2025-12-03 20:29:21
What a surprise. Possibly related to the fact that Apple rejected the proposal.
Details: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2198110®=3&lang=2
2025-12-03 18:51:46
Justice: “So they thought it was appropriate regulatory practice […] to issue an informal notice to X and then claim it is a non-reviewable decision?”
eSafety: “I’m not going to embrace that characterisation your honour…”
Justice: “Yes I can understand why you wouldn’t want to, but that’s nevertheless factually the case isn’t it?”
The full text is even more amazing:
And in a spectacular cameo arising from a very awkward attempt to explain the recent case of FSU Director Reuben Kirkham in Kirkham v eSafety Commissioner, the Court clarified that a complaint under s36(3) did in fact require a binary decision, to either issue a s88 notice (reviewable and subject to a statement of reasons) or to not issue a s88 (reviewable and subject to a statement of reasons).
Accordingly, wasn’t it objective evidence of the fact that the sending of the composite complaint alert to X via the legal request portal constituted a s88 (one of the two outcomes compelled by a complaint under the OSA)?
Justice Beach: “So they thought it was appropriate regulatory practice, not to make a decision to issue a notice, not to make a decision to refuse to issue a notice, but to issue an informal notice to X and then claim it is a non-reviewable decision?”
eSafety barrister: “I’m not going to embrace that characterisation your honour…”
Justice Beach: “Yes I can understand why you wouldn’t want to, but that’s nevertheless factually the case isn’t it?”
More at: Australia Court Questions eSafety’s Power in X Free Speech Appeal
https://reclaimthenet.org/australia-court-questions-esafetys-power-in-x-free-speech-appeal
2025-12-03 17:41:20
Maybe it’s time for some Australian parents to set up actual passwords for all of those “Login with Google” accounts they use?
2025-12-03 15:27:10
Parents will lose the ability to supervise their teen or tween’s account on YouTube, as these accounts only work when they are signed in. “That means parents will no longer be able to use any controls they have set up, such as choosing an appropriate content setting or blocking specific channels.”
2025-12-03 08:51:35
Albo says that he expects imperfection, but what happens if a few million kids download VPNs and just walk around all the bullshit? Where is the compliance then?
2025-12-02 19:44:03
Can you judge the heat of a moral panic by the number of bills purporting to solve it? […] lawmakers have moved on from sex trafficking to social media—from Craigslist and Backpage to Instagram, TikTok, and Roblox. So here we are, with a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on 19 different kids-and-tech bills scheduled for this week.
https://reason.com/2025/12/01/lawmakers-to-consider-19-bills-for-childproofing-the-internet/
Via: