Using Australian laws to force a foreign-owned platform to take down content globally sets a risky precedent – should we allow all countries to impose their laws on the internet?

Do Australian courts have the right to decide what foreign citizens, located overseas, view online on a foreign-owned platform?

Anyone inclined to answer “yes” to this question should perhaps also ask themselves whether they are equally happy for courts in China, Russia and Iran to determine what Australians can see and post online in Australia.

This is the problem with global “take-down orders”, an issue we now must confront in light of the Australian eSafety commissioner demanding that social media platform X (formerly Twitter) remove videos of a violent stabbing at a church in Sydney.

  • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
    6·
    2 months ago

    @shirro @MHLoppy @australia The irony here is that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a piece of US legislation that is regularly used to take down content globally. Even when it’s posted by people who aren’t Americans.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      1·
      2 months ago

      Is the DMCA actually used to force non-US companies/individuals to take down content hosted outside of the US?

      • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
        3·
        2 months ago

        @Ilandar Most major platforms are based in the US.

        A DMCA request basically means the flagged content is taken down globally, not just for the US.

        If the person who uploaded that content is not a US citizen, it still gets pulled.

        • Ilandar@aussie.zone
          2·
          2 months ago

          Yes but if the platform/company is based in the US then of course US laws directly apply to it. Whether global users can or do access the content is irrelevant to the comparison you’re making. In the Twitter vs Australia situation, Musk is arguing his US-based company cannot be forced to take down content based on Australian laws alone.