Ammon News - Elon Musk's X accused Australia of trying to give its internet regulator unfair information-gathering powers and undermining U.S. law with plans for tougher enforcement of a teen social ​media ban.

Australia's world-first law barring accounts for under-16s took effect last December, drawing criticism ‌from social media companies, mostly based in the United States.

But the contention by X, whose parent company is Musk's just-listed SpaceX (SPCX.O), opens new tab, amounts to one of the world's most powerful people injecting a geopolitical element into the debate.

The plans did ​not give "due regard to procedural fairness, privacy, the broader impacts on online services, and Australia's ​digital economy", X told an Australian senate committee.

In its submission published on Tuesday, ⁠X took aim at plans to give the eSafety Commissioner wider rights of document discovery and double ​a maximum fine to A$99 million ($69 million).

The changes would "compel any person outside Australia ... to provide information and ​documents merely because they are 'affiliated' with a company," X said, a move it described as being "in clear conflict" with international legal principles.

The amendment "raises potential for a severe impact on international comity", it added, using a phrase denoting respect for ​a foreign country's legal system.

A U.S. congressional committee has already asked the eSafety Commissioner to testify, accusing ​her of imperiling American free speech.

The billionaire Musk himself called the Australian social media ban a "backdoor way to control ‌access to ⁠the internet by all Australians" in an earlier post on X.
Data published by eSafety and studies since the ban have shown most Australian teenagers under 16 still have social media accounts.

eSafety has said it is preparing a potential enforcement lawsuit against five platforms but is slowed by its limited powers.

The regulator ​told the panel its ​currently-limited power to compel ⁠documents was at odds with other regulators, making it dependent on "representations from providers about their own compliance".


Reuters