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.
@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.
Sounds a bit too much like the Australia Card.
Also, it would also be government-controlled media.
@Salvo That could be a problem. I just wish there was a tax-payer solution so we weren’t at the beck and call of either corporations, billionaires nor flaky benefactors. It should all be like the ABC but for social media.
@danbeeston @Salvo publicly funded, independently run.
@skribe @danbeeston @Salvo The other option would be to set up an official gov.au Mastodon instance, and give each government department, agency, and Parliamentarian an official account.
People can then have their choice of instance, whether that’s community run or private (e.g. Threads).
In the longer term, there might be scope for some other government institutions — particularly universities — to set up their own instances as well.
@ajsadauskas @danbeeston @Salvo plus the states as well ultimately. But until I see The ABC setting up instances I’m skeptical.
I think community funded is a better option than either directly or indirectly government funded. This is what is so great about the Fediverse.
@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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.