Australia secures takedown order for terror videos, which Elon Musk wants to fight
- Reference: 1713845712
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/04/23/australia_x_terror_video_takedown/
- Source link:
The incident saw an Australian man attack bishop Mari Emmanuel in Sydney, Australia. The act was live-streamed, as it took place as Emmanuel spoke before his congregation, and appears to have been motivated by Emmanuel's positions that saw the obscure Australia cleric become a minor social media personality.
Videos of the incident were widely shared after the attack.
[1]
Australian authorities declared the incident was a terrorist attack, based on local laws that define such acts as involving religiously or ideologically motivated violence. Australia, like many nations, feels content depicting such attacks is bad for social cohesion and can motivate others to commit similar acts.
[2]
[3]
The nation's eSafety Commissioner therefore used its power to contact social networks and asked them ensure videos of the act did not proliferate. Most tried to comply.
X geo-blocked the vids and [4]vowed to challenge a requirement to prevent the content being seen outside Australia.
[5]
On Monday, the eSafety Commissioner used the Federal Court to secure an injunction requiring X to take down videos depicting the act of terror – in part because Australians using virtual private networks could circumvent X's geoblocks.
X is yet to respond, but on Tuesday Musk [6]posed the question of whether the Commissioner should "have authority over all countries on Earth?"
[7]Tesla slashes vehicle and self-driving-ish software prices as shares plummet
[8]Tesla Cybertruck turns into world's most expensive brick after car wash
[9]X fixes URL blunder that could enable convincing social media phishing campaigns
[10]Musk burns bridges in Brazil after calling for senior judge to be impeached
The Register can't answer that question.
But we do know that X has joined with 130 countries and many other social networks in a pledge to avoid posting terrorist content, and to remove it expeditiously.
Ignoring The Christchurch Call
X made that commitment in 2019 when, as Twitter, it became a supporter of [11]The Christchurch Call – a set of 25 commitments designed to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.
The Call was developed in response to the March 2019 act of terror that saw an Australian man murder 51 people at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The murderer live-streamed his depraved acts, and those vile videos were widely shared.
The Call requires different commitments of government and online service providers. Among those required of the latter are the following actions:
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
Days after the Call was finalized, Twitter became a signatory. Elon Musk's renamed platform, X, is [12]listed as a supporter of the Call and therefore committed to the document's suggested actions.
In December 2022, Musk met with French president Emmanuel Macron, who [13]wrote that the billionaire "confirmed Twitter's participation to the Christchurch Call. There is no place for terrorist and violent extremist content anywhere."
[14]
17 months later, it appears Musk no longer holds the views Macron conveyed. And X, it appears, is ignoring the Christchurch Call in pursuit of Musk's maximalist definition of free speech.
The Christchurch Call opens by stating "A free, open and secure internet is a powerful tool to promote connectivity, enhance social inclusiveness and foster economic growth."
It goes on to lament that terrorist content can appear online, adding "The dissemination of such content online has adverse impacts on the human rights of the victims, on our collective security and on people all over the world."
The document also states "All action on this issue must be consistent with principles of a free, open and secure internet, without compromising human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression."
Those last four words, it seems, are Musk's loophole.
But in Australia, few think the billionaire has an out. Politicians of all stripes have described him as arrogant, acting as if he is above the law, and just plain irresponsible to permit circulation of content that depicts a vile act and has such clear potential for harm.
Your correspondent is an Australian citizen and feels the national mood will welcome tougher laws.
Ironically, it's foreseeable those changes will make life harder for those who, like Bishop Emmanuel, share strong views online. Musk's intransigence and inconsistency could therefore hurt the cause for which he claims he's fighting. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZieGvvMR7sC2fuBLePHbkgAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZieGvvMR7sC2fuBLePHbkgAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZieGvvMR7sC2fuBLePHbkgAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/22/asia_tech_news_roundup/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZieGvvMR7sC2fuBLePHbkgAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1782584820549202024
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/22/tesla_cuts_prices/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/20/cybertruck_car_wash_mode/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/10/x_fixes_url_blunder/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/08/musk_burns_bridges_in_brazil/
[11] https://www.christchurchcall.com
[12] https://www.christchurchcall.com/our-community/countries-and-states
[13] https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1598826591785820162
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZieGvvMR7sC2fuBLePHbkgAAAAQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Yup. Using my new found freedom of expression - Musk, you're a wanker of the highest order.
