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.
I believe Musk would censor anything that upset an authoritarian regime if it aligned with his business/political interests. I don’t believe his arguments are in good faith.
Attempting to enforce the laws of our country against foreign companies that operate here is fair game. We have some leverage. We can have a debate domestically about if we think this should be enforced or not.
Personally I don’t see a problem with protecting victims of crime, their families and community whether it be child abuse material or graphic video of violent crime. I struggle to see a public interest or freedom of political speech angle that would justify a reasonable individual or company ignoring a sensible request to cease distribution.
Not all censorship is equal nor all enforcement mechanisms. We need more freedom here to criticize public figures as our defo laws are bonkers. Also the government should not attempt to apply wrong-headed technical impediments that would have unintended consequences because they don’t have sufficient expertise or the foresight to understand such actions.
@shirro @tardigrada
Not just *would*, but *has*.
Here’s the “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk, in his own words, in 2023:
“The rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country … If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-government-takedown/index.html
No way! I, a non politician also label Elon Musk as an arrogant billionaire who thinks he is above the law
Which is funny, because Trump targeted our ex Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd). So the left-wingers are doing something right.
Huh? The guy who introduced the carbon tax, wanted people to wear masks, and who was in ALP isn’t a left winger?
The guy who is regularly on friendly jordies isn’t a left winger? The guy who knows how to speak chinese isn’t?
What do you think he is lol
I’m not sure what speaking Chinese has to do with political leanings.
The fundamental difference here is that you seem to think the ALP and Friendlyjordies (who is an ALP shill) are firmly on the left side of Australian politics. I do not. Rudd is not even clearly from the left faction of this party that I do consider left-leaning, so there is absolutely no way I would ever describe him as a “left-winger”.
Elon Musk is an atrocious person, but the government of any country shouldn’t have the ability to remove content from the internet.
forgive me if im wrong, but isnt it removed from twitter if viewed from aussie?
Yes but the Australian govenrment is currently attempting to force Twitter to pull it worldwide. Musk’s “muh free speech” argument is obviously a moronic one in this example, but there is a broader question here about whether global take-down orders are a good thing for the internet or if any country should have the right to implement them.
any country should have the right to implement them.
in the absence of any treaty or international law it seems pretty absurd that a random bureaucrat in a 3rd rate power should be able to dictate such a thing.
but guess if twitter has an office in aussie, go nuts. musky boy can decide if he want to do business here or fuck off. fingers crossed for the latter to be honest.
@Ilandar @quoll You mean like the US government’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
I find all this a bit weak when none of these politicians are willing to even consider leaving X
@quicken @tardigrada Really great point.
If Albo really wanted to send a message to Musk, here’s how he could do it:
-
Ask all federal Labor MPs to stop posting on X, and start posting on Mastodon.
-
Order all federal government departments and agencies to stop posting on X, and start posting on Mastodon.
-
Bribe the states to do the same.
"Hi Queensland, guess what? We just found a billion dollars under the couch for a shiny new Olympic stadium. Hi Tasmania, likewise for your new AFL stadium. And look Victoria, here’s a few billion for the airport rail link — we’ll cover the cost difference to put the airport station underground.
“But only if you direct all your MPs, departments, and agencies to switch to Mastodon.”
@ajsadauskas @quicken @tardigrada @mrkvnz Australia should host a Government server and provide a default account for each citizen. Make it an official point of information for the nation.
@danbeeston @ajsadauskas @quicken @tardigrada
They should, at least have their own federated systems at all levels of government.
My initial boost onto these services was during the bigger floods. (2011) The bird site was invaluable source of information, and I wonder how that’s going to be handle for the next one.
Honestly, better to just have an official government server with official government accounts.
They can then federate as needed - official correspondence would be recognizable as it comes from their domain.
Meanwhile people would be able to remain on the servers they’ve chosen and follow whatever is of interest.
It might be better to legislate more power and enforcement capabilities to regulate social media companies. Many of them are close to monopolies in their niches and their network effects make competition almost impossible.
I do believe there are areas where it is more ethical and efficient for government to operate services (eg policing, public hospitals, emergency services, schools) but I don’t believe social media is one of them.
Sounds a bit too much like the Australia Card.
Also, it would also be government-controlled media.
