Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Elon Musk’s social media platform X has refused to remove a video that Axel Rudakubana watched minutes before murdering three young children, despite numerous requests from authorities in Australia and the UK.
Australian internet regulator eSafety said on Friday it noted with “great sadness” that the video — which shows the violent stabbing of a bishop in Sydney in April — was watched by the killer on X even though the regulator had requested the material be taken down from the platform for months before the attack in Southport last summer.
Immediately following the Australian attack, companies including Google, Microsoft, Snap and TikTok “acted quickly to co-operate with eSafety and ensure the Wakeley stabbing video could not be accessed from their platforms. Some of these companies took additional, proactive steps to reduce further spread of the material,” the regulator said. “X Corp chose not to remove the video from its platform.”
Video footage of the stabbing of a bishop at a church in west Sydney circulated online in April but X only geoblocked the footage in Australia, meaning that people elsewhere in the world, and local users of VPNs, could continue to view the violent attack.
UK home secretary Yvette Cooper said this week that the government was contacting X directly to ask it to remove the video from the platform. “Companies should not be profiting from hosting content that puts children’s lives at risk,” she told the House of Commons.
Rudakubana, 18, was sentenced to life with a minimum of 52 years in prison on Thursday after admitting to the murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport.
Musk tweeted repeatedly in the wake of the killings, accusing UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer of “prioritising mosques over British girls in their dance classes”. Musk also amplified tweets by far-right agitator Tommy Robinson that claimed “Muslims run through the streets unchallenged by police, attacking any non-Muslim”. The interventions led to accusations that he was inflaming tensions that led to rioting across British towns and cities last summer.
On Friday, Musk shared an article about the Southport killings, saying “never forget”.
But he has so far refused to intervene to compel his company to take down the video that Rudakubana watched, and the video is still circulating on X as of Friday afternoon.
The Financial Times contacted X to ask why it had not removed the video, but received no response.
The court in the Rudakubana case heard this week that a search of a Lenovo tablet found in his house showed that he had deleted his entire browser history apart from one search on the day of the attack. Six minutes before he left to carry out the murders, he had searched X for “mar mari emmanuel stabbing”.
When police carried out the same search of X during their investigation, they found it led to posts containing footage of the Sydney attack three months earlier.
The prosecution also outlined Rudakubana’s online profiles and social media handles in court, including his X account. As of Friday, his X account — which is protected, so that only followers could see his posts — had not been taken down.
The Australian regulator sought to take legal action to try to force X to comply with a ruling to fully remove the video in April, a move that divided the country over whether the government was suppressing free speech or was correct to protect social media users from harmful and violent content.
Musk criticised the decision, accusing the eSafety “commissar” of trying to censor the internet.
That provoked a furious reaction from the country’s politicians, including Anthony Albanese, the prime minister, who said it was “distressing” that X was fighting the order to remove the video and criticised the billionaire’s stance.
However, a court opted against extending an injunction on the video being shown on the basis that X had taken “reasonable steps” to stop the video being shown in Australia. The case had been seen as a potential test case for whether local regulations could be applied on a global basis.
The eSafety commissioner dropped its case in June pending a review of Australia’s online safety laws.
Additional reporting by Hannah Murphy
Read the full article here
