Elon
Musk
is
currently
embroiled
in
a
battle
with
Australian
authorities
over
demands
for
X
to
remove
violent
content
of
a
stabbing
that
took
place
during
a
livestreamed
service
at
a
church
in
Sydney
last
week.
Musk
is
arguing
that
such
decisions
could
give
countries
the
power
to
control
“the
entire
internet,”
while
the
Australian
government
is
arguing
that
geoblocking
content
isn’t
enough
in
its
plea
for
decency
and
social
responsibility.
“Our
concern
is
that
if
ANY
country
is
allowed
to
censor
content
for
ALL
countries,
which
is
what
the
Australian
‘eSafety
Commissar’
is
demanding,
then
what
is
to
stop
any
country
from
controlling
the
entire
Internet?”
said
Musk,
noting
that
the
objectionable
content
is
already
geoblocked
in
Australia
and
only
resides
on
US
servers.
Meanwhile,
Australian
Prime
Minister
Anthony
Albanese
said
that
“social
media
companies,
that
make
a
lot
of
money
out
of
their
business,
have
a
social
responsibility”
to
remove
violent
content
from
their
platforms.
On
Monday,
the
Australian
eSafety
Commission
argued
that
geoblocking
did
not
meet
the
definition
of
removal
of
the
footage
under
the
Online
Safety
Act,
which
gives
Commissioner
Julie
Inman
Grant
power
to
order
the
removal
of
materials
that
“promotes,
incites,
instructs
in
or
depicts
abhorrent
violent
conduct,
such
as
kidnapping,
rape,
torture,
murder,
attempted
murder
and
terrorist
acts”
if
it
could
“go
viral
and
cause
significant
harm
to
the
Australian
community.”
This
dispute
started
on
April
16th,
when
Meta
and
X
—
formerly
known
as
Twitter
—
were
ordered
by
Inman
Grant
to
globally
remove
videos
and
imagery
of
the
stabbing
within
24
hours
or
risk
facing
fines
that
depend
on
“the
gravity
of
the
non-compliance.”
The
maximum
penalty
is
about
$500,000
per
violation,
according
to
The
Wall
Street
Journal.
In
a
blog
post
on
Monday,
Meta
said
it
had
complied
with
the
order
to
“protect
the
community
from
harmful
content.”
“While
the
majority
of
mainstream
social
media
platforms
have
engaged
with
us,
I
am
not
satisfied
enough
is
being
done
to
protect
Australians
from
this
most
extreme
and
gratuitous
violent
material
circulating
online,”
Inman
Grant
said
at
a
press
conference
on
April
16th.
“That
is
why
I
am
exercising
my
powers
under
the
Online
Safety
Act
to
formally
compel
them
to
remove
it.”
X’s
Global
Government
Affairs
team
responded
with
a
statement
a
few
days
later,
noting
it
had
complied
with
the
order
despite
claiming
the
posts
don’t
violate
the
platform’s
rules
on
violent
speech.
X
said
it
would
challenge
the
global
takedown
order
in
court
and
claimed
they
“go
against
the
very
principles
of
a
free
and
open
internet
and
threaten
free
speech
everywhere.”
On
Monday,
the
Federal
Court
of
Australia
hit
X
with
an
injunction
compelling
the
platform
to
temporarily
hide
the
violent
content
for
global
users
until
the
court
can
determine
the
validity
of
Inman
Grant’s
removal
notice.
“We’ll
do
what’s
necessary
to
take
on
this
arrogant
billionaire
who
thinks
he’s
above
the
law,
but
also
above
common
decency”
“We’ll
do
what’s
necessary
to
take
on
this
arrogant
billionaire
who
thinks
he’s
above
the
law,
but
also
above
common
decency,”
Albanese
told
ABC
News
on
Tuesday.
“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.
Social
media
needs
to
have
social
responsibility
with
it.
Mr
Musk
is
not
showing
any.”
Musk
has
lashed
out
multiple
times
on
X
over
the
ruling,
accusing
the
Australian
prime
minister
and
eSafety
commissioner
of
limiting
global
free
speech.
“Should
the
eSafety
Commissar
(an
unelected
official)
in
Australia
have
authority
over
all
countries
on
Earth?”
Musk
said
in
a
post,
having
previously
referred
to
Inman
Grant
as
the
“Australian
censorship
commissar.”
Earlier
this
month,
Musk
had
a
face-off
against
Brazil
after
he
claimed
to
have
defied
orders
to
block
certain
X
user
accounts,
prompting
an
investigation
over
potential
obstruction
of
justice.
The
spat
was
later
settled
on
April
15th
after
a
letter
from
Musk’s
lawyers
said
that
“all
orders
issued
by
this
Supreme
Court
and
the
Superior
Electoral
Court
will
continue
to
be
fully
complied
with
by
X
Corp.”
Original author: Jess Weatherbed
Comments