While it is tempting to suggest Elon Musk's massive ego is what is driving his decision to challenge a "takedown" notice issued by the Australian eSafety Commissioner the truth is probably a bit more prosaic.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Yes, an over-developed sense of self-importance is obviously in play here. But Musk, the man who bought Twitter (now "X") and then famously trashed it in a matter of months, is also protecting his own interests, power and influence.
Once upon a time the super rich who wanted to guide and, in many instances, direct events including the outcomes of elections, commercial and fiscal policy and the like would buy a newspaper. Lord Beaverbrook, Lord Northcliffe, William Randolph Hearst and, more recently, Rupert Murdoch are good examples of the type.
Sometimes these "investments" were vanity projects designed to enhance prestige, social stature and to influence the levers of government and commerce. Other more hard -headed proprietors combined business and pleasure, making money while reaping the benefits the perceived power to influence public opinion can bring.
Elon Musk, and to a lesser extent Mark Zuckerberg, make the press barons of yesteryear look like corporate angels by comparison, however.
They seem to regard the internet as the new "wild west" in which it should be possible to do anything and to say anything. They guard the untrammelled independence of their social media platforms with a zeal that on occasion appears to defy reason and belief.
Mr Musk's opposition to taking down the video of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel allegedly being stabbed by a 16-year-old youth in what authorities have deemed a terrorist attack at the Assyrian Christ The Good Shepherd Church in Sydney is a classic case in point.
While, fortunately, the Bishop survived, the attack appears as if it was intended to kill. Although the outrage was not being filmed by the perpetrator the church service was being live streamed.
The footage, which has a ghoulish appeal for some, became an Internet sensation prompting the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to ask for it to be taken down in the immediate wake of the attack. The following day she was forced to issue takedown notices to both X and Facebook.
"While the majority of mainstream media platforms have engaged with us I am not satisfied enough is being done to protect Australians from this most extreme and gratuitous material," she said on April 16. "I have issued a notice to X requiring them to remove this content."
Enough said one would have thought. Having ignored a polite request a serious shot across the social media giants' bows should do the trick. But that was not to be.
READ MORE:
X has chosen to fight the order arguing this is a "free speech" issue and the Australian government is engaging in censorship. That said, it has complied with a court order issued on Monday by "geo-blocking" the video so it can't be seen by Australian users.
The most bizarre aspect of this is that Mr Musk appears to be willing to dig in over what is essentially a "snuff video".
There is no place on the internet for footage of jihadists beheading hostages, of the Christchurch killer livestreaming his crimes and of the footage of the October 7 attacks that were uploaded by Hamas murderers. Nor should there be a place on social media for false, malicious claims about the identity of the Bondi Junction killer.
The internet is often referred to as "the web of lies". That will continue to be the case until people such as Mr Musk and Mr Zuckerberg accept their responsibility as publishers and adhere to the same laws and guidelines as other media.
