Meta
is
hoping
that
industry
codes
for
blocking
harmful
online
material
that
were
recently
rejected
by
the
eSafety
Commissioner
might
be
made
public.
The
draft
codes
were
not
published
when
they
were
rejected,
but
Meta’s
head
of
Australian
public
policy Josh
Machin
told
a
parliamentary
inquiry
yesterday
that
the
company
had
“always
been
an
advocate
for
transparency”
and
would
support
their
release.
“Obviously
it’s
not
our
decision
but
we
think
there
would
be
a
lot
of
benefit
in
the
public
debate
in
putting
the
codes
out
there,
so
people
can
see
what
companies
would
already
be
proposing,”
Machin
said.
At
last
week’s
senate
estimates,
eSafety
Commissioner
Julie
Inman
Grant
took
a
request
to
make
the
draft
codes
public
on
notice
–
that
is,
for
response
at
a
later
time.
Grant
said
a
public
debate
about
how
the
platforms
moderate
class
1A
and
1B
harmful
content
would
risk
“creating
a
blueprint
for
weaponisation.”
“We
need
to
make
sure
that
we’re
demonstrating
procedural
fairness,”
she
said.
“It’s
really
helping
them
get
to
an
outcome
that
meets
those
appropriate
community
safeguards.
These
go
directly
to
their
reputation
and
their
regulatory
responsibilities,
and
so
there
are
some
sensitivities.
“I
would
just
want
to
note
that
that
is
primarily
why
we
respect
their
confidentiality
through
these
processes.”
Grant
did
not
detail
all
the
“areas
of
concern”
that
she
advised
the
eight
industry
associations
to
address
in
their
resubmissions
when
rejecting
their
draft
codes
earlier
this
month.
However,
at
last
week’s
senate
estimates,
Grant
said
platforms
were
doing
“shockingly
little”
to
detect
child
abuse
material
and
referenced
her
report
from
last
December
naming
and
shaming
which
companies
had
failed
to
deploy
available
technologies
for
blocking
the
abhorent
material.
Yesterday,
eSafety
took
another
question
on
notice
on
whether
it
would
revise
its
position
on
withholding
the
codes
now
that
Meta
had
supported
publishing
them.
eSafety
acting
chief
operating
officer
Toby
Dagg
said
Meta
was
“one
of
many
industry
members
involved
in
the
construction
of
the
codes…so
we’ll
have
to
take
some
more
soundings
before
we
come
to
a
review
as
to
whether
or
not
there’s
broad
consensus
within
industry.”
Because
of
the
range
of
sectors
involved,
code
development
involves
a
number
of
individual
industry
bodies,
including
the
Business
Software
Alliance,
the
Australian
Mobile
Telecommunications
Association,
the
Communications
Alliance,
the
Consumer
Electronics
Suppliers
Association,
the
Digital
Industry
Group,
and
the
Interactive
Games
and
Entertainment
Association.
When
rejecting
the
draft
codes,
Grant
said
that
The
Online
Safety
Act
2021
enabled
her
to
register
them
independently
if
the
associations’
commitments
to
moderating
the
harmful
content
fell
short.
She
intended
to
have
the
matter
resolved
in
March.
About Author
