Resolves YES if Australia restricts access to x.com in 2026 in a way that might be reasonably called a "ban", where the bar for this will be low. This includes but is not limited to:

• A DNS block at the ISP level

• Delisting the app from the Apple app store or Google Play

• IP blocks at the ISP level

Other website bans in Australia have typically been done via DNS blocks, where specific ISPs are required either by court orders or instructions from regulators to block the websites in their DNS servers. Other DNS servers such as Google's (8.8.8.8), not associated with the specific Australian ISPs named in such orders, aren't required to implement these blocks and as such they are trivial to circumvent even without a VPN.

Such easy-to-circumvent methods will count. Basically any technical barriers implemented by the Australian federal government, intended to restrict access, will count, the bar is low. Such a ban need not require new legislation if it is able to be done via within existing powers of the relevant government departments.

If a ban is implemented for some platforms but not others (e.g. for desktop but not mobile or vice versa), the market will still resolve YES. If a ban is required by some ISPs but not others, this would count.

Examples:

• Polymarket's ban in Australia was done by the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, adding Polymarket to a list that ISPs are required to block. This would count.

• The Pirate Bay's ban in Australia was under a federal court order naming specific ISPs required to block access. This would count.

• 4chan was briefly blocked by some Australian ISPs in 2019 after the Christchurch massacre. As far as I can tell, this was done entirely voluntarily by those ISPs. This would not count, as it was a decision made by private companies and not the government.