Evidence of meeting #19 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was site.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
I do not have links in front of me. You gave me words. Those words—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Are you going to tell me that those links don't exist, that those terms do not exist? If they did exist, it would be criminal behaviour.
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
I'm not saying that they don't exist, and I'd actually like to assure the committee that of all the videos that have been suspended in December, none of them have been deleted. Everything has been preserved. We still have all of that content available.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
That's all up online, right? People can tag it and go to it. They can't see it, but it'll—
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
No, that's not correct. It is in a suspended state that no one can access. I just want to assure the committee—
Conservative
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
That's not what I said.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Let's turn to Mrs. Stubbs now.
Mrs. Stubbs, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thanks, Chair.
I hardly can even understand what is going on here. There are just a couple of issues that I guess I want to clarify.
You keep comparing yourself to other social media platforms and tech companies. I think the key difference is that every single one of those platforms explicitly banned the content that you profit from. There's that issue.
I also find it shocking that you would come to this public committee after it has been public that—and we as members of Parliament know without a shadow of a doubt—content of child sexual abuse material, non-consensual material and human trafficking material has been present on at least one of your at least 48 subsidiaries. How it could be that you've come to this committee and not actually know your terms of reference and not be able to answer those questions is just mind-boggling to me.
I guess I have a few more questions about your moderation and your content. You've said that you have MindGeek moderators, which we actually understand are called “content formatters”, which turns one's stomach, doesn't it? You've said that those content formatters view and approve every single video and approve each piece of content. Do you agree that MindGeek content formatters viewed and approved every example of child abuse and non-consensual content?
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
Thank you for the question, Ms. Stubbs.
I just want to go back and make one quick correction. Many of the main social media platforms that people use daily, such as Twitter and Reddit and others—I don't know all of them—are—
February 5th, 2021 / 2:30 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
I'm trying to. I'm just trying to answer all the different topics you brought up, and I want to correct things that I believe are incorrect.
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
Twitter and Reddit also allow for adult content. We don't really have a gauge on whether there's more there than there is on our sites.
As for the content formatters—
Conservative
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
That is correct. They allow adult content on all of those platforms. I'm not trying to at all paint a bad picture of those companies. I think they're both good companies, but I believe they face a lot of the challenges that we do.
In regard to the content formatters versus compliance, I believe I addressed this, but I'll revisit it. The content formatters team is a completely separate team that has nothing to do with the compliance agents. Content formatters are not allowed to interact with the content until it is actually screened by the compliance agents. Once stuff is allowed to go live, then the formatters are able to interact with the content.
They are two separate teams completely. It was a misunderstanding. I believe it was cited in an article somewhere. I read one of the articles; I just can't remember which one it was.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Okay.
Can you explain why, and how, did MindGeek verify, in the Modelhub program, multiple confirmed underage victims, including the 15-year-old from Florida who was abused in 58 videos, and why a trafficker from Tuscaloosa, Alabama, who was verified under the name BigTankDog, was abusing a 16-year-old, in your verified program?
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
The IDs that were provided were, from what we could assess, legally issued identifications. At the time, we understood that they were 18 years old. I don't want to be on record saying the wrong thing, because those are very specific cases, but every time you're part of the model program and you have submitted videos that are to be monetized, you automatically have to give identification.
The primary performer is the one who provides the identification. If we believe the secondary performer looks underage, we would request the secondary performer's ID. The primary performer, or the account holder, provides their identification. We have the identification of these individuals. I believe—I'm saying “believe”, because I'm not 100% sure—that in at least one of those cases, we're working with authorities to provide the information requested.
The owner of the account also attests that everyone else performing or appearing in the piece of content is of age and has provided the necessary consent to allow for those videos to be uploaded. You can't just put something up.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Okay, but it just seems to be clearly the case, from testimony in this committee and also from the media reports, that everything you've just described has failed—over and over and over.
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
It is possible that people committing crimes are able to circumvent our systems. It's similar to security on a home or security at a bank. You put multiple levels of security and deterrents in place, but if a criminal still wants to commit a crime, they will try to circumvent the systems. We are constantly adding new systems and better systems and trying to further it to not only deter but to stop.
I mentioned this previously. The content on our site—
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
But that's only as of two months ago, as of December 2020, right?
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
No. That's also not true.
Chief Operating Officer, Entreprise MindGeek Canada
No. This has been a constant evolution since at least 2008, I want to say, when we started doing moderation. We actually were doing moderation when everyone else, like Facebook and the others, were not, because they believed it could cause them to lose their DMCA “safe harbour”. Now that time has evolved....
We were still willing to do it, because it was so important to us as a business that we wouldn't allow CSAM on the site. We did it even though we thought we could lose our DMCA safe harbour.