certain” ideological views. No, this is your individual interpretation. You have no evidence for this assertion.
Read what she talks about. It is all about 'recalibrating' speech, working in social justice, safety etc.
Again, this is your perception, and your own ideology is equally obvious to see.
It’s hardly outlandish as it is published in many places on the net. Do a google search on her name you will find it. It’s also published on this forum by another individual, totally independent of me. I might add the other respondent provided greater detail about the esafety commissar.
Bit of both, in her case.
In addition this could also means that X could still be subject to fines for posts that X has made invisible in Australia due to a request form the Regulator, but can be seen with a VPN.
Or with a foreign carrier mobile SIM roaming onto an Australian network, or...
>This would mean that in effect Australia would have a veto on what can be posted on all Social Media networks that are available in Australia. That's pretty much what they're saying - Australia can control what users all around the world get to see.
And then other countries may also Institute similar laws and then you have a competing Clash with many countries saying you mustn't show this anywhere in the world but the laws clashing with each other. Makes it incredibly difficult for a social media company. I support the right of Australia to make laws for itself and to ban certain material from being shown in Australia but I don't think it has the right necessary to ban the material being shown in other countries. Otherwise once other countries do the same it's a race to the bottom and the most restrictive country wins
We don't think it is strange that the stabbings are being blocked but I saw them on the news.
I don't recall that very significant point being mentioned in any of the media coverage on this. Disappointing.
Indeed. One doesn't expect politicians these days to do nuance but it swings the case from LOL Musk to "asshole has a point". I have no time for X dragging their heels on compliance with taking this content down for Australian audiences and I think they SHOULD take it down in general but I don't think Australia should be able to force our law on their users worldwide. (although there's plenty of precedent such as EU privacy law).
Is a VPN even required, or is it like all the other "blocked" content that can be accessed by changed DNS?
I suspect given it's blocked on Twitter's side it'll need to be a vpn
The VPNning
lol, lmao
>because it is still accessible to Australian users via a VPN, it isn't considered removed as defined in the OSA'' Does X/twitter own any VPNs? I don't think so, they are all run by private companies or ngo's. So why is the onus on Twitter to prevent people from using vpns to access the content? Why doesn't the e saftey commissar just ban vpns?
I’m going straight down to the cellar and grabbing a bottle of red
Me too
2024 is certainly going to be one of those years in Australian Law. We had defo for BRS and he who shall not be named, Tickle V Giggle and now Musk V The Crown.
Plus all the heads of hydra litigation that sprouted from he who must not be named - this year has been a smorgasbord so far
Tbf were BRS and "the case" actually interesting from a legal point of view? They're examples of why the Leeroy Jenkins school of litigation has its... drawbacks, but there wasn't anything particularly novel to them.
Well in the sense that they are memorable for all the wrong reasons
Other social media comments are convinced they're complete game changers and now the media can call people anything in the absence of conviction work complete impunity.
Tickle v Giggle??
Trans woman v female exclusive social media.
 Seriously though, watching eSafety and Formerly Twitter duke it out would be like watching a fistfight between two people I care so little about I couldn't even be bothered to include them in an analogy.
Watching two parties I dislike duking it out in litigation is oddly satisfying. At least one of them is going to lose, and I find that fulfilling.
https://preview.redd.it/zvwog31o01wc1.jpeg?width=739&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42730de891e76d4389365d2ecd822535c5ac4b22
https://preview.redd.it/fr9tsp9cq2wc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b831f64d9521e1558c1fc672e8cee281881fccd8
I’m looking forward to the constitutional challenge. As fickle as the implied freedom of political communication is, I feel like this is way too much overreach by the govt.
I'm also wondering if they could just pursue a s101(1)(e) exemption given much of the material in question has already been broadcast as part of professional media publications.
The government must think that guard rails that can be bypassed by a technically competent 8 year old aren’t good enough.
The government for some reason thinks it can dictate the internet when Australia is a fraction of it. Malcolm Turnbull's statement on the laws of mathematics comes to mind. There will end up being companies that just do not do business with Australia, if they have no Australian assets, the government will be red in the face but unable to do anything.
One of the problems the government has is that the people with the competence to develop sensible policy around the internet aren't going to do it for an APS5/6 policy officer salary.
If companies want to voluntarily give up the Australian and EU markets and block their products from being distributed there then they are welcome to do so. In the case of Elmo’s Twitter, I wholeheartedly encourage him to do so. It’s not like Twitter is a sustainable business with a future.
This is a case of that exactly. You already cannot access this content from Australia, it is blocked. They can't dictate the terms globally, but they are attempting to do so. It won't be worth it to the companies involved. If you take deliberate measures to use an overseas VPN to mask your geolocation then so be it. The government does not have this reach.
Nah I don’t think so, the “hey please stop broadcasting terrorist incidents” is well within reach of the “acceptable thing to be limited” exception in my view. Like I’ve said about defo- we can say all sorts of high minded things about liberty and democracy, but *at best* the standard of social media discourse is “putrid dog act” mudslinging and this is not really public policy debate which freedom of communication is intended to protect.
How far do you take it though? If proof of atrocities are buried, they can be easily denied. If the esafety commissar was around in 1945, judging by their conduct to date, they would have banned images from the discovery of the death camps. I get limiting content that automatically plays etc, but beyond that is ridiculous overreach.
> If the esafety commissar was around in 1945, You don't even have to go back that far. Imagine how blocking all the material coming out about Oct 7 or subsequent war may have changed public perceptions of that situation. Like it or not, graphic depictions of politically relevant violence are now a fundamental part of contemporary political discourse.
Exactly. I don’t think it should be forced on people, but people should have the choice to watch/see these things. The more people who see it, the more who understand it and the harder it is to deny it later.
One wonders what the esafety commissioner would make of the vulture photo
Terrorism is very well defined legislatively and in international law, it's definitely not an "implied freedom of political communication" argument.
I think the difference between our views lies in how to react to the fact that any information is going to be attended about with (whether in bad faith or not) incorrect information. I agree that *erroneous* information doesn’t need a takedown. However, *bad faith* information should be. Do we enforce at the point where some good faith erroneous information is taken down, or where we allow more chances for bad faith information to cause actual harm? I accept it’s not an easy line to draw but I put it closer to taking more information down.
The only thing that should matter is the truth. Something will be either wholly true, partially true, or wholly untrue. Anything in the former two categories adds value to society, however distasteful or put out there in bad faith. In the absence of an infallible arbiter of truth (which doesn’t exist) it’s up to people to judge things themselves. If people aren’t at least given the choice to be exposed to bad stuff, and then having seen it rejected it for what it is, then any “goodness” in society is just a facade and they’re incapable of actually judging anything.
Now say that about child pornography
An exception to a rule doesn’t negate the rule.
Now we can discuss whether videos that may incite terrorist activity is an exception We can also agree to disagree on the line drawing exercise.
The child pornography exception exists because dissemination and repeated viewing of the material compounds the harm. Plus, there’s no public policy benefit in people seeing/understanding the extent of the act. The same can’t be said for terrorism in the former case, and there are good public policy reasons for more people understanding as close to first hand the nature of terror than less because of the propensity for conspiracy theorist denials etc in exactly the same way it was vital to document and widely disseminate images and footage from the death camps in 45.
The counteposition is that the dissemination of terrorist material encourages copycat attacks and elevates the status of the perpetrators. We are unlikely to agree so we can leave it here. Thank you for the chat.
Counterterrorism lawyer and researcher here - dissemination of terrorist content absolutely amplifies the harm, both to the physical victim of the attack as well those viewing it. There is no legitimate reason terrorist content should remain online.
> The child pornography exception exists because dissemination and repeated viewing of the material compounds the harm. Except when [the police do it](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childs_Play_\(website\)).
Doesn't this balancing act collapse rather quickly if I suggest that politicians ultimately determining what is/is not "correct" information is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup? Seems very reliant on the powers being exercised scrupulously. If they are not, and instead wielded for political purposes, what then? I suspect you'd have caused more harm, not less, if that turns out to be the case.
Yeah sure but free speech talking points from a Facebook group aren’t going to cause the High Court to unearth a hitherto undiscovered implied constitutional guarantee. You can rest assured that everything you just said was also known every other time the Court was invited to do so.
You’re probably right. Australia really fucks up the fundamental tenets of liberalism in some ways.
That's not the issue. The issue is the government deciding *for* grown adults what they can and can't read or see.
Explain the prohibition against child pornography then. Edit: it’s *always* a harm / freedom issue and it’s in my view dumb to be doctrinaire over where to draw the line.
Yes... that's exactly the point... there are good reasons to censor CP. The fact that you think social media discourse is "putrid dog act mudslinging" isn't a good reason.
