Latest news with #JulieInmanGrant
ABC News
6 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Government backflip on YouTube social media ban is one of Olympic proportions
As any gymnast will tell you, it's not easy landing a backflip, and as any politician will tell you, a political backflip is harder again. It's also less likely that people will applaud you when you land, even if you nail it. The government's announcement this week that YouTube would be included in the teen social media ban is a political backflip of Olympic proportions, and its first since the election. In late April, the then-minister for communications, Michelle Rowland, was still doubling down on her commitment to the company's CEO to do the exact opposite, citing YouTube's educational benefits and community expectations, but little else. A spokesperson for Ms Rowland told the ABC in April the decision "was made in November last year, publicly stated in a media release and reflected in the second reading of the legislation". "That decision has been made and there has been zero reconsideration or communication to suggest otherwise," the spokesperson said. Three months on, the new minister, Annika Wells, is just as resolute that YouTube will in fact be part of the ban, citing strongly worded advice from the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in late June. "The eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear," Ms Wells told Question Time in Parliament on Wednesday. "Four out of 10 Australian kids have had their most recent or most harmful experience on YouTube," she said. "On top of that, YouTube uses the same persuasive design features as other social media platforms like infinite scroll… auto-play and algorithmic feeds." Despite the famed difficulty of publicly changing your mind in politics, the government seems to have pulled off the manoeuvre with a surprising amount of grace. It could have been a more awkward landing if their final position was less well supported by the eSafety Commissioner, policy experts, and the well-documented harm being visited upon younger YouTube users. Additionally, the fact Ms Rowland had said so little about her reasons for promising YouTube a carve out in the first place means Labor now finds itself with relatively few words to eat. But no landing is perfect. At their media conference on Wednesday morning, Ms Wells and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were asked what might be the biggest question of all on social media policy, by a somewhat frustrated Mark Riley from Seven News: "Parents will be hearing this and thinking it's a great thing to limit kids' access to this harmful content, but they'll also be asking, 'why is that harmful content there in the first place?' If any of us in our media organisations were to publish or broadcast this stuff, we'd be straight up in front of ACMA or the courts, justifiably. When will the day come when governments can stop these organisations allowing this stuff to be posted in the first place?" "That's a great question, Mark," Ms Wells began, displaying immaculate technique for the judges. "… and ultimately one for the social media platforms to answer," she continued. Usually, thrusting responsibility solely back into the hands of social media giants is not a bad political instinct. But to do so at a press conference otherwise devoted to "cracking down" on those same companies is a different kind of gymnastics — it's contortion. After all, the teen social media ban depends on the assumption that the government can force social media companies to change their dealings with Australians, and that asking nicely won't achieve the desired result. So when faced with the question: "Why is the harmful content there at all and when will governments intervene?", it was arguably the perfect moment for the new minister to mention the government's own plan, announced in November last year, to implement a Digital Duty of Care on social media companies. The Digital Duty of Care is designed to place an obligation on social media companies themselves to actively prevent foreseeable harms to Australian users of all ages. Launching the policy eight months ago, Ms Rowland described it as "a shift away from reacting to harms…. and moving towards systems-based prevention". It was one of more than 60 recommendations made by Delia Rickard after a year-long statutory review of the Online Safety Act. But unlike the teen social media ban, it has rarely been mentioned in public since it was first announced. The government's reticence on the proposal this year has prompted quiet speculation among policy experts that it would never materialise, but Ms Wells told the ABC the government was still committed to legislating the change. "I'm looking forward to doing more work on it," Ms Wells told 7:30 this week, before adding: "I'm still a new minister". Neither Ms Wells nor her predecessor have given a timeline for implementing the change. The government is also yet to reveal when it will respond to the rest of Delia Rickard's recommendations. As for why the minister opted not to mention the government's own policy when the opportunity came on Wednesday morning, it's worth remembering how tricky these political backflips can be. Bringing up an eight-month-old plan that hasn't visibly progressed since it was first announced comes with its own risks. With a new minister in the portfolio and less than three months before the teen social media ban comes into effect, it might be a while still before the government is eager to broach the topic unprompted.
