Evidence of meeting #153 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was facebook.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I can't tell if it's a yes or a no.
Google...?
12:50 p.m.
Global Director, Information Policy, Google LLC
We will continue to communicate on how we're doing.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Director, Public Policy, Twitter Inc.
We believe transparency is key. I think there are a couple of points to consider. One is that each of these algorithms is proprietary. It's important to think about those things.
12:50 p.m.
Director, Public Policy, Twitter Inc.
The other is understandable. We often talk very different languages. Bad actors, and their understanding of how we do our things...and also to judge us on the outcomes and not necessarily the inputs.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay.
I'm running out of time, so I want to talk about liability and the responsibility for content on your platforms. I understand that for very harmful content...and we can talk about the nature of the content itself. If it's very harmful, if it's child porn or terrorism, you will take it down. If it's clearly criminal hate speech, you take it down, because these are harmful just by the nature of the content. There would be liability in Germany, certainly, and we've recommended at this committee that there be liability. If it's obviously hateful content, if it's obviously illegal content, there should be liability on social media platforms if they don't take it down in a timely way. That makes sense to me.
The second question, though, is not about the nature of the content. It's about your active participation in increasing the audience for that content. Where an algorithm is employed by your companies and used to increase views or impressions of that content, do you acknowledge responsibility for the content? I'm looking for a simple yes or no.
Let's go around, starting with Google.
12:55 p.m.
Global Director, Information Policy, Google LLC
We have a responsibility for what we recommend, yes.
12:55 p.m.
A voice
For sure.
12:55 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
12:55 p.m.
Director, Public Policy, Twitter Inc.
Yes, we take that responsibility extremely seriously.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
We'll go back to the U.K. delegation for another five-minute slot.
Just so it's clear, Estonia has asked for a second question. Germany, Mexico and members of our committee have as well. There's Singapore, whose hand I've seen just now, Charlie Angus, Damian Collins and then I'll finish.
Mr. Lucas or Ms. Stevens, go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
To all the platforms, do you have a satisfactory age verification process in place for your platform?
Mr. Monje.
12:55 p.m.
Director, Public Policy, Twitter Inc.
We do. We implement the GDPR age gating procedures and are trying to figure out ways to do that in a way that protects the privacy of our users. Often you have to collect more information from minors in order to verify they are who they say they are.
12:55 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
Facebook, do you have a satisfactory age verification process in place?
12:55 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
I thought Carlos's answer was quite good. That's exactly the tension we're looking at.
Having said that, I understand the spirit of your question. We can always get better. I have to tell you—and I think you've heard it from colleagues of mine who recently appeared in the U.K.—
12:55 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
You do read transcripts of evidence, then.
12:55 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Actually, I didn't. I spent time with a colleague, Karina Newton, whom members may know. She's a lovely lady and she spent some of her time briefing me on how she thought it went. She thought it went really well. There were really deep and piercing questions, sir, with respect to age verification.
Unfortunately, though, the technology is not quite there yet.
12:55 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
Google...?
12:55 p.m.
Global Director, Information Policy, Google LLC
Yes, we have requirements in place and broadly agree with what was said.
12:55 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
You may have requirements in place, but I've actually been able to join Instagram as a 10-year-old, I think, during the course of a committee meeting. It seems to me, from the evidence I've heard and from what I hear from my constituents in the U.K., people are extremely concerned and don't believe there are satisfactory age verification processes in place. Indeed, the evidence I received was that the platforms themselves in the U.K. seemed to be suggesting there weren't satisfactory age verification procedures in place.
Do you disagree with that? Do you think the position is okay? That is basically what most of us have been asking.
12:55 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
Sir, what I said earlier was that we can always do better. The technology is not where we'd like it to be.
12:55 p.m.
Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons
Okay.
For Facebook, I'm a little confused about the relationship you have with WhatsApp and Instagram, and the transfer of data. If I give information to Facebook, is it freely transferable to Instagram and to WhatsApp?
12:55 p.m.
Global Policy Director, Facebook Inc.
As you know—I believe, because Karina mentioned that you had an exchange on this in the U.K.—Facebook and Instagram are governed by one set of terms of service, and WhatsApp is governed by another.