Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 17
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.
I would first like to acknowledge that I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. With me, as you said, are Joëlle Montminy, senior assistant deputy minister, cultural affairs, and Pierre-Marc Perreault, acting director, digital citizen initiative.
Like you and many other Canadians, I am concerned by the disturbing rise and spread of hateful, violent and exploitive content online and on social media.
As a legislator and father of four children, I find some of the content of these platforms to be profoundly inhuman.
I am also deeply troubled by the consequences and the echoes of that content in the real world.
The overall benefits of the digital economy and social media are without question. In fact, I published a book, shortly before I took up politics, wherein I talked about the benefits of the digital economy, of artificial intelligence in particular, but also about some unintended negative consequences.
In Canada, more than 9 out of 10 adults use at least one online platform, and since the beginning of the pandemic, online platforms have played an even more important role in our lives.
We use social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to stay connected to our families, friends and colleagues. We use them to work, to conduct business, to reach new markets and audiences, to make our voices and opinions heard, and to engage in necessary and vital democratic debate. However, we have also seen how social media can have negative and very harmful impacts.
On a daily basis, there are Internet users who share damaging content, either to spread hate speech, the sexual exploitation of children, terrorist propaganda, or words meant to incite violence.
This content has led and contributed to violent outbursts such as the attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City in 2017, and similar attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.
Canadians and people all over the world have watched these events and others unfold on the news with shock and fear. We all understand the connections between these events and hateful, harmful online discourse. We worry about our own safety and security online. We worry about what our children and our loved ones will be exposed to.
According to a recent poll by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, an overwhelming 93% of Canadians believe that online hate and racism are a problem, and at least 60% believe that the government has an obligation to prevent the spread of hateful and racist content online.
In addition, the poll revealed that racialized groups in Canada are more than three times more likely to experience racism online than non-racialized Canadians.
Since the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic, we have seen a rise in anti-Asian hate speech on the Internet and a steady increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric, further fuelled by recent events.
A June 2020 study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that Canadians use more than 6,600 online services, pages and accounts hosted on various social media platforms to convey ideologies tinged with white supremacism, misogyny or extremism. This type of content wreaks havoc and destroys lives. It is intimidating and undermines constructive exchange. In doing so, it prevents us from having a true democratic debate and undermines free speech.
The facts speak for themselves. We must act, and we must act now. We believe that every person has the right to express themselves and participate in Internet exchanges to the fullest extent possible, without fear and without intimidation or concern for their safety. We believe that the Internet should be an inclusive place where we can safely express ourselves.
Our government is therefore committed to taking concrete steps to address harmful content online, particularly if the content advocates child sexual exploitation, terrorism, violence, hate speech, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
In fact, this is one of the priorities outlined in the mandate letter given to me by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. So we have begun the process to develop legislation that will address the concerns of Canadians.
Over the past few months my office and I have engaged with over 140 stakeholders from both civil society organizations and the digital technology sector regarding this issue. This has included seven round-table discussions. We also spoke with indigenous groups, racialized Canadians, elected provincial officials, municipal officials and our international partners to assess our options and begin to develop a proposed approach.
In addition, given the global nature of the problem, I have hosted a virtual meeting with my counterparts from Australia, Finland, France and Germany—who were part of the multi-stakeholder working group on diversity of content online—to discuss the importance of a healthy digital ecosystem and how to work collectively.
I am also working closely with my colleagues the ministers of Justice, Public Safety, Women and Gender Equality,Diversity and Inclusion and Youthas well asInnovation, Science and Industry to find the best possible solution.
Our collaborative work aims to ensure that Canada's approach is focused on protecting Canadians and continued respect for their rights, including freedom of opinion and expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The goal is to develop a proposal that establishes an appropriate balance between protecting speech and preventing harm.
Let me be clear. Our objective is not to reduce freedom of expression but to increase it for all users, and to ensure that no voices are being suppressed because of harmful content.
We want to build a society where radicalization, hatred, and violence have no place, where everyone is free to express themselves, where exchanges are not divisive, but an opportunity to connect, understand, and help each other. We are continuing our work and hope to act as quickly and effectively as possible. I sincerely hope that I can count on the committee's support and move forward to build a more transparent, accountable and equitable digital world.
I thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mario Dion
View Mario Dion Profile
Mario Dion
2021-05-28 13:02
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to appear as you consider the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's submission for the 2021-2022 main estimates.
As many of you were not involved in the committee until last year, I will quickly describe the goals of my office since its creation 14 years ago.
Our primary goal is to help regulatees, that is, public office holders and members of the House of Commons, know and follow the rules in the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.
