Law enforcement committee members rage over X policies on child abuse material

Aussie politicians were left gobsmacked and enraged after X executives contradicted the company’s own stated approach to online child safety.

Australian politicians across the political spectrum were united in fury after X executives exposed contradictions in their company’s own policies on child abuse material on the global social media platform.

X, formerly known as Twitter, executives Kathleen Reen and Nick Pickles appeared before a joint committee hearing on child exploitation and initially claimed the company had a “zero tolerance” approach to child abuse material.

“Any content that features or promotes that content and abuse is prohibited and will be immediately removed, their accounts permanently suspended,” Ms Reen said in her opening statement.

But later, Mr Pickles contradicted that statement and said an account that had shared child abuse material, or any other graphic or abusive material, could be reinstated.

“We have a zero tolerance approach to this content and permanent suspension is one of the options we have,” he said.

“But one of the challenges we see is, for example, people sharing this content out of outrage because they want to raise awareness of an issue, they see something in the media.

Representatives from social media company X, formerly Twitter, have appeared before a parliamentary committee. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/AFP

“So there are circumstances where someone shares content but under review we decide the appropriate remediation is to remove the content but not the user.”

Committee members Senator Helen Polley, Louise Miller-Frost, Dan Repacholi and Senator David Shoebridge expressed bewilderment and anger at the response.

Senator Shoebridge pressed the executives on a July tweet from American far-right figure Dominick McGee, who shared material from an Australian pedophile on his account.

Mr McGee’s account was suspended but X owner Elon Musk reinstated it.

“How does that in any way comply with your opening statement,” Senator Shoebridge asked.

The executives said they were not there to litigate individual cases.

Senator Polley said the motive behind sharing child abuse material, even if it was outrage rather than something more malicious, was not an excuse or reason to keep an account up.

Labor Senator Helen Polley chairs the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

“At the end of the day those children are still being re-victimised every time it is shared and becomes even more public,” Ms Miller-Frost said.

“It’s still a crime no matter what their reason, it’s still a crime.”

Mr Repacholi then put forward a “yes or no” question to the executives.

“Would you be upset if this was one of your children because I could tell you I’d be outraged if it was one of mine and it was continually being shared and you did nothing to do anything about these accounts except take an image away,” he said.

“I would be filthy I can tell you that right now.”

Mr Pickles said the company always took “the content” down.

“But you do nothing against the people who keep sharing it,” Mr Repacholi said.

Mr Pickles suggested a one-off share would not necessarily lead to an account suspension, but multiple or repeated sharing would.

“I will certainly take this conversation away and we will seek internal discussion about whether we should strengthen our approach and I’m grateful for the committees views and feedback on this issue,” he said.

Originally published as Law enforcement committee members rage over X policies on child abuse material