The E-Safety Commissioner of Australia, Julie Inman-Grant, criticized major social media companies for neglecting their responsibilities in preventing child sexual abuse and exploitation on their platforms. Inman-Grant highlighted that companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft have been "turning a blind eye" to the issue. A recent report revealed that none of the eight surveyed platforms utilized tools to detect child sexual exploitation.

The report specifically pointed out that Apple, Discord, Google, and Microsoft did not employ hash matching technology to identify harmful content related to known abusive material. Furthermore, these companies failed to track how many reports they received regarding child sexual abuse or how long it took them to respond. While Meta was noted for using tools against grooming behaviors and identifying sexual extortion on its platforms like Facebook and Instagram, the other companies lagged behind.

Inman-Grant expressed concern that without proper oversight and action from these tech giants, children remain vulnerable online. She urged these companies to make significant improvements in safeguarding children from such serious harms. This criticism coincided with the Australian government's decision to include YouTube in a ban preventing users under 16 from having accounts due to concerns about its impact on young users' safety.

Original article

The article does provide some actionable information by highlighting the criticism of major social media companies and their lack of action regarding child sexual abuse and exploitation. It urges these companies to take responsibility and make improvements, which could potentially lead to policy changes and better safeguarding measures. However, it does not offer specific steps or a clear plan of action for the reader to take.

Educational depth is lacking, as the article mainly focuses on the criticism and the companies' shortcomings without delving into the why and how of these issues. It does not explore the history, causes, or systemic factors contributing to the problem, which limits its ability to educate readers beyond the basic facts.

In terms of personal relevance, the topic is highly relevant to anyone concerned about online safety, especially for children and young people. It directly impacts how individuals and families approach online platforms and their potential risks. The article's focus on child safety and the potential for harm makes it a significant concern for many readers.

There is a public service function to the article, as it brings attention to an important issue and urges action from tech giants. It serves as a warning and a call to action for these companies to address a critical problem. However, it does not provide direct tools or resources for the public to use, such as reporting mechanisms or safety guidelines.

The advice given, which is to urge these companies to improve, is not very practical or actionable for the average reader. While it is a valid point, it does not offer specific guidance on what individuals can do to address the issue or protect themselves and their families.

In terms of long-term impact, the article does raise awareness about an ongoing issue and the need for sustained action. It highlights the importance of safeguarding measures and the potential for lasting change. However, it does not provide a clear roadmap for achieving these long-term goals or offer strategies for individuals to contribute to this change.

Emotionally, the article may evoke feelings of concern and a sense of urgency, which can motivate readers to take an interest in the issue. However, it does not provide strategies for managing these emotions or offer hope and guidance on how to effectively address the problem.

The language used is not overly dramatic or clickbait-y, but it does employ strong language to emphasize the severity of the issue and the companies' alleged negligence. While it is attention-grabbing, it does not veer into sensationalism.

The article could have been more helpful by providing practical steps individuals can take to protect themselves and their children online. It could have offered resources, such as links to trusted organizations or platforms that actively combat child sexual exploitation. Additionally, it could have included a list of questions or criteria for readers to assess the safety measures of different social media platforms.

In summary, the article provides a valuable service by bringing attention to a critical issue and urging action. However, it falls short in offering specific, actionable steps, educational depth, practical advice, and long-term strategies. It could have been more helpful by providing resources and guidance for individuals to take an active role in addressing this problem.

The neglect of social media companies in addressing child sexual abuse and exploitation on their platforms poses a grave threat to the fundamental bonds of kinship and the survival of families and communities.

The failure to employ tools like hash matching technology and track reports of abuse demonstrates a disregard for the duty of care that should be inherent in these companies' operations. By turning a blind eye, these tech giants are effectively abandoning their responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of society, namely children. This neglect erodes the trust that families place in these platforms, as parents and guardians are left to navigate online spaces without the assurance that their children are safe from predators.

The consequences of this neglect are far-reaching. Without proper safeguards, children are exposed to harmful content and potential abuse, which can have devastating effects on their physical, mental, and emotional well-being. This not only endangers the lives of individual children but also undermines the stability and continuity of families and communities.

Furthermore, the lack of oversight and action by these companies shifts the burden of protection onto distant, centralized authorities, fracturing the natural duties of parents and extended family members to safeguard their own. This forced dependency weakens family cohesion and the sense of collective responsibility that is essential for the survival and prosperity of the clan.

The criticism by Inman-Grant highlights the need for these companies to recognize their role in upholding the moral bonds that protect children and ensure the survival of the people. By failing to take action, they are complicit in the erosion of these bonds and the potential destruction of families and communities.

If these behaviors and ideas are allowed to persist unchecked, the consequences will be dire. The safety and well-being of children will continue to be compromised, leading to a breakdown of trust within families and communities. This, in turn, will hinder the ability of communities to care for and protect their vulnerable members, including the elderly, and to uphold the stewardship of the land.

The survival of the people depends on the protection of kin and the preservation of procreative families. Without these fundamental pillars, the continuity of the clan and the stewardship of the land are at risk. It is essential that these companies recognize their role in upholding these values and take immediate action to safeguard the most vulnerable members of society.

"A recent report revealed that none of the eight surveyed platforms utilized tools to detect child sexual exploitation."

This sentence uses a passive voice construction to obscure the responsibility of the social media companies. It implies that the lack of tools is an anonymous, uncontrollable situation, rather than a choice made by these companies. The passive voice hides the fact that these companies have actively decided not to implement such tools, shifting the focus away from their actions.

The text expresses a range of emotions, primarily conveying a sense of concern, anger, and urgency regarding the issue of child sexual abuse and exploitation on social media platforms.

The emotion of concern is evident throughout the text as it highlights the vulnerability of children online and the lack of adequate safeguards. This emotion is strong and serves to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem. By expressing concern, the writer aims to create a sense of empathy and understanding among readers, encouraging them to share the same worries about children's safety.

Anger is also a prominent emotion, directed at the major social media companies for their perceived negligence and lack of action. Words like "criticized," "neglecting," and "turning a blind eye" convey a strong sense of frustration and indignation. This anger is intended to provoke a reaction from readers, urging them to share the same outrage and perhaps take action to hold these companies accountable.

The text also conveys a sense of urgency, especially with phrases like "without proper oversight" and "children remain vulnerable." This emotion is meant to motivate readers to act quickly, as the issue is presented as an ongoing and immediate threat to children's well-being.

To persuade readers, the writer employs several rhetorical devices. One notable technique is the use of repetition, specifically mentioning multiple times that these companies are not doing enough to protect children. This repetition emphasizes the severity of the problem and reinforces the need for action.

Additionally, the writer compares the actions of Meta, which has implemented some tools against grooming and sexual extortion, to the other companies, highlighting their lack of progress. This comparison creates a sense of disparity and further emphasizes the urgency for change.

The text also makes use of emotional language, such as describing children as "vulnerable," which evokes a protective response from readers. By using such language, the writer aims to steer readers' emotions and thoughts towards a shared goal of ensuring children's safety online.

In summary, the text effectively employs a range of emotions to guide readers' reactions, creating a sense of concern, anger, and urgency. These emotions are strategically used to persuade readers to take action and hold social media companies accountable for their role in preventing child sexual abuse and exploitation.