Elon Musk's X mashed by Australian court for evading child protection reporting Australia's Federal Court has rejected Elon Musk's assertion that X/Twitter does not need to comply with local requirements to provide information about how it detects, removes and prevents the spread of child sexual abuse material. The case centered on Australia's "Basic Online Safety Expectations" – a set of regulations that …
"Elon Musk is estimated to have around $250'000'000'000."
He holds about that in Tesla stock plus whatever value is made up for SpaceX this week, but that doesn't mean it's all his or in any way a liquid asset. Some financial analysts suspect that Elon's "wealth" is highly leveraged and the multi-hundred billion dollar figures are a mirage.
If somebody were mental enough to lend me £10mn, I'd be a multi-millionaire. I'd also owe £10mn on day one (plus fees). My "net" worth would still be what ever it was the day before I borrowed the money. The longer I owe money on the loan, the faster my true net worth drops. If I have a big piece of property that's worth a bunch, it might be a liability if it turns out that just under the surface it's massively contaminated. Wealth is a fluid thing and those that have a lot of things can tot up the numbers anyway they like to tell their story. One day you want to look good to a bank manager evaluating your loan request and the next week you want to be stone broke in the eyes the tax collectors.
Remember when the politicians laughed when Dr Evil said "one MILLION dollar!" <pinky finger>.
Then was advised and corrected it to "one BILLION dollars!"
Now, on the dawn of the Ted Faro's and the trillionaires (*), even that would evoke a yawn.
(*) what music style would a band with that name play?
that's not even a slap on the wrist, it is nothing
What difference does it make, he doesn't pay his bills anyway. They'll have to be like Brazil and freeze the bank accounts of not only X but Starlink if they ever want to see that fine, let alone get Twitter to comply with their law.
"Because of geography Australia has one very big space advantage as the only location in the southern hemi and in this third of the world."
More importantly, Australia is much more affluent and educated compared to any other south of the equator country. That gives them an outsized trading advantage. Elon has made himself a cult of personality and blurred the distinction of there being a separation between his enterprises. Xitter is a different company than Starlink, but that doesn't mean countries are going to see a sharp defining line if their disagreement is with Elon himself.
Although Musk is indeed a foul dog.
Not really fair to actual canines.
More in the brain eating larva migrans mold (so beloved by Beth Mole over on arse technical) than man's best friend, I would have thought.
Many would be hoping Space Karen refuses to pay the fine and X is banned and blocked in AU. In the local vernacular "good riddance to bad rubbish."
But when Apple or Google comply with Chinese law (by censoring information about Tienanmen for example) everybody is up in arms against ... the Chinese government. So why is this different when the Australian government asks for censorship ? Same question about censoring RT by the EU or AljAzeera by Israel.
"Detecting CSAM is censorship is it?"
Not per se, but there's no way it can be done manually and automation is exceedingly difficult to get right. As humans, "we know it when we see it", but how do you break it down for a computer? How do you train AI?
At the same time, how do you explain to a politician that it's not a simple thing they are demanding?
The best that might be done is to move quickly when it's reported and quickly delete accounts after a proper investigation (2 minutes). Since Social Media funds itself mainly through selling PII, Xitter should be able to identify the people behind accounts that post that trash and turn that information over.
Especially if you fire most of the people who specialise in this area when you take over the company.
I think we can agree that a lot of stuff on MuskCo's servers are OK, some is dubious and the rest is outright CP. MuskCo already knows a hell of a lot about its users so it can sell them to its customers.
A number of possible algorithms suggest themselves. TBH a hell of a lot of this stuff should be automated already.
Every item that's definitely identified as CP can be part of the training set to an AI system to show it "This is what CP looks like."
I personally think every decision should have a human in the loop, given the consequences of a wrong decision for the user are going to be so draconian.
"Every item that's definitely identified as CP can be part of the training set to an AI system to show it "This is what CP looks like.""
Except, to have that on your servers 2 seconds after you see what it is, is a crime. That makes it difficult to train systems to spot it without getting special (written) dispensation. You'd think that government could do that work since so many politicians and staffers get caught with that sort of material.
Apple or Google don't need to operate in China, they choose to, and by doing so, they agree to abide by Chinese laws.
Whether those laws are morally objectionable to people outside China (or, indeed, those inside China, who can't really complain about them, without being sent for "re-education") is entirely moot.
The same applies in any jurisdiction. You do business there, you follow the rules. Companies don't have some sort of inalienable right to ignore the sovereignty of nation states, even ones owned by the world's richest fuckwit.
So, it's perfectly reasonable for people to complain about the Chinese government doing things that reduce the natural human rights and freedoms of its subjects, and companies going along with this in order to chase money (as Apple and Google do) can rightly come under criticism for choosing to do business there, and play by those rules.
It's not so reasonable to try to turn this around on Australia and claim that preventing and detecting child sexual exploitation is somehow a denigration of human rights, as you seem to be trying to do. Because that is what this is about; Twitter's refusal to engage with laws put in place to prevent child pornography, sexual exploitation, and rape. Only someone who is in favour of those things would see this as a problem. Musk and his cronies really do seem to be a bit confused about what paedophilia is, and who is, and is not a paedophile, don't they? Perhaps there should be some sort of register that these people are on to protect the rest of us?
X lawyers : "X Corp. is the successor in interest to Twitter, Inc." and "All of Twitter, Inc.’s assets, liabilities, rights, etc. passed to X Corp. on 15 March 2023 by operation of law."
X lawyers : "Because the Commissioner's notice was issued to Twitter, X isn't obliged to comply."
I think I'll try that down the pub to get out of paying for beer. Then again I don't think it will take the brains of a high court judge to see the flaw in that argument. Maybe the penalty should be the same for Musk and two burley Aussie bouncers be sent round to exact a penalty he might remember rather than the rounding error that is the fine.
The argument that X isn't responsible for Twitter requirement is such absolute bollocks, backed up my a thousand years of case law and logic, that I feel like the Lawyers ought to be punished for even attempting such lowlife lying.
Just because corporate lawyers by definition have no sense of morals, doesnt mean when they really lie ridiculoulsy in court, they shouldnt be punished. A suspension of their legal licence for a month, for such a blatant attempt at wasting the courts time, sounds about right to me, and would certainly give some pause for thought to other ambulance chasers. Might even free up court time, as Lawyers start thinking about their careers, rather then just how big they can make their next paycheck...
A man can dream...
A suspension of their legal licence for a month
As these companies are run by sociopaths the only thing that will make them comply is by hitting their revenue stream hard. Suspending their license for a month is not enough, immediately ban them from operating in your country for a year until they pay the fine and add interest charges daily.
Are you responsable for the sins of your father ?
Is Jack Dorsey not responsable for what happened under his watch ?
Are the users not responsable for the content they upload ?
Should Canon/Sony etc be held responsable for making devices that can record illegal images ?
Should missile manufacturers be held responsable for the death and destruction caused by their products.
It's not a black and white situation.
In this case, it very much is. There's ample case law on this and attempting to say "nu-uh, wasn't us, we just bought the company" is a stupid argument that was never ever going to fly. And the lawyers should have known that.
and in the due diligence, a figure for both 'Goodwill' and 'Badwill' would be generated. This fine should be there under the 'potential liabilities' column (badwill).
Elon the almighty (in the Lone Star State) might be able to buy a few judges in Trumpland (gotta get something back for that $65 million a month going to Trump) but elsewhere? No chance.
Pay up Mr Musk or you risk having a few zero's added to the bill.
"There's ample case law on this and attempting to say "nu-uh, wasn't us, we just bought the company" is a stupid argument that was never ever going to fly. "
The only way that could work is if Elon bought the wreckage of Twitter from a bankruptcy court. Since he bought it as a going concern and is the lead investor of the group that made the purchase, he can put his shiny metal ass in a Falcon Landing Gulfstream jet and make his way down under for a in-person grilling (and set of fines).
Lawyers have a sworn duty to the courts they practice in. On of those duties is not making clearly incorrect and contradictory statements, even if their client demand it. At they least they should be reported to the appropriate bar associations although the judge could fine them for contempt.
Wow, with all those straw men, you could start some sort of scarecrow festival.
Under US law, when Musk bought Twitter, it included all liabilities associated with Twitter. If Dorsey did something illegal, then Musk can report him to the relevant authorities, or, if it's some sort of civil matter, sue him. Dorsey's responsibilities for the day-to-day running of Twitter ended when he no longer worked for it, unless he did something that is clearly in breach of the terms of his employment there, in which case the company may choose to pursue him in court, just like any other employee.