In order to help the individuals subject to the rules, we continually improve how we communicate and engage with regulatees. This not only supports our primary goal, but also helps build trust in the office. It is important for us to work together with regulatees to help them comply with the Act and the Code as much as possible.
It is important that a continuous dialogue take place to avoid breaches. There must be trust between elected and appointed officials and their advisors in the office based on mutual respect and professionalism.
Over the years, a solid information management system has been created as it is key to providing the informed advice we try to give to regulatees. It also improves our efficiency because we don't have to reinvent the wheel each time advice is sought. It also ensures that we provide consistent advice from one individual to the next.
Our already established movement towards a digital office helped us tremendously when we moved to a virtual office in spring 2020 due to the pandemic. The process was nearly seamless for us.
The office operates with a total of 51 indeterminate positions. Most of the office's resources are dedicated to our primary goal, helping regulatees meet their obligations under the act and code. These resources are not just in our advisory and compliance division, although this is where almost one-third of our employees work, including your advisers, but it's also located within the communications group that provides educational documents and develops presentations for regulatees.
We also have a legal services and investigations division, which offers the legal opinions we rely on and, of course, conducts investigations. Finally, our corporate management division handles blind trusts, in addition, of course, to providing us with all the HR, information technology and financial support that we need.
In the past two years—and I use two years because I haven't been before this committee since May 2019—the number of reporting public office holders has increased by 7%. The office helps them, as well as the MPs, as well as the other public office holders. We have a total group of about 3,200 people we serve. In the vast majority of situations, we help them through email and telephone. This was the case already before the pandemic, so that's why it was relatively easy for us to switch to that mode when the pandemic hit.
Requests for presentations have dropped obviously because, of course, the pandemic has caused people to focus on their real delivery priorities, so we've had fewer presentations given in the last fiscal year. However, requests for advice were up through the pandemic, particularly in the last two quarters. We have already revised the presentations and have placed the focus recently on very specific, high-interest subject matters, such as recusals, outside activities and post-employment, that appear to reflect the most concerns for regulatees.
I had a session on recusals a few months ago, which was very well attended by over 300 [Technical difficulty—Editor]. On June 8 and June 16, I have already invited all the reporting [Technical difficulty—Editor] holders to a session on offers of outside employment and post-employment obligations.
Requests from the public for information have also increased 27% over the last fiscal year. There has been a steady interest from the media in the work of our office. Given the restrictions placed upon me by the act, we've worked hard to ensure that we are as open and transparent as possible with both the public and the media. Our approach has included more active use of Twitter to share information and updates. We have over 3,000 Twitter followers at this point in time. Last year we increased by 52% the number of tweets that we sent out in order to be of interest to our followers.
Since I was last before you, I have issued nine investigation reports under the act, and four under the code. We've always been able to complete our analyses and conclusions in less than one year, which was one of my initial goals when I was appointed back in early 2018. I set out this goal to complete—unless it was exceptionally complex or unless there were exceptional circumstances—any study, any review and examination that we do under the code or the act within one year. We've managed to do that in the 13 reports issued in the last two years, and 18 since I've been in my position in January 2018.
I hope you will share my view that we have produced quality work each time.
I'm here today, and I'm pleased to let you know that we currently have no investigations ongoing under the act—no backlog. Therefore, we're ready to accept the next complaint or the next situation where I have reasonable grounds to start an investigation. We have a couple still ongoing under the code. In fact, I'll be tabling a report before the House rises as a result of an investigation under the code.
We receive a fair volume of complaints and information, if you wish, from the public, from the media, so we've reviewed over 100 files, 100 situations, where my staff reviewed incoming information to determine whether we should investigate. There is a good flow of information that comes in all the time.
I will now talk about the budget, since that is what brings us here today.
This year, we are operating with a budget of $7.67 million. That represents an increase of about 2% over last year. That is what I requested. Last year, we also secured funding for three additional communications advisor positions and to keep our information technology system up to date. Since the office was created 14 years ago, the budget has grown by about $1.6 million over the original budget.
Let's talk a little about the pandemic. Obviously, that is what's on everyone's mind; as we heard earlier before the meeting started, the patios are opening tonight.
The pandemic hit us suddenly, as it did everyone else. Personally, I had a medical condition two or three years ago that made me more vulnerable. So I remember very well leaving the office not knowing, like all of you, when I was going to come back and how. We all thought it would be a few weeks. However, we had to take steps gradually.