CTV News
19 hours ago
- Business
- CTV News
Australian court rejects X Corp.'s appeal in child safety case, orders legal costs
The opening page of X is displayed on a computer and phone. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft, File) MELBOURNE, Australia — An Australian appeals court on Thursday ruled against X Corp., rejecting a challenge to a safety watchdog's demands for details on how the Elon Musk -owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material on its platform. Three federal court judges unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to a notice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant on child abuse material being shared on X, which is incorporated in Texas. The judges also ordered X to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. Inman Grant has driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms including X from December. The federal court case goes back to early 2023, when Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter Inc., incorporated in Delaware, in February that year. Twitter merged with X the following month. X arguments against complying with Inman Grant's order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed Thursday's ruling. 'This judgment confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company,' she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and 'holding all tech companies to account without fear or favor, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia.' 'Without meaningful transparency, we cannot hold technology companies accountable,' she said. X lawyer Justin Quill said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10% of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Inman Grant's office fined X $610,500 Australian dollars (US$385,000) for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case. Rod Mcguirk, The Associated Press
ABC News
21 hours ago
- Business
- ABC News
High Court rejects X appeal against notice to explain sharing of child abuse material
The High Court has rejected an appeal made by X Corp against a notice the tech company was given by the office of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant demanding an explanation about child abuse material shared on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. Three federal judges on Thursday unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision made in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to the notice, which demanded details on how the Elon Musk-owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material. The tech company was also ordered to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Ms Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. The commissioner has also driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms, including X, from December. The federal court case dates back to early 2023, when Ms Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter in February that year. Twitter then merged with X the following month. Arguments presented to the court by X Corp against complying with the order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Ms Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed the ruling on Thursday. "This judgement confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company," she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and "holding all tech companies to account without fear or favour, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia." A lawyer representing X, Justin Quill, said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10 per cent of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Ms Inman Grant's office fined X $610,500 for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay, and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case. AP
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Australian court rejects X Corp.'s appeal in child safety case, orders legal costs
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — An Australian appeals court on Thursday ruled against X Corp., rejecting a challenge to a safety watchdog's demands for details on how the Elon Musk -owned company was combating widespread child exploitation material on its platform. Three federal court judges unanimously rejected X's appeal against a federal court decision in October last year that the company was obliged to respond to a notice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant on child abuse material being shared on X, which is incorporated in Texas. The judges also ordered X to pay the commissioner's legal costs. Inman Grant's office describes itself as the world's first government agency dedicated to keeping people safe online. Inman Grant has driven world-first legislation that will ban Australian children younger than 16 from social media platforms including X from December. The federal court case goes back to early 2023, when Inman Grant asked some of the world's largest technology companies to report on what they were doing about child abuse material appearing on their platforms. A reporting notice, issued under Australia's Online Safety Act, was sent to Twitter Inc., incorporated in Delaware, in February that year. Twitter merged with X the following month. X arguments against complying with Inman Grant's order included that Twitter no longer existed as a legal entity and that X did not carry its predecessor's regulatory obligations in Australia. Inman Grant, a former Twitter employee, welcomed Thursday's ruling. 'This judgment confirms the obligations to comply with Australian regulations still apply, regardless of a foreign company's merger with another foreign company,' she said in a statement. She said her agency would continue enforcing the Online Safety Act and 'holding all tech companies to account without fear or favor, ensuring they comply with the laws of Australia.' 'Without meaningful transparency, we cannot hold technology companies accountable,' she said. X lawyer Justin Quill said he had not yet read the appeals court judges' reasons and could not comment on the possibility of a High Court appeal. The High Court only hears around 10% of appeal applications, so the federal court full-bench decision could be final in X's case. X's media office did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on Thursday. In 2023, Inman Grant's office fined X 610, 500 Australian dollars ($385,000) for failing to fully explain how it tackled child exploitation content. X's response was considered incomplete or misleading. X refused to pay and the penalty is the subject of a separate and ongoing federal court case. Rod Mcguirk, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
