Bondi Beach Attack Survivor Slams YouTube Over 'Crisis Actor' Video

A survivor of the Bondi Beach terror attack has expressed outrage at YouTube's decision to keep a video on its platform in which creators suggested he had lied about his injuries.

The video features a group of men describing Bondi Beach shooting victim Arsen Ostrovsky as an "intelligence asset", who had a "degree in theatre" and "seems very crisis actor-ish".

Warning: This story contains graphic images of a person with bloody physical injuries.

One of the men in the video also suggested the terror attack "might be a false flag".

YouTube faced questions at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion on Tuesday about the video, which remains on the platform after the company found it did not breach its hate speech policies.

On Tuesday, counsel assisting Richard Lancaster SC put to Australia-based YouTube policy manager Rachel Lord that the video was a "very clear breach" of the company's community guidelines.

Ms Lord said the video did not breach the policy and that it had been "reviewed at quite senior levels".

"My understanding … that [violent events component] part of the policy is looking at denial of the event itself or denial of victimhood, not questioning motivations and actions around it," she said.

Mr Ostrovsky, who heads the Sydney office of the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council, told the ABC the company's position was unacceptable.

"We know that words can lead to hatred and dehumanisation, and ultimately to violence and profoundly dangerous consequences.

"When a major technology platform believes it's OK to amplify malicious conspiracy theories targeting the victims of terrorism, it has the potential to hurt everyone."

Tech giants accused of being 'above the law'

Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Peter Wertheim also criticised YouTube and accused it of putting "mercantile self-interest" ahead of the community.

"It just highlights how a big tech company like that considers itself to be above the law,"

"I mean, this was a video that patently and obviously was spreading misinformation. And more than that, it was dangerous misinformation because it was being used, as all antisemitism is, to propagate a lie."

The third block of the royal commission hearings has examined whether tech companies should face tougher regulations that would compel them to remove harmful content.

Mr Wertheim said it would require concerted action from like-minded countries to hold the platforms accountable.

"Nobody elects the big tech companies. They owe no duty of accountability to anyone through the political process,"

"The legal constraints on them appear to be minimal, and their capacity to spread outright falsehoods and misinformation is almost unlimited."

YouTube 'open' to further regulation

Ms Lord on Tuesday suggested YouTube would be "open" to further regulation after Mr Lancaster accused the company of having a "really serious deficiency" in its policies for allowing the video about Bondi.

"I'm sure you'd appreciate, and as we've seen successively in Australia, the difficulties in regulating speech, and regulating content. It's hard, it can be sensitive and there are always trade-offs," Ms Lord replied.

"Were the government to determine that Australia required regulation or some form of regulatory intervention in this space, we would be open to that and obviously, then content would be blocked on our platform in accordance with local law."

Queensland University of Technology professor of law Nicolas Suzor said the tension between governments and tech companies highlighted "a conflict of values".

"These companies grew up in Silicon Valley, they have a very American view of freedom of speech, and it's not playing out well in the rest of the world, and they're still struggling to reconcile those,"

"That's a big political discussion that's happening at every level in most major democracies at the moment."

But Professor Suzor — who is a member of the Oversight Board, an independent organisation that oversees content moderation decisions by Meta, said it was becoming untenable for platforms to avoid their social obligations.

"I think we're at a point now where the platforms have got to recognise that there is so much demand for greater respect for democratic values and for greater safety protections that it's no longer possible for them to just retreat to the US way of doing things,"

The royal commission will resume hearings on Thursday.