We were lucky, because our employees already had tablets and could work from home. In addition to our policy to provide equipment in a controlled manner to facilitate telework while ensuring ergonomics, we took steps with each employee regarding Wi-Fi availability. For 51 employees, supplies cost $28,000, from equipment to paper, pencils, and so on. Those costs were offset by decreases in other costs, such as printing. We have saved a lot of paper and a lot of trees. We also achieved significant savings on mail-outs.
In general, employees really like being able to telework. So we have a positive workplace. We use technology, as Parliament has, to keep channels open and have a constant dialogue with employees.
All this work, of course, has been accomplished because of the 50 people who work with me, who have been very good throughout the pandemic.
We did not actually measure productivity, because we have no backlog, in any respect, anywhere in the organization. We've been able to cope with the volume of work in spite of the pandemic, while trying to minimize problems and help employees as much as possible vis-à-vis the maintenance of a good balance and a good mental health situation.
That's what I have this afternoon. I would be pleased, of course, to answer any questions that members might have.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
This morning I wanted to speak to two questions of privilege. I won't be too long, but I think it's important for the committee to consider them.
The first is that last week, when the Kielburger brothers came for their testimony, at the same moment that they launched their testimony they launched an attack website on me, referring to something like 101 lies I've apparently said. I don't lose much sleep over that. I feel like it was very juvenile. I feel like they were trying to stone me in the public square with popcorn.
What concerns me—and I put this to the committee because the issue of our work is serious—is the fact that we had to go a full week where they were actually undermining.... Their lawyers were claiming that parliamentarians shouldn't even be able to draw witness testimony. I've not been aware of attack websites on members of Parliament before. I think it is very concerning. Personally, I've been around a long time. I've got pretty tough shoulders, but I think it could certainly intimidate new MPs, and other groups may consider it.
As part of this first issue of privilege, at the same time that this attack website was launched on me, a Twitter doxing campaign was launched against my daughter. Her photograph was posted online. Her place of work was posted online. People began to target her employer about my daughter. I actually tried to engage with some of them, because they weren't bots. They were real people. I was trying to say, “Why are you making stuff up?” I realized that it was a deliberate disinformation campaign to intimidate me through my daughter over the fact that when she was 13 years old, she volunteered for a Free the Children event. I don't know that my daughter's 13-year-old behaviour in trying to save the world has anything to do with committee.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this. I want the committee to be aware of it because I think it is a pattern of intimidation when people draw our families in, when they try to intimidate us through harassing our family with photos of them and where they work and with other information. I think it is very concerning, and if it happens to me, it could easily happen to any of you. I wanted to put that out there. I'm not sure where I'm going to go with this, if anywhere. Again, I'd have to talk with my daughter, because it's about her personal space that was deliberately invaded because I was asking questions about the Kielburger operation.
I want to go now to my second question of privilege, which I think is definitely within the purview of this committee.
One of the problems we've had with the Kielburger WE study and pandemic spending is that we don't know, after eight months—and I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me if they actually know—how the WE organization works. We don't know anything about their financial structure. We don't know their real estate. We don't know how the donor issues work. We've been trying to get answers. It's about the due diligence that we have to do in order to finalize our report.
I'm pretty close to being ready to finalize this report, but one of those questions was to have Mr. Victor Li testify. We had to issue a legal summons against Mr. Victor Li. Mr. Victor Li said he couldn't come, and he asked us to go the extra mile to write him with the questions and he would answer those questions. Mr. Victor Li has opted not to answer a number of questions.
I think my privilege and the privilege of this committee have been undermined by the trust that we gave Mr. Victor Li, because these are key questions. I'm going to run through just a few of them, and I'm going to ask my colleagues—
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to extend to Mr. Angus just how appalled I am that his daughter has experienced this attack on her. I think we've had this discussion before in this committee about how attacks on family members of parliamentarians are odious. In this light, particularly if it seeks to intimidate or to shut down a parliamentary member, this cannot be allowed to go unchecked. I just wonder if the member will seek whatever security and legal means that he needs.
We can explore our options. I think of, especially in social media, the attacks that have proliferated in the last few years on members of Parliament, and by extension on family members. I think we agree that an attack on a family member is essentially an attack on the member of Parliament, too, and therefore a question of privilege. I would like to see that we explore our options.
I do want to address the motion before us, as well, Chair. Unfortunately, the motion that we are here to discuss today, to me, is nothing but a fishing expedition by the opposition. [Inaudible-Editor] testimony on this issue, where I think we have shown, on the Liberal side, that we have been very collaborative in bringing forward—
View Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Profile
Lib. (ON)
Very simply, I would just say I think Charlie raises a really important point, and not only with respect to his daughter. It is just unconscionable, the people online who are highlighting the work of his daughter, suggesting there is some sort of conflict of interest there. All of the allegations and the work online around Charlie's daughter is just so unconscionable and should be condemned by all of us.
