Big Sister’s Snooping Subordinates

Melbourne filmmaker Nathan Livingstone makes his daily bread producing online videos for his vlog, which are posted mostly on X @TheMilkBarTV. Like many Australians, he scorns the notion that we are so mentally feeble Big Sister Julian Inman Grant must vet any and all online content we might come across.

No fan of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and a critic of Inman Grant’s censorship  policies, Nathan was astonished to find one of Big Sister’s acolytes had been checking out his family.

Below, Nathan’s open letter to the eSafety Commissioner demanding an explanation. As of today, no worthwhile response has been forthcoming. — rf

__________________________

MY NAME is Nathan Livingstone (above) and I create videos for a living, primarily posting on the X/Twitter account @TheMilkBarTV.

Recently, I’ve made several posts on X being critical of Julie Inman Grant and the Esafety Office, for what I see as an overreach in online censorship in Australia. Most notably, I interviewed Chris Elston aka @BillboardChris about one of his recent X posts that was censored in Australia by the eSafety Commissioner.

See also: What Julie Inman Grant has in store for you

I posted this video on X on March 18, 2024, and again on April 20, 2024, this video has over 160k impressions.

On 19 April 2024, my wife, received a notification on LinkedIn that someone with the title of ‘Business Strategist’ at the eSafety Commissioner had searched for her profile (screenshot below).

My wife has not interacted with the eSafety Commissioner in any way, in person or online. 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 and has no affiliation with my content or @TheMilkBarTV.

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 behaviour.

This is a targeted and blatant attempt of surveillance and has been extremely disturbing and distressing to both my wife and I. At least one employee of the eSafety office has made a concerted effort to find my wife’s social media profile.

We demand to know why someone in the eSafety Commission was looking into my family online. Which other members of my family or people connected to me have they been trying to find and monitor? Is this normal and acceptable behaviour for the eSafety Commissioner, to be supervising content creators and their family online?

On their website, esafety.gov.au, eSafety states that they are the “world’s first government agency dedicated to keeping people safer online” with the goal of creating “a more positive online experience for all Australians”.

My wife feels considerably more unsafe and vulnerable following this targeted and intrusive behaviour by eSafety.

As an Australian citizen, I believe I have the right to know why I am being monitored by my own government, especially when the only possible reason the eSafety Commissioner would be looking into me (and my family) is because of my public criticisms of the office itself.

I expect full transparency and accountability on this matter.

Sincerely,
Nathan Livingstone