Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, GUR, revealed that Telegram had blocked multiple official bots critical of Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. In a statement on the messaging platform, GUR expressed dissatisfaction with the decision, citing the significance of these bots in opposing Russian aggression. Despite the blockade, GUR assured users of the safety of their personal data. Telegram’s press service remained silent in response to inquiries, highlighting the platform’s role as a vital hub for accessing unfiltered information since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
In response to Ukraine’s concerns, Telegram announced restoring access to several chatbots used by Ukraine’s security agencies to collect information about Russia’s war effort. Initially reported by GUR, the suspension prompted concerns regarding censorship amid the ongoing conflict. Telegram bots, automated features enabling users to submit or request information, play a vital role in Ukraine’s response to Russian aggression, facilitating the reporting of Russian military activities within Ukraine.
Although the specific reason for the bots’ temporary suspension remains undisclosed, a Telegram spokesperson attributed it to a ‘false positive.’ Despite occasional disruptions, Telegram remains a primary source of unfiltered information for users in Ukraine and Russia, with President Zelenskiy utilising it for daily video addresses and the armed forces employing it to alert Ukrainians of impending airstrikes and document battlefield developments.
Elon Musk’s feud with Australian authorities reached new heights as he advocated for the imprisonment of a senator and criticised the country’s gun laws in the wake of a court order targeting his platform, X. The dispute stemmed from X’s publication of a video depicting a knife attack on an Assyrian bishop during a church service in Sydney, prompting the federal court to temporarily halt the video’s display.
Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian “eSafety Commissar” is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?
In response to the court order, Musk accused Australian leaders of attempting to censor the internet, sparking condemnation from lawmakers and prompting Senator Jacqui Lambie to delete her X account in protest. Lambie called for Musk’s imprisonment, labelling him as ‘lacking a social conscience’. Musk, in turn, labelled Lambie as an ‘enemy of the people of Australia.’
Musk’s combative approach towards governments extends beyond Australia, as seen in his clashes with authorities in Brazil over social media content oversight. He further escalated tensions by endorsing posts criticising Australia’s gun laws and government, reacting with exclamation marks and amplifying messages questioning the integrity of Australian governance.
The legal battle between Musk’s platform and Australian authorities intensified during a court hearing, where X was accused of failing to fully comply with the temporary takedown order. Despite claims of compliance, the video remained accessible on X in Australia. The federal court judge extended the temporary takedown order until further hearings, citing the need for continued deliberation over the contentious issue.
The Senate has passed a foreign aid package that includes a bill mandating China-based company ByteDance to sell TikTok within a year or face a US ban on the platform. Having cleared both chambers of Congress, the legislation is now headed to President Joe Biden, who has committed to signing it into law. ByteDance will have an initial nine months to finalise a sale, with a possible three-month extension based on progress, though legal challenges could delay enforcement.
The bill’s successful passage through the Senate was achieved through strategic manoeuvring in the House, where it was included in a high-priority foreign aid package. This move compelled the Senate to address the TikTok issue earlier than anticipated. By extending the divestment timeline, more support was garnered in the Senate, resulting in a vote of 79-18 in favour of the bill.
Lawmakers and intelligence officials have voiced concerns over TikTok’s ownership by a China-based company. They cite potential data security risks due to China’s national security law and fear that the Chinese government’s influence could impact US user experiences.
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell stressed that the legislation aims to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage and harming vulnerable Americans, not to punish specific companies.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner highlighted worries about Chinese companies owing allegiance to the Chinese government and potential covert manipulation of social media platforms. He dismissed TikTok’s proposed data governance solution, Project Texas, as inadequate. Despite concerns among TikTok users, Warner assured that the legislation is not about silencing voices but addressing critical national security issues.
President Biden has expressed intent to promptly sign the bill into law to facilitate aid to Ukraine, while TikTok has signalled readiness to challenge the law in court if passed.
A Brazilian Supreme Court justice has issued an ultimatum to social media giant X, formerly known as Twitter, instructing them to clarify their apparent failure to fully comply with previous court orders. The directive comes amid an ongoing investigation initiated by Justice Alexandre de Moraes into Elon Musk, who declared his intention to reinstate accounts on X despite judicial directives to block them.
Justice Moraes, citing concerns over constitutional violations in X’s handling of Musk’s case, set a five-day deadline for the platform to respond. The inquiry was sparked by a report from federal police in Brazil, revealing active accounts on X that had been legally instructed to be blocked, contradicting the company’s claims of compliance.
According to the police report, these unblocked accounts retained the ability to attract new local followers and disseminate links for live-streaming videos, raising questions about X’s adherence to judicial orders. Moraes emphasised the urgency of the matter, urging X representatives to address the identified non-compliances detailed in the police report.
Why does it matter?
The development unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over the role of social media platforms in Brazil’s political landscape. Moraes is spearheading investigations into the proliferation of digital disinformation and hate speech, particularly during the tenure of former President Jair Bolsonaro. X’s purported failure to adhere to court orders adds another layer of complexity to ongoing efforts to combat online misinformation and protect democratic processes in Brazil.
Elon Musk’s company, formerly known as Twitter and now called X, is gearing up for a legal battle against the government in Australia. The legal move comes in response to orders demanding the removal of content depicting violence and violent extremism. The content in question involves two recent knife attacks: one resulting in multiple deaths at a shopping centre and another targeting a Christian bishop in his church.
In the wake of these attacks, inflammatory and false information circulated, with a prominent Australian figure using X to wrongly attribute the shopping centre incident to a Jewish man. A mainstream television news outlet also amplified this misinformation by broadcasting false claims. The church attack officially declared a terrorist incident, involved a teenage assailant stabbing an Assyrian bishop, who enjoys a significant following on social media.
