The G20 leaders have urged Facebook and other social media companies to step up their efforts to prevent the wide distribution of terror attacks on their platforms in the wake of the Christchurch massacre.

At the summit in Osaka, Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, succeeded in getting the leaders to put out the statement, despite reported hesitation from the Trump administration over free speech concerns.

What does it mean for Facebook?

In the statement, the leaders urge social media giants like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to “not allow use of their platforms to facilitate terrorism and VECT [violent extremism conducive to terrorism]”.

The statement is symbolic, and not a binding statement that forces the tech giants to do anything, or the countries involved to make new laws in this area.

Australia already legislated in this area, passing “world first” laws in April creating new offences for service providers that fail to remove videos depicting “abhorrent violent conduct” including terrorist acts, murders, torture, rape or kidnapping.

The countries party to the statement could begin pressuring Facebook and Twitter by passing Australian-style legislation in their own countries, but there’s nothing in the statement to force them to do so. Morrison said the statement was “a clear warning from global leaders to internet companies that they must step up”.

A report released by the Australian government to coincide with the G20 statement is likely to have a much bigger impact on what Facebook and other social media companies do in this area.

A taskforce set up by the Australian government with the tech companies and the telecommunications companies in March put together the report based on an agreed set of responses to the livestreaming of the Christchurch attack.

What have the social media companies agreed to do?

A new user for a social media site will not be able to livestream for a predetermined period (such as the first 24 hours after they create their account).

The sites have also agreed to strengthen the hash-sharing database and URL-sharing consortium. This means that when a video like the Christchurch massacre is identified by a URL or the unique code for the video, the social media sites can immediately detect when a user is trying to upload or share it and block it from being shared.

They’ll also inform users about how they can report such material and the processes for getting it taken down, and provide clear, efficient appeal processes if something has been taken down by mistake.

They will also fund research into how to prevent and counter terrorist material online.

What have the telecommunications companies agreed to do?

The companies have been blocking sites hosting the Christchurch video since shortly after the attack, and have agreed to keep blocking the sites, and to direct people to a page explaining why the site they’ve tried to visit is blocked.

The esafety commissioner is also going to develop a protocol with the telecommunications companies to set out the processes for blocking sites quickly in the event of another terrorist attack being streamed online.

How can we be sure it will work next time?

Australia and New Zealand have agreed to run a “testing” event in the next 12 months that will simulate a Christchurch-like event. The test will make sure that the new tools the social media companies have put in place and the government processes work as intended.

The test-run could, if successful, then be repeated regularly to ensure it is all working properly.

Will it be enough?

The government has left the door open to legislating even more if the scheme isn’t working as intended.

“Social media companies are on notice. If they don’t deliver on their commitments, we will move to legislate and do so quickly,” Morrison said.

The legislation passed in a matter of days in April before parliament was dissolved for the election has yet to be put to the test. Media companies and tech experts have warned that the legislation was rushed without fully considering the impact it could have on media reporting, or the potential unintended consequences – such as individuals working for the platforms being found liable for what users upload.

What does this mean for hate speech and online radicalisation?

There is an agreement to fund research to “better understand, prevent and counter terrorist and extreme violent material online” but limited other measures to prevent people from being radicalised online or sharing hate speech.