Under Australian law, social media companies have clear responsibilities, and Twitter/X is as bound by these as any other social media company operating there. This makes those companies "responsable" [sic] for removing certain content, and probably also responsible for informing the authorities. It's not an either/or thing; both the user uploading illegal content, and the carrier distributing it have responsibilities.
You seem to have a very poor understanding of how various legal systems operate. I'd suggest reading some books on the subject before putting fingers-to-keyboard again and further demonstrating your copious ignorance.
Internet denizens seem to be unsatisfied with their already being a terrible remake of that, and seem intent on creating their own, even worse, version.
Personally, I'm fine with goading self-righteous idiots into setting themselves up for a terrible fall, but even I might stop short of literally incinerating them.
you can fuck right off with that bullshit.
xhitter is acting as a distributer of CP, elontwats action in removing the part of the compnay responsible for removing it, have directly enabled CP just throw the fucker in jail.
Yes, the usual excuse from that kind of lawyer is "I'm merely acting on the instruction of my client yer 'onour", whereas the reality is that they are the professionally accredited "expert" and it is their duty to advise their client properly and, if necessary, refuse to act for them if they make ridiculous demands.
I wholeheartedly agree. The lawyers are responsible for being reasonably honest and making reasonable arguments. While it's appropriate to generally give them the benefit of the doubt, putting forth arguments that are clearly, blatantly against a thousand years of legal arguments should be punished. As should bringing a case with no sane grounds; if the case is dismissed for total lack of evidence or reasonable arguments, then hold the lawyer in contempt of court for wasting the court's and defendant's time, in addition to lawyer+plaintiff paying for all case-related expenses for court and defendant.
Hard to say since it's private and don't have to post it's profits (or losses)
OTOH
Estimates of its share value (which was $44Bn when Musk bought it, with the help of a bunch of banks, stock symbols BAC, MS, BCS,MUFG,BNP,GLE and somewhat confusingly 8411) has dropped 80%, and they haven't been able to sell the debt on for over a year in some cases.
My instinct is the Musky one is waiting for the FOCF's contractual obligations to stay on "Truth" Social to expire and he will return, with his 65 000 000 brainwashed cultists loyal followers.
Of course wheather even that is enough to bring it (whatever "It" is going to be called in future) to profit who knows?
Of course it's still probably a pretty good organ of propaganda for the right (and the far right) so maybe he don't care.
Looks like he's not processed his son's transition very well.
should almost always be a percentage of revenue
Even then it won't matter. Fines are paid from company resources and are recouped by increasing prices, reducing premiums or stalling staff pay rises.
The only people unaffected are the board who will still get their full pay and generous pay rise and bonus and of course they are the guilty parties in the situation.
Such fines should come from the board personally, perhaps raiding their overstuffed pension fund would do the trick.
For corporate malfeasance, jail time for board members MUST be an available option for the courts, and it should be an option they are not afraid to use.
It should be a significant percent of revenue or value of the company (there's a reason that many companies actually take GDPR much more seriously than other countries).
Then after a period unpaid (or repeat offences) it should get personal - immediate arrest and detainment of board members until compliance. I had been thinking of this for a while, but France proved it works with Telegram.
True.
I'm still amazed that "No voluntary expenditure (IE like Board bonuses) can be paid until all outstanding fines are paid" is not part of the regulatory toolkit of all regulators from water to telecomms and gas, oil and electricity in all countries on the planet. Likewise said fines should be in % of revenues, not profit as there are many accounting ways to make "profit" disappear.
IMHO a regulators job is a)Protect the customers b)Protect the market. IOW not any given company.
Companies come. Companies go.
Remember MySpace? Dogpile?
"Remember MySpace? Dogpile?"
Both still around. I stopped using Dogpile when it was obviously pandering to the big entities out there to boost search results. Initially, it was dead useful. I mainly do search with DDG from TOR. I work on so many different things that my search history could be twisted in any direction a Three Letter Agency wanted. It also saves me from results "chosen based on my previous searches" and gives me more based on the search string I used. Rarer and rarer these days. All search engines seem to automatically append "where do I purchase" to the terms I actually enter.
"The only people unaffected are the board who will still get their full pay and generous pay rise and bonus and of course they are the guilty parties in the situation."