On the second piece, though, in relation to privilege as it relates to Victor Li, I do think, just as a matter of our dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s, Chair, you should write a letter to Victor Li and his counsel, and set a specific timeline for these answers to be provided. Once that timeline has elapsed, whatever answers haven't been provided....
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Good morning, everyone.
With respect to the points Charlie raised this morning, on the first one, I want to address Deputy Angus formally. I saw the tweets that were directed at your daughter and stuff, and I am vehemently and completely appalled—in the strongest language without using foul language—that this would happen to anyone's daughter. I have two daughters. I plan to continue being an MP for as long as the voters give me that privilege and that confidence. My daughters are growing up—the older one will soon be 10 years old, so they're a few years younger than Charlie's daughters—and they will have experiences with volunteer work and with employment. I would absolutely be disgusted if some organization—I am not saying that it was an organization, but in this circumstance it was an organization—or individuals potentially coordinated to attack me, and with that, attack my daughters. I don't know what can be done. I would love to get clarification from the clerk on that in terms of what we can or can't do. That would be great.
On the second question of privilege, which is in reference to the documents requested, in reading the rules and procedures with regard to parliamentary committees formed by the House of Commons and the elected individuals, my understand is that we have certain responsibilities but we also have certain powers to obtain documents when we are doing a study. I'm with my colleague, Nathaniel. We have asked these questions. We have asked for these documents. They do need to be provided. I think that is imperative. A committee cannot undertake a study without receiving the information it needs to finish that study. I am of the mind that a further five days or whatever pertinent period be provided so that a response can be made before the next steps are decided by the committee. The committee is the master of its own direction and domain, so I share Charlie and Nathaniel's view on this.
Thank you.
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I'll address the two points raised by our colleague, Mr. Angus.
Obviously, I can only agree with him. It's unacceptable that our families are being threatened or intimidated in this manner. Unfortunately, I don't think that the committee can do much about it. However, I'm sure that the police could handle a complaint on this matter. I'll always stand with the member in this type of fight. It's unacceptable that the families of parliamentarians are being intimidated or threatened. This covers the first point.
I also agree with the second point made by my colleague. I took the time to look at Mr. Li's responses as well. I may not have looked at them as carefully as he did, but I did notice some major shortcomings. When a person doesn't answer the committee's questions, it's as if they didn't show up to speak when called upon to do so. That's how to address the situation, Mr. Chair.
I suggest that you write to Mr. Li. You must inform him that the committee considers his silence a contempt of Parliament and that we're giving him one last chance to respond. You must repeat the questions that he hasn't answered and give him five days to respond. You must inform him that, if he doesn't respond to each question within five days, the committee will report back to the House and the House will decide how to proceed. In my view, his silence is clearly the equivalent of not showing up when he should have done so. I would agree that strong action should be taken with regard to Mr. Li and that it shouldn't just be an invitation to find out whether he wants to provide further responses. I humbly suggest this way of dealing with the second point.
The Bloc Québécois recommends that the due diligence report be prepared, because we think that it's important. I don't want to argue about this right now, because we can do so later. This goes along with what Mr. Angus wants with respect to Mr. Li's evidence. We must get to the bottom of this matter. We're talking about $43 million for WE Charity to manage almost $1 billion. We have a right to know where the government was putting our money.
That said, I also just want to remind you that I hope that we'll have time to consider the motion that brought us here this morning, pursuant to section 106(4). As we discuss the motion, I'll expand on the arguments concerning this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you.
I want to thank all of my colleagues for their solidarity. I actually find it really hard to even raise this issue because I like to think that I live in a world where I can defend myself and be myself. It's a tough world in politics. I don't mind the brickbats, but to even have to mention that my family has been dragged into it is something I have not wanted to do. However, I think it's important that we're aware of it. I recognize that my colleagues from all parties carry themselves with dignity on these issues and would not support these kinds of side attacks, but they are something that we need to consider.
I don't think I will take it to the House as an issue of privilege, but I want people to be aware of it because I think we have to start seeing the kinds of pressures that are being put on us at times for issues that we raise.
I appreciate my colleagues also on the second point. I have to say I'm just getting rather frustrated with this sense of entitlement that we've seen from an organization that seems to think we're picking on it. It's about getting answers. We just need to get answers. We need to finish this report. We need to do due diligence. This is our work. This is our right as parliamentarians. Questions about the finances of an organization are absolutely fair questions to ask, and I think we've gone out of our way to do this in a fair way.
