Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The video is available on YouTube but Australia’s political class is singling out and waging war on X owner Elon Musk for his refusal to delete footage of the stabbing of Orthodox Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel.

In a demonstration of governmental overreach the Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has attacked Elon Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter) for not acceding to demands to put a worldwide ban on video footage of an attempted stabbing of a bishop in a Sydney church.

Albanese is not alone; virtually the entire Australian political class has joined in the attack. Tanya Plibersek, minister for Environment and Water called Musk an “egotistical billionaire.” Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young described him as a “narcissistic cowboy.” Albanese chimed in by describing him as an “arrogant billionaire who thinks he’s above the law.”

Senator Jacqui Lambie went as far as suggesting that Musk be “jailed” for his refusal to bend to the demands of the Australian government.  

In response to Lambie’s comments, Musk declared her to be an “enemy of the people of Australia,” agreeing with another social media user who suggested it should be Lambie, not Musk, who belongs in jail.

The right wing Liberal-National coalition was only slightly less aggressive saying Musk was offering an “insulting and offensive argument” in his refusal to remove graphic footage of the stabbing. How Musk saying that posts should not be taken down is “insulting and offensive” was not explained.

The victim of the attack, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, an Iraqi-born Assyrian Australian prelate who is head of the Eastern Christ the Good Shepherd Church, has displayed a maturity and moral virtue conspicuously lacking in the political arena. Emmanuel recorded a message saying that he loved his assailant, and that he wanted the video to stay online, urging people not to respond to violence with violence.

After the incident there were riots outside the church, resulting in 51 officers sustaining injuries. A 16-year-old boy has been arrested and charged with a religiously motivated terrorist attack.

The court battle between the Australian government and Musk is being characterised as a contest between free speech and the government’s role in protecting people. Certainly for Musk it is very much about protecting free speech.

That formulation is inaccurate. There is no effective protection of free speech in Australia, unlike the US, which has the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Federal government is currently preparing a misinformation and disinformation bill to force social media companies only to allow content of which the government approves.

As Senator Ralph Babet of the United Australia Party observes it is a “censorship agenda” that will be pushed no matter which party is in power. “The office of the eSafety commissioner was created under the Liberal Party and is now being emboldened by the Labor Party,” he writes.

The public battle with Musk is better seen as an attempt by the Australian government to control what is on the internet. The newly appointed eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant directed X to remove the posts, but X had only blocked them from access in Australia pending a legal challenge. The government then demanded that the posts be removed world-wide.

That the Australian political class thinks it has the right to issue edicts in countries where it has no legal jurisdiction is a demonstration of the lack of clarity in their thinking, and the intensity of their obsession with censoring.

Musk accurately characterised the situation in a post: “Should the eSafety Commissar (an unelected official) in Australia have authority over all countries on Earth?” It seems that many Australian politicians think the answer to that question is “Yes.”

The childish personal attacks on Musk, typical ad hominem attacks (going at the person rather than the argument) are revealing. What does the fact that Musk is a billionaire have to do with the legal status of the posts? Does having a lot of money somehow disqualify him from having a position?

If he is “egotistical” or “arrogant” what does that have to do with his logical or legal claims? How does exposing Musk as a narcissistic cowboy” have any relevance to him allowing content on the platform? Wouldn’t a narcissist be more likely to restrict content? The suspicion is that the politicians are resorting to such abuse because they have no argument.

The Australian government’s attack on Musk, which borders on the absurd, is just one of many being directed at X. An especially dangerous initiative is coming from the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which can apply fines of up to 6 per cent of the worldwide annual turnover, a ridiculously punitive amount. The United Kingdom’s communications regulator, Ofcom is even worse. It will have powers to fine companies up to 10 per cent of their global turnover.

Western governments are mounting an all out push to censor the internet, and Australia’s aggressive move is just part of that. What is never considered by governments and bureaucrats is the cost of such censorship.

The benefits of “protecting” people are always overstated and inevitably infantilize the population. The price is a degradation of social institutions and a legal system that does not apply equally to the citizenry and to the government. It is a step towards tyranny: rule by law rather than rule of law.

Telegram’s Pavel Duroc

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

Federal law enforcement tried to convince a Telegram engineer to change the software so law enforcement could read the messages of its users, Pavel Durov told Tucker Carlson during a recent interview.

Federal law enforcement tried to convince a Telegram engineer to change the software so law enforcement could read the messages of its users, the company’s founder told Tucker Carlson during a recent interview.

But he also warned the bigger threat to free expression comes from Google and Apple, which effectively control the use of apps on smartphones.

Telegram is a messaging app that founder Pavel Durov created with his brother after experiencing harassment by Russian officials. Durov remains the “sole owner” of the company. Users can set up “channels” to send mass messages. This function has been useful for political movements, including democracy activists in Hong Kong.

It now has 900 million monthly users worldwide. It uses encrypted messaging which protects users’ privacy.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1984, the entrepreneur had created another social media company; it predated Facebook but was similar in its networking functions. Russian officials demanded Durov hand over private data from groups on the platform, called VK, that were organizing against Vladimir Putin and the country’s leadership.

But in some ways, he faced similar problems from American officials when he was working in San Francisco.

“We get too much attention from the FBI, the security agencies, wherever we came to the US,” Durov said. “So, to give you an example, last time I was in the US, I brought an engineer [who] is working for Telegram, and there was an attempt to secretly hire my engineer behind my back by cyber security officers or agents, whatever they are called.”

Durov said the officials “were curious to learn which open-source library site integrated through Telegram’s app,” he said.

