Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Social Media Platforms Accused of Monetising 'Gore and Fringe Content'

A leading eSafety regulator has accused social media platforms, specifically X, of actively seeking to distribute and monetise extreme content. This testimony highlights concerns about platform accountability and the impact on vulnerable communities.

  • Australia's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, stated platforms are 'fighting' to monetise 'gore and fringe content'.
  • X was singled out for resisting efforts to remove or restrict graphic content, including footage from terror attacks.
  • Concerns were raised about platforms increasing spending on legal challenges against regulation while cutting trust and safety teams.
  • The regulator highlighted the cumulative mental health impact of online abuse, particularly antisemitism, despite limitations in current mandates.
  • A call was made for platforms to take more responsibility, potentially through an online hate code, given their technical capabilities.

Distressing footage of violent attacks has been spread on X (formerly Twitter) despite repeated requests from Australia's eSafety Commissioner to have it removed, sparking concerns that mainstream social media platforms are prioritising profit over users' safety. Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety Commissioner, revealed in evidence to a royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion that her office has had to challenge X repeatedly to restrict or delete graphic content.

Ms Inman Grant specifically cited instances where X resisted content removal requests, including footage related to the Bondi terror attack, the Charlie Kirk assassination video, and the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte train. She noted that when her office pushed for the Bondi attack footage to be removed, X argued it was 'no worse than in a gore movie', a claim she disputed as causing profound distress to family members and the Australian Jewish community.

The Commissioner expressed concern that social media companies are shifting resources away from their 'trust and safety' teams while simultaneously challenging regulatory efforts. This trend is seen as emboldened by an anti-regulation stance from governments such as the Trump administration, raising questions about platforms' genuine commitment to combating harmful content.

Ms Inman Grant highlighted that only a small fraction (2%) of adult cyber-abuse complaints meet the high threshold for action due to freedom of speech protections. However, she stressed the significant mental health impact on communities affected by such abuse, particularly those like the Jewish community who may experience antisemitism daily.

The eSafety Commissioner argued that the current regulatory framework is not fit for purpose and that platforms should bear more responsibility for preventing the spread of harmful content. She noted that platforms possess sophisticated algorithmic capabilities to target users with 'deadly precision', making it possible to prevent the spread of such content. The ongoing royal commission's third block of hearings will examine the role of social media in addressing antisemitism and social cohesion.

This testimony joins an international debate about platform accountability, content moderation, and the balance between free speech and users' safety. Britain is no exception: the UK government has faced growing pressure to strengthen online regulations and protect British citizens from the scourge of cyber-abuse.

Why this matters: This story highlights the global challenge of regulating social media and controlling harmful content, directly impacting how UK citizens experience online spaces. It raises questions about platform accountability and the safety of digital environments for all users.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This debate directly affects your online experience, influencing the type of content you encounter and the safety measures platforms implement. It could lead to stricter regulations on social media companies operating in the UK, potentially altering how platforms moderate content and respond to user complaints about harmful material.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.