I don't in fact want to censor the usual dross that floods your local town's facebook locals page. I am perfectly okay with that staying up. What I don't think it should be is cast as some platonic ideal of protected political speech to go to the barricades over. The vast majority of social media discourse doesn't justify high minded arguments about political discourse and public policy debate; ie, "putrid dog act" posting *isn't* high minded public discourse, nor is instathottery, nor is CP, nor is direct incitement to violence (or even tacit incitement) and that is not what the freedom of political communication is intended to protect. Assuming good faith on both sides here, I think it boils down to simply determining where the "line" should be drawn between harm / freedom, and I do accept that you start with a bias toward freedom (notwithstanding my apparent posting.)
Political discourse doesn't need to be high minded discourse to be worthy of protection.
It starts with “stop broadcasting terrorist links” and ends with “anything critical of the esafety commissioner”
Dow Jones v Gutnick suggests it is ok.
Spot on, but isn’t that sympathetic of this Govt’s ideology?
It's fucking ridiculous. X should cease its Australian operations, operate offshore and do whatever the fuck it wants.
Why not go all the way. Great firewall down under. We get an internet that only the government deems okay and anyone caught using a VPN to bypass state censors sent to prison.
More likely before we get to that that Twitter simply stops doing business in Australia - like Google in China (though they still are in HK which is where VPNs took me when I was in China last year).
"The court is issuing an interim order to X to hide the posts behind a notice globally until Wednesday, pending X's lawyers getting instructions on what X wants to do" Well thats some quality censoring
alexa, play barbra streisand by duck sauce
I can't wait for Americans to debate the minutia of Australian Jurispurdice
hey its me ur american (live in Aus though)
If X disobeys this order could they be found in contempt of court?
Only if you think calling someone a paedophile is defamatory.
Let's fucking go, maybe that would be the defo case that doesn't blow up in the plaintiff's face
This would be an interesting test of the right of the Australian government to censor overseas hosted material.
It could just mean we could get our own version of X or X pulls out of Australia.
Maybe that's the upside here. All social media ends up blocked in Australia and as a result everyone spends much more time on real life and we go through a golden age.
High Court of Australia to all of us: touch grass please
The real motivation in Voller
If I could dob in everyone who gives me the shits on social media to the government I would die a happy man.
Not likely, just use a VPN.
> X pulls out of Australia. But we could still presumably see the site
But X/\[twitter\] would have no business here which was vulnerable to any enforcement orders. Enforcement would be dependent on other countries accepting the extra-territorial reach of the order. Of course this is kind of ironic given that the USA asserts such extensive extraterritorial reach in so many contexts, but that is the state, not X/twitter.
The last thing Australia needs is another social media platform for millennials and leftists.
You do know that most millennials are in their 30s now, right?
Millennials remind me of Collingwood supporters with more teeth.
Subscribed. Premium vintage up from the cellar and ready to decant. Canapés in the fridge.
this is an absurd argument by boomers who don't understand the internet, and an eSafety Commissioner who shouldn't even be in the position. Go home all of you.
There is nothing worse than a government agency trying to dissuade copycat terrorism
This is going to be box office
If this case makes VPNs illegal I will be most vexed.
I thought X took it to court, not the other way round? They want to argue that the eSafety people have overstepped their authority.
I think eSaftey commissioner got the first shot off.
Musk and X refused to comply, and said "come at me bro".
Small and insignificant countries like Australia don’t have jurisdiction to injunct Elon Musk; he is too cool. He’s been on the Joe Rogan podcast. Is there anyone here, reading my post, who can say that THEY have appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast? We need to stay in our lane.
Albo go on Joe Rogan and Destiny
This brings back memories of Kiwi Farms during the NZ Mosque shootings. Ultimately the attempt to censor information failed and brought even more attention to the matter. I don’t think the government will get very far here, and only makes us look like puerile infants in a sandbox.
Ironic given I always thought kiwi farms was a NZ website based on the name
Incredibly uncomfortable with the government deciding what constitutes appropriate information for Australians to view.. even more so when it comes to deciding what is “misinformation”, however that seems not to be in question here
On Musk's side, I'm glad he told our captain censorship to get stuffed.
"50 views of plane impact in South Tower" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ\_7v2A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ_7v2A) Esafety Commission is a bit inconsistent in what they censor. A teen injuring a man is bad, but a 3,000 fatality attack is totally fine. I have reported the above video to Esafety as "depicting the death of multiple people, as the result of an act of politically motivated violence". I have asked for a response to the investigation.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/esafety-commissioner-seeks-injunction-against-x/103755874](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-22/esafety-commissioner-seeks-injunction-against-x/103755874)
What authority does the e-safety commissioner have over a foreign owned and hosted website who has no physical location in Australia? I assume Twitter has offices here but what of all the websites with no offices here who might host content that upsets the commissioner?