But furthermore, “they were trying to persuade him to use certain open-source tools that he would then integrate into the Telegram code that, in my understanding, would serve as backdoors.”

“Would that allow the US government to spy on people who use Telegram?” Carlson asked.

“The US government, or maybe any other government, because a backdoor is a backdoor regardless of who is using it. That’s right,” Durov said.

“You’re confident that happened,” Carlson asked, about the recruitment efforts.

Durov said yes, because the engineer wouldn’t have a reason to make up the story and Durov shared that he himself has been targeted by the intelligence agencies for recruitment.

He told Carlson:

There is no reason for my engineer to make up the stories. Also, because I personally experienced similar pressure in the U.S whenever I would go to the US, I would have, two FBI agents greeting me at the airport, asking questions. One time I was having my breakfast at 9 a.m. and the FBI showed up at my house that I was renting. And, that was quite surprising. And I thought, you know, we’re getting too much attention here. It’s probably not the best environment to run…

… They were interested to learn more about Telegram. They knew I left Russia. They knew what we were doing, but they wanted details. And my understanding is that they wanted to establish a relationship, to, in a way control Telegram better… I understand they were doing their job. It’s just that for us, running a privacy focused social media platform, that probably wasn’t the best environment to be in. We want to be focused on what we do, not on the government relations of that sort.

“Government relations,” Carlson said, laughing.

The company has now operated out of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates for seven years.

Durov said the company has had better experiences in the UAE. In addition to low taxes and few regulations, the “best part” is that country has not pressured the company to work with it to spy on users.

Carlson asked:

So, in the time that you’ve been here, there have been a number of wars and threats of war. Precursors to war. Have you had any pressure from the government here [in UAE)? Honestly, any pressure from the government here, to reveal a back door into Telegram or to ban anyone or to make any changes to your business?

“That’s the best part. For all the seven years we’ve been here, there’s been zero pressure coming from the UAE towards Telegram,” he said. “They’ve been very supportive, very helpful, and it’s a big contrast [to] whatever we’ve experienced before.”

He said the company has been “receiving a lot of requests” to work with governments. When there is clearly something like “terrorist activity,” the company does assist. In other cases where it was legitimate free speech, Telegram ignores them.

Asked to give an example of “censorship” and privacy violations, Durov related how his company received conflicting letters from American congressional leaders related to the investigation into the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Democrats in Congress,”requested that we would share all the data we had in relation to what they called this uprising. And we checked it with our lawyers, and they said, you better ignore it,” Durov recalled. “But the letter seemed very serious. And, the letter said, ‘if you fail to comply with this request, you will be in violation [of], you know, the US Constitution or something.”

He said two weeks later Republican leaders sent the company a letter telling the company that complying with the request for data would also violate the US Constitution.

“So, we got two letters that said, whatever we do, we’d be violating the US Constitution,” he said.

Biggest censorship threat is from Google, Apple

Even after going through numerous requests to hand over data or install spying software on Telegram, Durov said the biggest threat to free speech is not even from governments, but from Big Tech platforms Google and Apple.

“I would say the largest pressure [on] Telegram is not coming from governments. It’s coming from Apple and Google,” Durov said. “So, when it comes to freedom of speech, those two platforms, they could basically censor whatever is you can access on your smartphone.”

The companies can remove Telegram from the app stores, which would hurt the company.

“Obviously a big chunk of the world’s population would lose access to a valuable tool,” he said.

The “application of the rules” seems political at times, Durov said. The “rules themselves” are “pretty general,” such as no “violence” or “publicly available child abuse materials,” he said. “It’s hard to disagree with that.”

But Telegram and the Big Tech platforms clash over the “interpretation” of the rules.

“And sometimes they do agree, to their credit,” he said.

However, Durov said he is “hopeful” that past censorship of political movements is truly in the past, saying he does not ” necessarily believe that things are going to get worse.”

He contrasted the platform’s neutral position when it comes to the politics of its users with companies such as Facebook.

“I think Facebook in particular has a lot of reasons apart from being based in the US for doing what they’re doing. I think every app and platform plays its own role,” he said. “You know, we believe that humanity does need a neutral platform like Telegram that will be respectful to people’s privacy and freedoms.”

Durov affirmed he does not want to get involved in any specific political side, when Carlson asked if he wanted to be a “player in world politics.”

He still avoids the United States due to his past experiences with law enforcement.

Company would not take down content skeptical of COVID restrictions

While other platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, would remove or throttle content critical of COVID measures (such as forced masking and COVID jabs), Durov said Telegram did not.

He told Carlson:

We’re a neutral platform. We were helping governments to spread their message about the lockdowns and masks and vaccines. We got dozens of governments who we really [helped with], you know, some of their information, but we also didn’t want to restrict the voices that were critical of all those measures. We thought it made sense for…opposing views to collide and hopefully, you know, see some truth come out of those debates. And of course, we got criticized for that. But, looking back, I think it was the right strategy.

“During the pandemic, we I think were one of the few or maybe the only major social media platform that didn’t, take down accounts or that were skeptical, in relation to some of these measures,” he said.

Durov also said he thinks Elon Musk is doing a good job running X (formerly known as Twitter).

“What X is trying to do is in line [with] what we are building: innovation, trying different things, trying to give power to the creators, trying to get the ecosystem economy going,” he said.

“Those are all exciting things. And I think we need more companies like that,” he said.

“I don’t know if it’s good for humanity that Elon is spending so much time on Twitter making it better, but it’s definitely good for the social media industry.”

Carlson ended by telling Durov he is “rooting” for the company. Carlson’s show has since opened its own Telegram channel.