Australian prime minister labels Elon Musk ‘an arrogant billionaire who thinks he is above the law’
Australian prime minister labels Elon Musk ‘an arrogant billionaire who thinks he is above the law’
Anthony Albanese responds to X owner who criticised Australian authorities demanding videos of a Sydney church stabbing be removed
Cross posted from: https://beehaw.org/post/13351707
Australia’s prime minister has labelled X’s owner, Elon Musk, an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he is above the law” as the rift deepens between Australia and the tech platform over the removal of videos of a violent stabbing in a Sydney church.
On Monday evening in an urgent last-minute federal court hearing, the court ordered a two-day injunction against X to hide posts globally containing the footage of the alleged stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel on 15 April. The eSafety commissioner had previously directed X to remove the posts, but X had only blocked them from access in Australia pending a legal challenge.
Anthony Albanese on Tuesday said Musk was “a bloke who’s chosen ego and showing violence over common sense”.
“Australians will shake their head when they think that this billionaire is prepared to go to court fighting for the right to sow division and to show violent videos,” he told Sky News. “He is in social media, but he has a social responsibility in order to have that social licence.”
“What the eSafety commissioner is doing is doing her job to protect the interests of Australians. And the idea that someone would go to court for the right to put up violent content on a platform shows how out of touch Mr Musk is,” he said.
You're viewing a single thread.
X (twitter) is a signatory to the Christchurch Call set-up by Jacinda Ardern. Signatories agree among other things to suppress the dissemination of terrorism. Nobody is talking about this.
Signatories: https://www.christchurchcall.com/our-community
I checked the Christchurch Call website which clearly shows Xitter as a member of the community that agreed to:
"Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures."
Full text: https://www.christchurchcall.com/about/christchurch-call-text
What's the relevance?
I agree with the Christchurch Call, that platforms, media and govts should avoid disseminating and giving publicity to terrorists and their causes. If Xitter were to take down content for that reason, I'd applaud them. However, that is a voluntary agreement that should be self-enforced by the signatories upon themselves. Nothing there gives Australia the right to determine for the rest of the world what content may or may not be shared online.
What’s the relevance?
If a company signs a public pledge and then breaks it, that's worth knowing about.
Uh, the text goes on to say:
"including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements"
In other words, if law enforcement asks you to take it down, you will. That does not appear to have occurred here.
Again, they're not obeying the Christchurch agreement they signed. I agree with you on that point. That was not the point of my comment.
Well I've heard commentary here from at least half a dozen legal professionals and experts that the order made by the eSafety commissioner here is legal and appropriate.
One pointed out that this means that representatives of the organisation visiting Australia could end up behind bars.
Others point out that this could result in a ban of the platform.
Fortunately I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be one on the internet. I guess we'll both see how this plays out..
It may be legal and appropriate according to Australian law. That doesn't mean the rest of us around the world are ok with abiding by their laws and whatever they decide is 'acceptable' for us to watch. Especially given Australia's history of censorship when it comes to media and culture.
So if shitter didn't think it was appropriate, why did they ever sign saying they agreed to it?
This was a terrorist act, it's violent videos, no self respecting platform would want that content on there anyway, and why is it that shitter is the only platform that has a problem with this one?
The other platforms all took it down without even needing to be asked
Yes Australia doesn't have a great history when it comes to censorship, but musk is a deplorable human for fighting this one and it's a strange hill to die on
What point are you trying to make here? I've already stated that the content is objectionable, and that ideally Xitter should have taken it down themselves. The problem I, and everybody else here, has is that Australia does not have the authority to unilaterally decide what content the entire world may or may not access. This is regardless of the video content and it would be nice if you could discuss the actual point.
Shitter gave them the authority when they signed an agreement saying they would do the very thing you're upset Australia is asking them to do
Either they never should have signed, should announce publically that they no longer support and no longer wish to be a signatory to the statement, or should abide.
They can't sign things saying they will do everything to help remove these videos globally, and then get upset the first time someone asks them to. It doesn't matter if it's Australia or another party to the agreement, they agreed to it.
Sure. If the Christchurch group or Aussie govt wants to call them out for not honouring their agreement, shame them, kick them out, whatever, that's fine. I'm all for that. Fuck Xitter. I fully understand there's nothing noble about their motives. There is however a difference between that and legally forcing a platform to censor content worldwide. Australia is claiming legal authority over the entire world, how do you not see the issue there?
I think that the specifics matter. Specifically this video on that platform. I am fairly sure that the court will say the same thing. Again, I'm not a lawyer.
Xitter is pretending that this is about free speech and censorship.
It's not.
The eSafety commissioner hasn't asked to remove an objectionable cat video, it's asked to remove a terrorist video.
If this was a video depicting CSE the world would not even take a breath to demand its immediate removal.
Xitter is being disingenuous in its argument and its signature to the Christchurch Call just serves to further highlight that the individual in charge doesn't believe that rules apply to him.