Australia’s Online Content Moderator Monitors What Is Posted About Her

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant at a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, June 15, 2021. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

The authority in charge of overseeing what’s on the internet—and how much of it other people should be allowed to see—spends part of her taxpayer-funded budget monitoring what Australians are saying about her.

The office of the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant pays data analysis firm Meltwater for copies and analysis of social media posts mentioning @eSafetyOffice or @tweetinjules (Ms. Inman Grant’s personal account, on which she discusses issues related to her position).

Meltwater says it has access to “the most comprehensive list of social media data sources” but adds that “We don’t stop there. Our social listening also factors in commercial editorial media, TV, radio and podcasts.”

So no matter where someone might express an opinion about Ms. Inman Grant or her office, she’s sure to hear about it.

Major global brands such as AstraZeneca, Western Union, Microsoft, and Dominos retain the company.

While Meltwater doesn’t advertise its pricing, according to several websites such as Prezly (a competitor to some of Meltwater’s services), a basic licence costs $1,000 per user per month (though users have to sign up for an annual contract), and “add-on services like media monitoring, brand insights, etc. come with extra fees.”

Ms. Inman Grant has apparently signed up for the “Insights” package, which is designed to be used for marketing and PR purposes and which, from its positioning on Meltwater’s website, would appear to be the second most expensive option.

The company has apparently been providing eSafety with the service since 2020, and covers X, Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit.

Every Tweet You Make, Every Post You Rate, She'll Be Watching You

Rebekah Barnett, author of the Dystopian Down Under blog, lodged a Freedom of Information request seeking copies of the reports provided to the eSafety Office by the monitoring firm.

The reports she received, dated from March 27 to April 17, detail between 71 to over 8,000 mentions on several days. These figures include posts with as few as two views and reposts of other users.

Ms. Inman Grant’s office receives as many as three or four of these reports each day, all of which are read by eSafety’s General Manager of Regulatory Operations, Toby Allan Dagg.

This was confirmed in his testimony in an affidavit to the Federal Court, filed as part of ongoing proceedings between the Commissioner and social media platform X.

Annexed to the affidavit are two reports from Meltwater which include screenshots of posts on X that mentioned eSafety and/or the Commissioner.

A selection of tweets included in the affidavit of the eSafety Office's General Manager. Screenshot/Federal Court of Australia

In Mr. Dagg’s affidavit, he draws attention to the fact that on April 15, eSafety received 239 “social mentions” globally, including on X.

Then the Commissioner issued a “class 1 removal notice” to X and was successful in gaining an interim injunction from the Federal Court ordering the social media company to block viewing of footage of the Sydney church stabbing to users worldwide.

He says he then observed “a very large increase in the number of daily mentions of the eSafety Commissioner across major social media services, especially the X social media service,” with 31,870 on April 24 alone. On that date, the dispute between Elon Musk and eSafety over a global takedown request of the Sydney church stabbing reached a climax.

That section of the affidavit is titled “Risk to Safety of Employees” and supports the Commissioner’s application to the court—which was ultimately successful—to suppress the names of all eSafety officers mentioned orally or in writing during proceedings.

Yet The Epoch Times has viewed the X posts submitted by Mr. Dagg and—while many contain robust criticism of Ms. Inman Grant and her office (some even calling for her deportation, though she is now an Australian citizen)—none could be construed as a threat.

However, another affidavit, which media and the public are prevented from seeing, allegedly contains details of threats to the eSafety Commissioner. Mr. Dagg said in testimony that the office had requested the assistance of the Australian Federal Police and New South Wales Police to ensure her safety and well-being.

eSafety Appears to Be Researching Its Critics

Whether or not the eSafety office’s monitoring of people’s social media presence is a benign “reputation management” operation or something else altogether is questioned by Nathan Livingstone.

He posts under the username @TheMilkBarTV, some of which is content critical of Ms. Inman Grant.

He also interviewed “MilkbarChris” Elston, the subject of another order from the Commissioner’s office.

He published an open letter on X, noting that his wife’s LinkedIn profile had been viewed by someone with the title of “Business Strategist” at eSafety.

“My wife has not interacted with the eSafety Commissioner in any way,” he wrote.

“She has not made any public comments or criticism about Julie Inman Grant or the eSafety Office. Furthermore, her last name is different to mine on LinkedIn.

“My wife has made an effort to keep her social media accounts private for the personal safety of herself and our 1-year-old child. Her LinkedIn profile is deliberately hard to find.”

“The only plausible reason anyone at the eSafety office would have to be looking into her social media is her connection to me and my criticism of their recent behavior. This is a targeted and blatant attempt at surveillance and has been extremely disturbing and distressing,” Mr. Livingstone wrote.