Australia's eSafety commissioner has issued a stark warning to the antisemitism royal commission: mainstream social media platforms are actively fighting to distribute and monetise gore and fringe content. Julie Inman Grant singled out X, formerly Twitter, detailing how her office must battle billionaire owner Elon Musk to keep violent footage—including material from the Bondi terror attack—restricted or off the platform entirely. This revelation underscores a growing crisis in online content moderation, where profit motives increasingly clash with community safety.
The commissioner told the inquiry that social media companies are spending more on challenging regulation while slashing budgets for trust and safety teams. She noted these platforms feel emboldened by the anti-regulation stance of the Trump administration. This shift has created a dangerous environment where hate speech, antisemitism, and explicit violent content proliferate with minimal oversight.
Key Cases Highlighting Platform Resistance
Inman Grant detailed several instances where X pushed back against Australian content restrictions. These include the Charlie Kirk assassination video, the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte train, and the church stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in Wakeley, New South Wales. Most disturbingly, when eSafety fought to classify Bondi attack footage as illegal to distribute, X responded that it was "not any worse than you would see in a gore movie".
The commissioner countered: "I can't think of anything more horrific for the family members and the Australian Jewish community." Her office eventually forced X to agree to keep the footage refused classification. However, of the eight cases the regulator is now fighting with X, six have been initiated by the platform itself, demonstrating a proactive legal strategy to resist moderation.
The Scope of eSafety's Limited Mandate
A critical gap in Australia's online safety framework was exposed during the hearings. Inman Grant admitted that antisemitism and hate speech are not explicitly covered under the eSafety commissioner's mandate. Her office's powers are limited to cyberbullying, adult cyber-abuse, image-based abuse, and illegal or restricted online content. This leaves a vast amount of online hate unchecked.
She revealed that only 2% of complaints about adult cyber-abuse meet the high threshold for action due to freedom of speech protections. The commissioner argued that the cumulative harm of online abuse must be considered, stating: "I just imagine that so many in the Jewish community are experiencing antisemitism, racism on a daily basis. And all of that has a cumulative impact on one's mental health and wellbeing."
Comparison with Cyberbullying Powers
Inman Grant contrasted the weak adult cyber-abuse framework with the more robust cyberbullying system. She cited a South Australian case where a 14-year-old girl refused a date and subsequently received a "barrage of death and rape threats" from six friends of the boy. In that instance, eSafety could contact the school and parents and issue an end user notice demanding proof of content removal. No such power exists for adult victims of hate speech.
Platforms Monetising Harmful Content
The core of the commissioner's testimony was that mainstream platforms are not merely hosting harmful content—they are actively monetising it. Algorithms designed to maximise engagement amplify fringe and violent material, driving advertising revenue. This business model creates perverse incentives where gore, extremism, and hate speech become valuable commodities.
Experts have long warned that social media's recommendation systems can radicalise users. A 2023 study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that X's algorithm frequently promotes hateful content to new users. The eSafety commissioner's testimony provides concrete evidence that platforms are willing to fight legal battles to protect this revenue stream.
FAQ Section
What is the eSafety commissioner's role in Australia?
The eSafety commissioner is Australia's independent regulator for online safety. Their mandate covers cyberbullying targeting children, adult cyber-abuse, image-based abuse, and illegal or restricted online content. However, hate speech and antisemitism are not explicitly within their jurisdiction, creating a regulatory gap.
Why did X fight to keep Bondi attack footage online?
X argued the footage was comparable to content in gore movies and defended its distribution as free expression. The eSafety commissioner countered that the material was uniquely harmful to victims' families and the Jewish community. After a legal fight, X agreed to keep the footage refused classification in Australia.
How can social media platforms be held accountable for hate speech?
Currently, Australia's laws make it difficult to act against adult cyber-abuse due to free speech protections. Only 2% of complaints meet the threshold for action. Reform advocates call for expanding the eSafety mandate to cover hate speech and for stronger algorithmic accountability measures to prevent platforms from monetising harmful content.
