‘Trust us’: eSafety lashed over social media ban secrecy

Australia’s online watchdog did not disclose which apps had disabled 4.7 million accounts after the social media ban was lifted, citing possible public interest immunity.

Appearing before a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant described Australia’s under-16 social media ban as a “world-first digital reform”, signaling a “major cultural reset”.

Ms Inman-Grant said the number of accounts said to have already been disabled by the regulator since the December 10 ban “cannot be considered anything other than a stunning achievement”.

But when asked which sites these accounts were deactivated from, Ms Inman-Grant said the exact figures were still being investigated and expressed concerns that investigations could be compromised.

The hearing was told that Facebook’s parent company, Meta, volunteered that 550,000 accounts were disabled, while Snapchat approved a further 415,000 accounts, meaning only 965,000 accounts in total.

“So we have two companies that are sharing these figures voluntarily, but we are not at liberty to break down these figures if we want to preserve the integrity of these investigations,” Ms Inman-Grant said.

“Many of the companies have already said they want this information collected. I don’t want to allow them to undermine these investigations.”

eSafety General Manager of Regulatory Operations Heidi Snell said the agency did not bring a full breakdown of the figures to the investigation, but said 4.7 million was the “total sum” of the figures given.

He said information notices were issued to 10 platforms, including Reddit, YouTube, X, Twitch, Kik, Threads, Instagram, Facebook and Tiktok, which were required to provide user figures.

Ms Snell said the order was legally binding and penalties applied for failure to provide data or incorrect figures.

“On that basis, we believe we have a reasonable ability to be confident in the numbers we receive,” he said.

“What is also important to understand is that these notices were issued as part of ongoing regulatory investigations and it is important that we maintain the protection of these investigations as we do not want to compromise them.

“Because we don’t want to give them the ability to question or undermine our investigative processes if, as we continue to investigate, we become aware that the information they have provided is inaccurate or misleading, or we have other concerns about whether they have taken reasonable steps and we want to take this to court or use other enforcement powers.”

Going further, Ms Snell raised the possibility that it might be appropriate for eSafety to claim Public Interest Immunity, which would allow eSafety to withhold certain information that could be detrimental to the public interest.

Ms Snell stated that the figures on Snapchat and Meta were not independently verified and that all figures were investigated.

This shift led to the defeat of Liberal Senator Dean Smith.

“I don’t want to be rude, but your job is to show us that the 4.7 million figure is correct,” he said.

“The Prime Minister, Communications Minister Anika Wells and members of the government have marched 4.7 million, but please trust us that the difference between the 965,000 verified by Meta and Snapchat and the 4.7 million is something to be counted on.”