The Paranoia Of Officialdom: Age Verification And Using The Internet In Australia
Australia, in keeping with its penal history, has a long record of paranoid officialdom and paternalistic wowsers. Be it perceived threats to morality, the tendency of the populace to be corrupted, and a general, gnawing fear about what knowledge might do, Australia's governing authorities have prized censorship. This recent trend is most conspicuous in an ongoing regulatory war being waged against the Internet and the corporate citizens that inhabit it. Terrified that Australia's tender children will suffer ruination at the hand of online platforms, the entire population of the country will be subjected to age verification checks. Preparations are already underway in the country to impose a social media ban for users under the age of 16, ostensibly to protect the mental health and wellbeing of children. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was passed in November last year to amend the Online Safety Act 2021, requiring 'age-restricted social media platforms' to observe a 'minimum age obligation' to prevent Australians under the age of 16 to have accounts. It also vests that ghastly office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Information Commissioner with powers to seek information regarding relevant compliance by the platforms, along with the power to issue and publish notices of non-compliance. While the press were falling over to note the significance of such changes, little debate has accompanied the last month's registration of a new industry code by the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. In fact, Inman Grant is proving most busy, having already registered three such codes, with a further six to be registered by the end of this year. All serve to target the behaviour of internet service companies in Australia. All have not been subject to parliamentary debate, let alone broader public consultation. Inman Grant has been less than forthcoming about the implications of these codes, most notably on the issue of mandatory age-assurance limits. That said, some crumbs have been left for those paying attention to her innate obsession with hiving off the Internet from Australian users. In her address to the National Press Club in Canberra on June 24, she did give some clue about where the country is heading: 'Today, I am […] announcing that through the Online Safety Act's codes and standards framework, we will be moving to register three industry-prepared codes designed to limit children's access to high impact, harmful material like pornography, violent content, themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating.' (Is there no limit to this commissar's fears?) Under such codes, companies would 'agree to apply safety measures up and down the technology stack – including age assurance protections.' With messianic fervour, Inman Grant explained that the codes would 'serve as a bulwark and operate in concern with the new social media age limits, distributing more responsibility and accountability across eight sectors of the tech industry.' These would also not be limited in scope, applicable to enterprise hosting services, internet carriage services, and various 'access providers and search engines. I have concluded that each of these codes provide appropriate community safeguards.' From December 27, such technology giants as Google and Microsoft will have to use age-assurance technology for account holders when they sign in and 'apply tools and/or settings, like 'safe search' functionality, at the highest safety setting by default for an account holders its age verification systems indicate is likely to be an Australian child, designed to protect and prevent Australian children from accessing or being exposed to online pornography and high impact violence material in search results.' This is pursuant to Schedule 3 – Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code (Class 1C and Class 2 Material). How this will be undertaken has not, as yet, been clarified by Google or Microsoft. The companies have, however, been in the business of trialling a number of technologies. These include Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) cryptography, which permits people to prove that an aspect of themselves is true without surrendering any other data; using large language models (LLMs) to discern an account holder's age based on browsing history; or the use of selfie verification and government ID tools. Specialists in the field of information technology have been left baffled and worried. 'I have not seen anything like this anywhere else in the world,' remarks IT researcher Lisa Given. This had 'kind of popped out, seemingly out of the blue.' Digital Rights Watch chair, Lizzie O'Shea, is of the view that 'the public deserves more of a say in how to balance these important human rights issues' while Justin Warren, founder of the tech analysis company PivotNine, sees it as 'a massive overreaction after years of police inaction to curtail the power of a handful of large foreign technology companies.' Then comes the issue of efficacy. Using the safety of children in censoring content and restricting technology is a government favourite. Whether the regulations actually protect children is quite another matter. John Pane, chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), was less than impressed by the results from a recent age-assurance technology trial conducted to examine the effect of the teen social media ban. And all of this cannot ignore the innovative guile of young users, ever ready to circumvent any imposed restrictions. Inman Grant, in her attempts to limit the use of the Internet and infantilise the population, sees these age restricting measures as 'building a culture of online safety, using multiple interventions – just as we have done so successfully on our beaches.' This nonsensical analogy excludes the central theme of her policies, common to all censors in history: The people are not to be trusted, and paternalistic governors and regulators know better.