Prompted by disseminating graphic footage from these incidents on social media platforms, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, tasked with online safety enforcement, issued orders to remove such content. While X initially attempted to comply with these demands, it later refused to remove the video of the church attack globally, citing the lack of authority for such requests outside of Australia’s jurisdiction. X announced its intention to challenge this directive in court, denouncing it as unlawful and dangerous.
This stance from X has sparked intense criticism from Australian politicians, who advocate for stricter regulations on social media platforms. The clash underscores the ongoing debate surrounding tech companies’ responsibilities in curbing harmful content online and the balance between free speech and preventing violence and misinformation.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted 360 to 58 on a bill that could result in the unprecedented action of shutting down TikTok, a popular social media platform, over concerns related to Chinese influence and data privacy. The bill, authored by Texas Republican representative Michael McCaul, aims to protect Americans, especially children, from what he described as the ‘malign influence of Chinese propaganda’ on TikTok, which he referred to as a ‘spy balloon in Americans’ phones.’
The legislation was passed as part of a broader foreign aid package put forth by House Republican speaker Mike Johnson, which includes support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The updated bill extends the divestment period for TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, from six months to a year, a move supported by Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell to allow sufficient time for potential buyers to negotiate a deal.
Following the House’s passage of the bill, TikTok voiced disappointment, emphasising its substantial economic contribution to the US and arguing against what it sees as an infringement on free speech rights. The bill’s broader implications on data privacy and surveillance practices have also drawn criticism from other tech industry figures, including the president of Signal, who warned of potential repercussions extending beyond TikTok to other social media platforms. Despite these concerns, President Joe Biden has indicated his intention to sign the bill into law if it passes the Senate, aligning with his previous statements and ongoing scrutiny of TikTok’s operations.
Portugal’s far-right political party, Chega, has initiated legal action against Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, following a 10-year ban imposed on the party’s Facebook account. The reasons behind the ban remain unspecified, raising concerns about potential political censorship across Meta’s platforms.
Led by André Ventura, Chega has gained traction in Portugal with its anti-immigration and anti-establishment rhetoric. Chega has responded by calling the restrictions ‘clearly illegal and of unspeakable persecution’ in a post on X.
Why does it matter?
Chega’s legal action against Meta Platforms underscores broader issues surrounding content moderation and political speech on social media platforms. The outcome of this case may establish precedents for how such platforms are held accountable for their moderation policies and their impact on political discourse (see Iran’s recent case). However, the need for more transparency regarding the reasons for Chega’s ban raises questions about the fairness and consistency of content moderation practices.
Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, assured Brazil’s Supreme Court of its compliance with court rulings following a recent dispute. This declaration comes after Musk challenged Justice Alexandre de Moraes’s directive to block specific accounts in Brazil. In a letter to Moraes last week, X’s Brazilian unit stated its inability to control the parent company’s adherence to Brazilian court orders.
However, X’s lawyers reiterated the platform’s commitment to fully comply with orders from the Supreme Court and the Superior Electoral Court of Brazil. This marks a significant shift from Musk’s earlier stance, where he vowed to reverse restrictions imposed by Moraes, citing constitutional concerns and urging the justice to resign.
Moraes responded by launching an inquiry into Musk for obstruction of justice amidst investigations into digital militias accused of spreading fake news during Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency. Additionally, Moraes leads an inquiry into an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro. X, facing further scrutiny, disclosed being subpoenaed by the US House Judiciary Committee for information on Brazilian Supreme Court directives regarding content moderation. The platform’s lawyers assured Moraes of cooperation, indicating compliance with the committee’s request and commitment to informing him of developments.
Elon Musk took to social media platform X to reveal that the US House of Representatives has initiated inquiries into actions allegedly breaching Brazilian law. Musk disclosed that X had been requested to suspend the accounts of Brazilian parliament members and numerous journalists. Neither the US House nor X has issued immediate comments in response to these developments.
𝕏 just received an inquiry from the US House of Representatives regarding actions taken in Brazil that were in violation of Brazilian law.
The House’s interest in Musk’s actions arises amid tensions with Brazil’s Supreme Court judge, Alexandre de Moraes. The judge launched an inquiry following Musk’s defiance of a court order to block specific accounts on X. Moraes warned of daily fines amounting to $19,736.32 should X fail to comply with the directive.
The standoff between Musk and Brazilian authorities underscores a clash over free speech principles. Musk, an advocate for unrestricted expression, contested Moraes’s orders as unconstitutional. Despite potential financial ramifications, including revenue loss and office closures in Brazil, Musk stood firm on his stance, prioritising principles over profit.
The situation continues to evolve, highlighting broader implications regarding online platform regulations, freedom of expression, and international legal jurisdictions. As tensions persist between Musk and Brazilian authorities, the outcome of this dispute could have significant ramifications for digital platforms and their operations in various countries.
Malaysia has called upon social media giants Facebook operator Meta and short video platform TikTok to intensify monitoring efforts on their platforms due to a surge in harmful content, as reported by the government. In the first quarter of 2024 alone, authorities referred 51,638 cases to these platforms for further action, a significant increase from the 42,904 cases recorded last year. While specific details on the reported content were not disclosed, the move aims to combat disseminating harmful material online, particularly concerning sensitive topics like race, religion, and royalty.
According to statements from Malaysian regulatory bodies and police, the plea to Meta and TikTok also encompassed the need to address content indicative of coordinated inauthentic behaviour, financial scams, and illegal online gambling. Sensitivity surrounding race and religion in Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim nation with significant ethnic Chinese and Indian populations, underpins the urgency of the government’s call. Additionally, Malaysia’s legal framework includes statutes prohibiting seditious remarks or insults directed at its monarchy, adding further weight to the push for online content regulation.
