Greens Senator David Shoebridge has criticised the state of Australia’s internet regulation after the eSafety commissioner said she was unable to take Kiwi Farms offline with her powers.
Earlier this month, engineer Liz Fong-Jones complained to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner about the hate forum amid a global campaign to stop companies from providing services that kept it online.
Kiwi Farms is a website best known for coordinating users to harass certain targets (nicknamed “lolcows”) including revealing personal details, stalking and filing false police reports to provoke a law enforcement response. Three suicides have been linked to the website.
Fong-Jones argued that the adult cyber abuse material and abhorrent violent conduct material hosted on the website, the introduction of the new Online Safety Act, and Kiwi Farm’s little-known Australian connections meant that it was possible that the eSafety commissioner could take action. This included potentially seizing a block of Australian IP addresses or servers used by Kiwi Farms or other companies supporting them.
On September 2, Shoebridge — who is also the Australian Greens’ digital rights spokesperson — wrote a letter urging eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to follow Fong-Jones’ advice.
“I look forward to the eSafety commissioner taking this case seriously and acting to endorse the law in respect to Kiwi Farms in order to protect our community and especially the neurodivergent and transgender community,” he said.
The eSafety commissioner responded a week later saying that she would be unable to seize the IP address block or servers as her remit is “limited to issue notices to seek the removal of content”.
Additionally, Inman Grant noted that internet infrastructure company Cloudflare had stopped supporting the website, leading to it going offline (at least temporarily).
“kiwifarms.net is no longer able to be accessed by Australians at that URL … It is therefore no longer easily accessible to Australians,” she said.
Shoebridge said Inman Grant’s response shows how the regulatory framework is failing to protect users.
“It is alarming that the eSafety commissioner, which should be empowered to protect our rights and safety online, has no power to stop dangerous online forums such as Kiwi Farms, even where they present a real threat to people’s safety,” he told Crikey.
The Online Safety Act, which came into force this year, has been criticised by digital advocacy groups for giving already broad powers to the unelected eSafety commissioner to get content removed, websites blocked or even removed from search engines based on outdated models of classifying content.
Shoebridge’s critique of the eSafety commissioner comes from the other side: “Regulators need the power to shut down these players, rather than just playing whack-a-mole with separate instances of offensive content,” he said.
“It’s at least refreshing to get a frank assessment from the eSafety commissioner about the limited extent of the office’s powers — it’s a wake-up call to Parliament.”
Would you like the eSafety commissioner to have this level of power? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
I’m not generally a big believer in the “The Greens have cra-a-azy policies!” criticisms, but this idea strikes me as particularly stupid. It might be worth keeping in mind that Senator Shoebridge is not the Greens’ spokesperson on the internet and internet security. He appears to be putting this idea forward as a personal “contribution” (or, as we like to call them, “brain fart”).
Australia doesn’t host the majority of the world’s websites. We aren’t home to the majority (or any large number) of the companies hosting those websites. Our government does have the power to force the local ISPs to redirect their DNS entries for offending websites so that Australians can’t see them. Mind you, pointing to a different DNS server isn’t exactly rocket science, so that won’t actually stop anybody who really wants to get there.
But, just for argument’s sake, let’s pretend that the Australian government did have the power to take down foreign websites? Should they? And if they should have that power, what about other governments? China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? North Korea?
I am not advocating “Well, it’s tough but what can you do, eh?” as an answer. I agree that something should be done. But something starting with putting a bit more thought into a solution. You can start from the basic premise that, no matter how comforting it may be for politicians to believe otherwise, no one nation’s laws can regulate the world wide web.
Sorry. I missed the statement about this clown being their “digital rights spokesperson”. Why do parties keep giving “internet spokespeople” a platform when they’re obviously unqualified for the role. This one reminds me of George Brandis.
Because of course the very best thing to do with any idea that someone finds offensive is to empower the State to suppress it. That can only make politics, civic policy and public debate stronger, healthier, safer and more diverse. Fairly amusing btw that this comment about the dangers of policing ideas will itself only see the light of day after the local ideas police have given it the thumbs up.
When o when is the penny going to drop for you soft pap progs? This is like being stuck half-way intova car crash in slow motion, unable to even scream ‘look out!’ Much less wrench the wheel or hit the brakes yourself.
Tears ahead, ‘progressives’. Fools.
Time for Labor to shut down all TOXIC and DANGEROUS websites. Would Dutton oppose?
So which ones are toxic and dangerous, Tony? Who decides?
I happen to think this one is dangerous to the rule of law, natural justice and due process (especially Michael Bradley’s columns). And I think that plenty of Amber Schultz’s, Imogen Champagne’s and Cam Wilson’s content is toxic towards is white straight men. I think some of Bernard Keane’s and Guy Rundle’s stuff is dangerous and toxic. Bernard’s old ‘upskirting’ piece on Andrew Laming, for example , and Guy Rundle’s recent one on Salman Rushdie’s near-fatal stabbing. Just my subjective opinion, of course; like David Shoebridge’s, of Kiwi Farms content.
I’ll cheerfully make the case for shutting down Crikey on the same grounds and to the same State power you (or the Greens) make regarding KW (or any other) ‘dangerous and toxic’ site you choose. I am rather eloquent and compelling (when I’m not taunting soft pap progs), as seem you: so we’d likely each win the State’s (obliging, eager, rapacious….sinister) approval – and therefore, both lose.
You can I hope see the problematic nature of your (and Shoebridge’s) undergraduate demands. (You may be in good faith, by the way, but be assured he’s not: it’s just the usual Greens’ one-up-personship/grandstanding to Left-product-differentiate from Labor). Chrs.
Thanks Mods. I’ll behave.
Please don’t.
Yes, Down with Dissent! – We are All Individuals…or Cheesemakers.