For a company in a negative profit regime, let the board continue to get full pay and bonuses (for what). It won't be long before the doors have to be chained shut if they do that. I'm certainly for making C-Level execs personally liable for some actions of the corporation. That might be a bit harder to pin on board members that aren't involved in the day to day running of the company.
Isn't the whole idea of these high-level managers is that the company pays them to leverage their high level of insight and strategic ability to prevent being blindsided?
To quote the film Casino on an incident of management incompetence:
"If you didn't know you were being scammed, you're too f***ing dumb to keep this job, and if you did know, you were in on it. Either way, YOU'RE OUT."
It's a deliberate tactic to scare regulators. Regulators aren't the police, their purpose is to try and get business to be compliant. Going to court is usually slow, has notable risks of the regulator losing (because Big Tech employs the best, most highly paid lawyers, and the law itself is often poorly drafted). There's also a capacity issue - the firms who Big Tech employ will always find resource for flagship clients with deep pockets. The public sector lawyers, in addition to being paid a pittance, are also far fewer in number and there's only so much they can take on.
It isn't just Space Karen. A very well known online markEtplace started legal action in one major jurisdiction to try and claim that it wasn't a supplier or economic actor involved in the sale or distribution of the dangerous or counterfeit tat often sold on its website. The hope was they'd tie the relevant regulator up, perhaps even win. After many months, they eventually bottled it just before the court hearing, but the intention was to bully the regulator to stand down. So this strategy is pretty common for US mega-corps: In this case, defeat doesn't matter because Space Karen's Folly still establishes itself as deliberately obtuse, unwilling to comply, and always willing to take things to court, then they hope regulators will in future pick on easier targets and cut SKF a whole lot more slack which will then be used to ignore the rules. Meanwhile, everybody else mostly abide by the rules because they don't have the arrogant, shit-headed entitlement of people like Muskerbergs.
Fortunately, there's a wider picture across the world (US excepted) that regulators of all manner of things have had enough of big, shitty US tech corporations throwing their weight around and behaving like the school bully. The noose is slowly tightening - whether that's in terms of being held responsible for online content they publish and promote, whether it's selling unsafe, illegal or counterfeit goods, whether it's waving two fingers at consumer privacy rights, or any of the other unsavoury behaviours.
His intend is to take twit down. They are just grabbing as much of everyone's identity, and doing as much brain washing as possible, before they finished the job (he's obviously a russian plant).
In other news, the Federal Trade Commission released a VERY interesting study yesterday making it official. Media companies are conducting mass surveillance of their user base and selling anything they can of you as a get rich quick scheme. Blame the paypal mafia bros.
"In other news, the Federal Trade Commission released a VERY interesting study yesterday making it official. Media companies are conducting mass surveillance of their user base and selling anything they can of you as a get rich quick scheme."
This is news? You have to live under a very big rock to have missed that. The yokels think it's all ad money, but those that know.......
Hmm...
a)The lawyers are trying it on
b)Musk has poor inferencing skills
c) Both.
Am I the only person here who's a bit suspicious that the question "What are you doing about stopping child pornography on your platform?" doesn't have a form letter reply already set up?
Unless you're the Silk Road or some other dark web marketplace isn't that a fairly basic common standard of behaviour?
Aren't we being told continually (by the same companies, or at least their owners) that AI is amazing and has near-magical powers of solving such problems*?
Well done Australia. It's a start. Anyone thinking "But that will mean they have to watch their members," should WTFU. You are not their customers. You are their product and they already are. For their profit.
*with the right training data of course.
Taking this service on is going to prove a total headache for him eventually, if not already. The amount of regulation current and being added to socail media is increasing and rightly so in my opinion but someone has the take the stick for anything that goes wrong and it's either the country regulator for the service or the one at the top or even both.
Every country has their own rules , some are similar but complying with them all and as they add more is hard work. But he doesn't really give a sh*t about regulators like the gobsh*te he is.
Same as his offshore anywhere-to-anywhere-in-90mins plan with Starship.
Regulators won't roll over for him, not after they saw how the FAA let Boeing get away with their "no re-training needed" BS with the 737 Max.
And that slams up against ITAR regs
Those regulators are not going to let something whose flight profile looks exactly like an ICBM come anywhere near their airspace.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
