Critics of X’s current trajectory argue that the platform’s refusal to engage with the royal commission is a dangerous abdication of corporate responsibility. They contend that while free speech is a foundational value, it does not grant companies a free pass to profit from the proliferation of hate speech, terrorist propaganda, and traumatic imagery. By ignoring the inquiry, X is effectively signaling that its internal profit motives take precedence over the safety and well-being of the Australian public.
This perspective highlights the tangible harm caused by the platform’s policies, noting that the spread of antisemitic content and graphic violence has real-world consequences for individuals and minority communities. Opponents argue that X’s decision to downgrade its trust and safety teams has turned the platform into a hotbed for extremism, making it increasingly difficult for regulators to protect users. They maintain that operating in Australia is a privilege, not a right, and that this privilege should be contingent upon a commitment to transparency and cooperation with national safety standards.
Ultimately, those critical of X’s stance believe that the company’s behavior undermines the social contract. They argue that by hiding behind the guise of free speech, the platform is avoiding the necessary work of mitigating the harms its algorithms amplify. For these observers, the royal commission’s condemnation is a necessary step toward holding global tech giants accountable, ensuring that they cannot simply ignore the laws and community standards of the countries where they operate.