Elon Musk accuses Australia of censorship after court bans violent video
Elon Musk accuses Australia of censorship after court bans violent video
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded by describing Musk as an “arrogant billionaire” who considered himself above the law and was out of touch with the public.
You're viewing a single thread.
In Australia this is being seen / reported as suppression violence depiction, not censorship.
Source: I live in Australia
Twitter is a signatory to the Christchurch Call, which agrees to remove any videos supporting terrorism from its platform. This is not something Musk abandoned when he took over. He assured Macron that Twitter would adhere to it in 2022.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1598826591785820162
Interestingly, that does not appear to have been discovered by the local media.
I also 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."
Members: https://www.christchurchcall.com/our-community
Full text: https://www.christchurchcall.com/about/christchurch-call-text
A lot of the international press seems to be ignoring that or doesn't know about it or something too.
I've just advised the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the national broadcaster here. No idea if it's going to do anything.
I sent this:
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
Well done! I hope it helps!
The ABC just published this:
I've also just told the Guardian before realising that the former Prime Minister of New Zealand is called Jacinda Ardern.
That’s just a type of censorship. That doesn’t make Australia wrong here, but it is censoring based on content.
Not just in Australia, this is being seen this way by everyone with a brain/ empathy.
Australia is acting very American when it claims jurisdiction over the entire internet.
Fun fact: if Xitter wants to do business in Australia they have to follow their laws. This was never a problem until a manchild was in charge
Should Twitter adhere to what they pledged to adhere to? What Musk personally said they would adhere to?
Of course - not that it should surprise anybody that Elon Musk has absolutely zero integrity.
Then I don't really understand your criticism.
I'm criticizing Australia for trying to tell South Koreans what content they can share online with other South Koreans, amongst other things. Australia isn't the World Police. I can freely join you in despising Elon Musk while still being very critical of the Aussie government.
So then Twitter should not adhere to what Musk personally said they would adhere to.
Because the Christchurch Call doesn't say that terrorism videos should be taken down on a country-by-country basis.
So then Twitter should not adhere to what Musk personally said they would adhere to.
Why the hell not?
Because the Christchurch Call doesn't say that terrorism videos should be taken down on a country-by-country basis.
An agreement Twitter consentually signed/agreed to is radically different from what the Aussie govt is trying to do here. Why are you conflating the two?
The Aussie government is literally trying to get Twitter to delete the tweets that promote terrorism as Twitter agreed to when it agreed to the Christchurch Call.
Here's a doozy:
The current Christchurch Call website shows Xitter as a signatory. What if man child demands that his company is taken off the website and it refuses?