Musk is an ass, but this is a complex issue that goes way beyond Australia. Many govts are censoring content on social media within their countries. The last thing they need is precedent allowing them to remove videos from a platform entirely worldwide.
X (twitter) is a signatory to the Christchurch Call set-up by Jacinta Adern. 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.
Xitter is pretending that this is about free speech and censorship.
It's not.
Yes it is. Especially considering that Xitter is an American company and this is legal by American law, again, Australia is overstepping its authority. It doesn't matter that Musk is a PoS. It doesn't matter that I personally want the video gone myself. What matters is Australia does not have the legal authority to make decisions affecting the entire world.
Your comparison to CSE is disingenuous as CSE is illegal worldwide, or at least in every country that matters. This video is not.
You do know that the USA is also a signatory to the Christchurch Call?
It agreed to (among other things):
"Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality."
Law works by mutual agreement. This is how our global system hangs together. Just because this is being spearheaded by an Australian process, doesn't make it apply only to Australia.
This same process happens every day across the world. The only difference here is that the person on the other end is pretending that this is about free speech.
Where's the hue and cry from all the other platforms who just took it down? Are they perhaps more aware of how this works?
Edit:
Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but the Christchurch Call came into existence after a terrorist massacre was livestreamed from Christchurch. It's not a random website, it's the New Zealand government response to that event.
Mutual obligations, agreements and treaties are what bind us together legally. Within the legal framework in Australia, CSE and terrorist video are the same, both considered Class 1. My reference to CSE was deliberate. From an Australian perspective they're one and the same. Different countries can argue that they're not, but that process is ongoing.
Finally, courts making decisions that affect others happens all the time. Just look at the abortion mess currently playing out across courts all over the USA, not just from the SCOTUS down, but between states as well.
This is the very same thing, it's just happens to be a country border, not a state one.
Edit 2:
It's not like the USA hasn't done this to others either. Right now it's making laws to force a company in another country to sell an asset, TicTok.
There's a bunch of people here trying to suck some Elon dick. Interesting
Which comments? I read all of them, and saying, "he's an asshole who happens to be right about this" hardly seems like "sucking his dick".
This is a massive overreach by Australia. Countries should not be trying to mandate what content is acceptable for other countries. Even their argument about VPNs meaning that geoblocking won't work is a terrible argument, because they're basically arguing that X is responsible for stopping Australians from breaking Australian law.
Buying the idea that their citizens might circumvent security controls in order to access content they don't allow, so that content cannot be allowed anywhere else, would be like saying it makes sense to ban mature video games globally because kids will find ways to play them otherwise (and I bring that up because Australia is notorious for banning video games with similar arguments, and didn't allow mature games until 2013).
If China was telling social media sites to delete content that it doesn't like, outside of China, we'd all be telling them to fuck off.
Lastly, and very important to note, the Bishop whose stabbing this is all about has said he thinks the video should not be censored.
Isn't that the label everyone uses?
Just this once, I agree with the rich shithead. I think the videos are in poor taste, but no one country should be able to dictate what the rest of the world can access. Gdi. I need a shower.
I hate it when I agree with an autocrat.
Hitler liked dogs and said we shoukd be kind to them.
Thanks! That helps.
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.