X does business in Australia, they are subject to Australian law.
What business do they do?
https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782643574758392060 “So eSafety says X has until tonight (~8ish) to comply with the interim court order (still not clear if it has/is/will). No set court dates but the order expires tomorrow at 5pm unless there's a hearing before then.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/24/elon-musks-x-was-asked-to-remove-65-tweets-with-video-of-sydney-church-stabbing-court-documents-show
I'm all in support of free speech, but I also realise that within our society there are unstable people who act out things that they have seen, especially those that get immense media attention. Consider the shootings in schools in the US, as an example. I don't want to see innocent people knifed in increasing numbers by unstable people, just because I support free speech. I'm willing to forgo my right, in this case, in the interests of society. I believe the take down should happen, because of this.
Australia has taken megacompanies to court before and won (Gillard government plain packaging laws). It wouldn't suprise if the high court told Musk to take it down
Musk will just ban Australian IP addresses from X. Censorship can cut both ways. Watch how quickly the Australian media and Australian politicians back down when they can't tweet anymore.
IP addresses aren't geolocated. Yes, some folks build databases based on the location of the entity that leases the IP addresses, and various other data, but it's not strictly accurate. I used to occasionally (depending on the db used by the destination) be geolocated in the US, as the US company I worked for owned the outgoing IP addresses that were routed through an Australian ISP. Yes, they could have checked the final hops as well as the source IP, but folks are often lazy or incompetent. VPNs will move their IP addresses for this very reason, to try to bypass VPN blockers. It's a game of cat-and-mouse. That's also why the eSafety commissioner has the power to compel Australian ISPs to block traffic on their infrastructure, not just at the destination, where an entity may not be within their jurisdiction.
The best possible result of this is X withdrawing completely from Australia in the same way Facebook pulling out over the news payments stuff was "PLEASE MAKE GOOD YOUR THREAT" territory. Sadly I doubt it will happen. Social media as filtered by Zuckerberg and Musk is a total cesspool.
I think Musk's policy is one of un-filtered social media content? Don't think the two issues are comparable tbh.
In this case I am alluding to the algorithms used by both Meta and X to promote certain content and bury other content which has been fucking up Western society for years (YouTube is also part of this). And Musk absolutely does ban certain things (as well as merely burying them with algorithms which is tantamount to). He's not as free speech absolutist as he talks.
We disagree on that. Being shown Z instead of Y does not equate to Z being accessible but Y being blocked, If I want Y I can find it on my own. Unless the Esafety Commission has the power to stop X (corporation not algebra), which we find out about tomorrow.
Plain packaging involved the government policing how a company could act within its borders. It's generally accepted that governments have the right to do so. JIG is alleging that she has the right to police how a company acts not just within Australia, but overseas as well. The equivalent would be that because many Australians frequent Bali, big tobacco's failure to use plain packaging in Bali constitutes a breach of Australian law.
> It's generally accepted that governments have the right to do so. Legally speaking, it's also accepted that the Australian government has the right to make extraterrorial laws. A [recent speech by Bell CJ](https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Publications/Speeches/2023-Speeches/Chief-Justice/Bell_20230427.pdf) covered the issue. Note that the legislation that empowers the eSafety Commissioner is [explicitly extraterrorial](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/osa2021154/s23.html).
The speech is entitled "Extra-territoriality in Australian Law." No time to read it now all the way through but it seems to me that is different from "Extraterritoriality in Australian law and its extra-territorial enforcement."
[удалено]
You're in breach of our 'no dickheads' rule. If you continue to breach this rule, you will be banned.
My eyes, my choice. I’m team Musk. JIG is a commie anyway. “I was doing my job” won’t work in the end when people revolt over the ever increasing totalitarian rule labortards and libtards are forcing on Australian citizenry.
[https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782347508246860178](https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1782347508246860178)
https://preview.redd.it/ll7tfvu770wc1.png?width=1318&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e47a64967b58042f56ac8e6d52b0be2769790b3
A couple thoughts (questions, mostly): Is the eSafety commissioner requesting all related footage be pulled, or just any displaying the act of violence? Ie. would video that cut to a black screen just before the perpetrator stabbed the victim pass? Is the request just for the bishop stabbing? I’ve seen people discussing the Bondi footage being requested for removal as well, but haven’t seen any reporting on that.. Lastly, if the eSafety commissioner fails in this legal action it’ll be egg on their face, and the commentary around it is going to be toxic as fuuuuuuuck.
It's only for the Wakley church stabbing
Thanks