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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