To Mr. Erskine-Smith's point, I think it is really important that we dot the i’s and cross the t’s. This committee has certain powers, but it has to exercise those powers within a context of making sure that we follow the rules that are given to us as parliamentarians. I'm very frustrated that I didn't get answers and that we've gone out of our way. I think the next step is to say that five days is more than enough, and we want those answers. If we're not getting those answers, then I will refer it to the House. We need to move on with this report. We don't have time to play games when it's about the work and the right of parliamentarians to get answers.
I would support my colleagues who say let's do this right; let's ask him one more time; let's say five days and if not, then we'll refer this to the House. I'm more than willing to accept the suggestions made by my colleagues.
Thank you.
View Colin Carrie Profile
CPC (ON)
View Colin Carrie Profile
2021-03-22 11:27
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues.
I want to thank you, Mr. Angus. I think any action by witnesses that could be perceived as intimidation of a committee member is extremely serious, and the fact that they involved or the consequences involved your daughter.... I think all of us see how that would affect us personally and how we do our jobs here at committee, so I think this is extremely serious. For you to bring it up so we can address it is very important, and thank you for that.
On the second point, with respect to Mr. Li, I agree with Charlie about trying to figure out how this charity works in relation to its for-profit arm. I know that during my questioning, I was deliberately trying to get answers about the separation of WE Charity from the for-profit arm. There seemed to consistently be a deliberate attempt to move things back to the charity. For example, when I talked about their sponsors of the WE Day event, which is a for-profit event, they kept on saying our donors are extremely generous. But it's so confusing. I think some of their donors don't even realize—or I should say “contributors”, because it wasn't a donation to a charity. They certainly weren't donating to WE to build schools and help kids in Kenya. This was a promotion and public relations event, and some of their sponsors were giving money and they may have actually thought that they were giving to a charity when it was a for-profit event.
I think we do have to dig a little deeper to find out how these organizations work. It's extremely important for us as far as moving this report forward, so that everyone can understand that there is a distinct difference between a charity event and a for-profit event and where the money goes.
View Chris Warkentin Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay. I think I have seen a consensus, and if committee members are amenable to it, we will write the letter and give Mr. Li until Friday to answer the questions. However, we will require the assistance of committee members.
Those committee members who have submitted questions who don't believe they have been answered, we will need you to indicate to us that those questions need to be answered so we can include those in the letter. We want to be very specific about the questions that we do not believe have been answered. Mr. Angus has given his list. That may not be an exhaustive list.
Members, if you could get those questions that have not been answered to the clerk by the end of today, then the letter can be produced and we can get that sent off.
I think that's settled.
Mr. Angus, with regard to your daughter, I believe that in the intimidation of members, especially when it involves a family member, it would be seen by this chair as an issue of privilege. Certainly if you desire at some point to bring that forward—obviously, you have the backing of every committee member who has spoken thus far—this chair, of course, would pursue that, not only on behalf of the committee but as a father as well.
Next, we're going to go to the speaking order.
I have Mr. Barrett, Ms. Shanahan, and then Mr. Fortin has indicated he would like to move the motion. I'm not sure if we would like to do this in reverse order—if it would be helpful.
Madame Shanahan, we'll turn to you, but it seemed like you were looking to debate the motion that Mr. Fortin is about to move. I think that maybe it would be more productive if we had the motion moved by Mr. Fortin, and then we could begin the debate on that.
View Han Dong Profile
Lib. (ON)
This is my first chance to intervene on what I'm hearing so far. First of all, to Mr. Angus' point, I agree with writing and requesting documents, and having a response in five days.
I am concerned when family members are brought into the extension of our work. It's not a good thing for democracy. We should be able to speak and ask questions freely at committee, and not have to think about consequences and what might happen to our family members. He has my support.
I agree with Mr. Erskine-Smith's point. Let's write to individuals of interest. I don't think these are new revelations. I agree with Mr. Barrett's point that it's been happening for months and months, and I feel like we're just going in circles.
If we hear something, we want to study more or bring more people in. If we don't hear something, we think they're not telling the full story. I feel like we've been going in circles. Let's write the letter, request the information we need, and move on to finalize the report. That's where I stand right now.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-02-05 14:30
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?
David Tassillo
View David Tassillo Profile
David Tassillo
2021-02-05 14:32
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—
David Tassillo
View David Tassillo Profile
David Tassillo
2021-02-05 14:32
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.
David Tassillo
View David Tassillo Profile
David Tassillo
2021-02-05 14:32
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—
Results: 1 - 15 of 17 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data