Perhaps the government likes Julie Inman-Grant in the job because she does such a crazy job that it almost makes them look like, um, angels in comparison?!
Think...here is JIG, pushing for psycho boundaries, and then here is the saviour, the Labor Party, here to bring more 'reasonable' technological boundaries...
It's just a matter of comparison for the average Joe. She looks mad, they look sane.
Ultimately, they're both mad! JIG & the Labor Party are both terrible and both need to go.
We don't even NEED an 'E-commissioner'. People are quite capable of making up their own minds when it comes to technology. They don't need JIG and her office making decisions for them. If they don't want to use certain technology - they won't. The only real problem becomes when governments and/or private sector businesses require constituents to use certain technology to access things online - like Centrelink payments, or doing your tax when running your (non-sole-trader) company, or buying products; basically, signing into certain platforms. And then when the pollies enact legislation to require people to use particular platforms, well, then it just gets messy. And where is the E-commissioner when that happens, eh? Siding right with the government...
E lady offers no importance or positive effect to role she is supposed to be heading Most plans are of airy fairy substance but she still holds down that job ,if it can really be called a job rather than a performance
As for Grant and the U.S. Congressional report Exporting Censorship. This full report is scathing of her. (Downloadable).
If you google "U.S. Congressional report Exporting Censorship" the top two links will lead to the file. Grant's mention is particularly scary - for Australians!
Terms such as "has engaged in an aggressive regulatory campaign."
Strange she can - “regulate illegal and restricted content no matter where
it’s hosted” under the Online "Safety" Act, but she has already been thwarted under Australian Law! This makes the Online Safety Act UNLAWFUL.
Also - GARM coordinated with foreign regulators (including Grant who is mentioned) to further pressure Twitter into complying with its demands.
In fact Grant is mentioned RIGHT THROUGHOUT this report!
Maybe she's just a narcissist. Or has a god complex. So long as she's on every page, or at least every chapter, it's OK in her mind! Good or bad doesn't come into it?! :-D You know, being famous or infamous? Any which way, you still make the front page!
Maybe she's being paid specifically FOR her god complex?!
In that sense, she's one of the evil ones up top. Except that we see her face. So she's still one of the pawns. But a pawn for a purpose, nonetheless.
She and the pollies don't care if Acts are ultimately illegal. HEAPS of things are ultimately illegal .But so long as enough people believe in them, the wheels still turn and we still keep on, pretending we're a 'democracy'.
And still she keeps her well paid job!
Perhaps the government likes Julie Inman-Grant in the job because she does such a crazy job that it almost makes them look like, um, angels in comparison?!
Think...here is JIG, pushing for psycho boundaries, and then here is the saviour, the Labor Party, here to bring more 'reasonable' technological boundaries...
It's just a matter of comparison for the average Joe. She looks mad, they look sane.
Ultimately, they're both mad! JIG & the Labor Party are both terrible and both need to go.
We don't even NEED an 'E-commissioner'. People are quite capable of making up their own minds when it comes to technology. They don't need JIG and her office making decisions for them. If they don't want to use certain technology - they won't. The only real problem becomes when governments and/or private sector businesses require constituents to use certain technology to access things online - like Centrelink payments, or doing your tax when running your (non-sole-trader) company, or buying products; basically, signing into certain platforms. And then when the pollies enact legislation to require people to use particular platforms, well, then it just gets messy. And where is the E-commissioner when that happens, eh? Siding right with the government...
E lady offers no importance or positive effect to role she is supposed to be heading Most plans are of airy fairy substance but she still holds down that job ,if it can really be called a job rather than a performance
No offense George, but I like proof.
The Australian had a article but I can't access it because I'm not a subscriber.
But -
Elon Musk’s X wins ‘free speech’ fight against eSafety Commissioner
Story by Alexander Darling, Erin Pearson
• 13h • 3 min read
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/elon-musk-s-x-wins-free-speech-fight-against-esafety-commissioner/ar-AA1HKUIc
As for Grant and the U.S. Congressional report Exporting Censorship. This full report is scathing of her. (Downloadable).
If you google "U.S. Congressional report Exporting Censorship" the top two links will lead to the file. Grant's mention is particularly scary - for Australians!
Terms such as "has engaged in an aggressive regulatory campaign."
Strange she can - “regulate illegal and restricted content no matter where
it’s hosted” under the Online "Safety" Act, but she has already been thwarted under Australian Law! This makes the Online Safety Act UNLAWFUL.
Also - GARM coordinated with foreign regulators (including Grant who is mentioned) to further pressure Twitter into complying with its demands.
In fact Grant is mentioned RIGHT THROUGHOUT this report!
Think about that!!!
You can find a link to it here. https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/report-how-garms-advertising-cartel-helped-corporations-collude-foreign
Maybe she's just a narcissist. Or has a god complex. So long as she's on every page, or at least every chapter, it's OK in her mind! Good or bad doesn't come into it?! :-D You know, being famous or infamous? Any which way, you still make the front page!
Maybe she's being paid specifically FOR her god complex?!
In that sense, she's one of the evil ones up top. Except that we see her face. So she's still one of the pawns. But a pawn for a purpose, nonetheless.
She and the pollies don't care if Acts are ultimately illegal. HEAPS of things are ultimately illegal .But so long as enough people believe in them, the wheels still turn and we still keep on, pretending we're a 'democracy'.
Baumgarten and eSafety Commissioner (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 59 (5 February 2025)
This was a VERY in depth review. (Downloadable if anyone cares to).
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2025/59.html?context=1;query=Celine%20Baumgarten;mask_path=