> Yes you can, it's just that you don't want to appear to agree with Musk. All of us can answer that question without hesitation.
Yeah, that was a strange comment. I'm sure that I have seen El Reg deride the USA's penchant for trying to export their laws and mores to other countries around the world, and rightly so. This is not a difficult question.
Personally, I'm not sure that the justifications given for making legal efforts to remove video evidence of these atrocities are at all warranted. Are we just supposed to take their word for it as what actually happened, with all their politically motivated biases and spin? I would rather have access to first hand accounts, rather than trust our lords and masters to give us anything straight.
"I would rather have access to first hand accounts, rather than trust our lords and masters to give us anything straight."
And how many of these "first hand accounts" are also missing significant context (or even purposefully tagged as different context than what it really is, in order to prove some point)? I would rather that everyone online could rub 2 brain cells together and work out for themselves who to trust and what to believe (and certainly, allowing people to post their experiences online, even if it includes graphic violence, is part of that mix)
"And how many of these "first hand accounts" are also missing significant context "
And how much of the Governmental controlled news is also missing context ? The cat swing both ways.
I would rather make the judgement for myself, I am not forced to watch a video or read "news" but if I choose to do so then that is my decision and what I do with that information is my responsibility.
There are no examples where Nanny States have not become dictatorships; all in the name of protecting the people.
Mich as I dislike generalising I find you, Khaptain, are an excellent guide to the morality, ethics and general rightness of a situation.
All I have to do is take a position which is opposite to yours and I know I'm on the right side of pretty much any conversation.
Please enlighten us with your definition of "the right side ".
your definition of "the right side ".
Whatever Elon thinks it should be today?
Posting AC?
So you can snark without actually putting your name to it?
What a shitty way to behave.
Re: Posting AC?
"So you can snark without actually putting your name to it?"
Posted by the AC - roflcopter
The problem isn't that Musk isn't wrong in his answer
Just that he's hypocritical in hiding behind "maximal free speech" to support keeping a video of people being murdered on his site, while he has no qualms about silencing the free speech of others whenever he feels like it.
If someone posted a video of one of his kids getting beaten up in school, do you really believe he'd leave it up in the name of "maximal free speech"? Hell no, he'd take that down immediately and permaban whoever posted or reposted it. He silenced someone posting publicly available flight information on the flimsy claim that it compromised the safety of his children, as if they're jet setting around on his private plane every other day. The real reason is that like all megalomaniacs, he believes in rules for others but not for himself.
Re: The problem isn't that Musk isn't wrong in his answer
No one is saying otherwise but, equally, none of that gives the Australian government a mandate to push their censorship upon the rest of the world. If ensuring none of their citizens sees said video were so critically important to them, they'd ban unregistered non-corporate VPNs and censor any site that doesn't march to their beat for Australian viewers. However, they will not do this because it is too overt and would constantly remind their citizens of their actions.
Almost no one with concerns over this cares to actually ensure this video is seen, they simply realise the potential consequences for extra-judicial censorship in squashing dissent and enabling criminal government behaviour.
Re: The problem isn't that Musk isn't wrong in his answer
I'm not a fan of government censorship however, as with all laws and acts committed by them, some leave a bad taste but are justifiable.
This is one of them.
Government has a duty to help keep wider society safe, the number of people who need to see a terrorist attack is generally the number of people who are tasked with analysing the events, tracking and bringing those responsible to justice.
Outside of that the main reason for posting and spreading that sort of content is to stoke up hatred and division which further encourages more terrorist atrocities.
Re: The problem isn't that Musk isn't wrong in his answer
And what about the rights of the victims? I would say that those do in fact count - and exposing world and dog to their suffering and making money (ok, losing less money) from that is really wrong. Basically by making money from people being murdered you are an accomplice (well... almost).
Oh, and all of the "yeah, but the gubmint is lying, covering up" crowd also claims the government is incompetent, which I find hilarious - if they are half as incompetent as they claim I cannot see how they cover up things so well.
Re: Gubmit incompetence
Strawman. Governments abusing anti terror laws for their own comfort against legitimate protest and whistle blowing is documented and incompetence in one area does not necessitate incompetence in all areas.
Re: The problem isn't that Musk isn't wrong in his answer
Again, no arguments here. If the Australian government wishes to impose any constitutional decisions upon its citizens, that is its business. However it is not its business to do this to the world. There are plenty of governments who would suppress things we cherish to keep their society "safe".
Re: The problem isn't that Musk isn't wrong in his answer
No arguments here either, but look at it this way. If *insert government name here* can't get content it doesn't like taken down internationally, it's only a matter of time until someone in that government tries to get VPNs regulated. Who knows how *that* will work out?
Re: The problem isn't that Musk isn't wrong in his answer
If someone posted a video of one of his kids getting beaten up in school, do you really believe he'd leave it up in the name of "maximal free speech"? Hell no, he'd take that down immediately and permaban whoever posted or reposted it.
Don't you remember the ElonJet bot getting banned? All it did was relay already public data, so much for "maximal free speech".
Come now Khapitan, you know as well as I do that the best chance Musk has of making money on Twitter now that he's run it into the ground is by appealing to the worst of humanity and hosting snuff videos. This is why he wants to fight it in court, no other reason.
Well, it'll work until advertisers realise their adverts are appearing next to people getting gunned down.
Previous form
Macron has on at least one other occasion come back from a meeting from a rich and powerful man with unlikely assurances, and had those assurances thoroughly disproven by events. At least this one wasn't cover for launching a war.
"should have" vs "does have"
Obviously, the commissioner only has the power to fine X in Australia, and since Musk would never pay, all Australia can do is shut down X at some entry points - cannot stop VPN though. However, that might start a trend - once others see it happening they'll get excited and maybe want to put the boot in too - figuratively speaking - it's not actual violence when it's inflicted on a social media company.
Musk's loophole
Musk's statement about freedom of expression is however completely undermined by the fact that his company censors users that post critical content about him, including details of his possible current location. So people defending him because they have swallowed his bullshit about being a free speech absolutist should really stop wasting their time defending his actions on "rights to free speech" grounds, due to him being an absolute hypocrite.
This is really all about the money - how he makes it by hosting such content, and how desperate he is by doing so, having driven so many people away previously by his own behaviour.
Re: Musk's loophole
other content Twitter disagrees with is censored as well, with Likes & Retweats softly and suddenly vanishing away, rather like the Guardian newspaper's "Comment Is Free" comments.
Would it be so effing hard to take down stuff voluntarily is someone asks nicely, seeing it's a violent act and all?
Oh, no. X must make it a court case.
Yeah, it probably would be easier just to take the stuff down voluntarily - and I believe most social media sites have already done so.
Leaving aside whether Australia is trying to impose its laws on other countries (it isn't, but I'm not going to argue that here), it seems Elon Musk wants to pick a fight - possibly expecting our eSafety Commissioner will back down (hint:she won't):
"When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male. " (Rudyard Kipling - "The Female of the Species")
If we wind the clock back 23 years, wouldn't imagery of the planes hitting the twin towers meet all the same criteria while being a far better example of a terrorist attack?
Is anyone advocating for the removal of those videos from all online platforms?
Or is it's value as a record of a significant point in history by keeping it easily accessible?
The Register can't answer that question.....
Yes you can, it's just that you don't want to appear to agree with Musk. All of us can answer that question without hesitation.