Protecting 3rd Party who instructed Australian Electorial Commission to interfer with my platform during the Federal Election Last Year.
Documents are located in last post CBMK 23 Jan 2026 No 54
From the AEC FOI decision:
Page 1 — The AEC confirms my FOI request relates to documents about the “removal or restriction of my social media content by Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook and Instagram).”
Pages 3–6 — The AEC refuses to release full details of how decisions were made or how communications with platforms occurred, citing internal deliberations, operational harm, and third-party business secrecy.
Pages 1–2 — The AEC expressly states it “did not contact TikTok in relation to my account.”
They disclose TikTok.
They refuse to fully disclose Meta.
What has happened to me raises serious questions about transparency, fairness, and democratic integrity in Australia.
A government authority withholding information from a federal election candidate, while actions are taken that restrict that candidate’s ability to reach the public, strikes at the core of our democracy. When political communication is curtailed, hidden, or selectively enforced, the public’s right to freely choose their representatives is undermined.
Under the Australian Constitution, sections 7 and 24 give rise to an implied freedom of political communication. That freedom exists so the people can hear competing political views and make informed choices at elections. Any action that burdens that freedom — particularly during or leading into an election — must be lawful, proportionate, and transparent.
I was penalised for social media posts well before I had even applied to run as a candidate, at a time when I was not subject to electoral authorisation requirements. Those penalties later followed me into my candidacy. That raises serious concerns about jurisdiction, retrospectivity, and fairness.
During my campaign, my content was restricted in a way that disproportionately affected Western Australia, despite my audience being national. This explains why, throughout the election period, the majority of my engagement came from the east coast. Yet immediately after the election — between 3 May and 1 June — I gained approximately 50,000 followers, demonstrating that the suppression of my reach was not organic, but lifted once the election had passed.
Despite this, restrictions and compliance notices remain attached to my Facebook and Instagram accounts. My reach has remained capped at approximately 86,000 followers since November, with people continuing to be removed from my page. I have been penalised for music content despite agreements being in place, and despite repeated correspondence with Meta.
The seriousness of this cannot be overstated. These actions may have materially interfered with my ability to campaign and with the public’s ability to hear from me. They did not just affect my candidacy — they affected the democratic process itself.
I have been forced to escalate this issue beyond Australia, including contacting United States senators, due to the lack of accountability and transparency shown by both Meta and Australian regulatory bodies, including the eSafety Commissioner.
If someone like me — who has fought to break cycles of disadvantage, who grew up in poverty, who has worked relentlessly to create a voice and platform — can be undermined in this way, then what message is being sent to Australians who dare to challenge the status quo?
What message does this send to children in Australia who grow up believing that hard work, integrity, and courage matte
Support the show
Follow Code Black with Madison King www.linktr.eee https://linktr.ee/codeblackMK?
Jan 28 20262 min