I'm curious why they elected to use third-party firms.
Plausible deniability, and no liability for the long term effects on the mental health of those exposed to extreme imagery. Knowing these companies almost certainly a tax dodge of some sort is involved too.
Sure plausible deniability sounds about right for these folks. However I would hope that the mileage on that is limited to single use. I'm sure they will use this excuse to point blame elsewhere during their next crisis but I doubt it will work for the one after that.
What if they found the "creative" solution to delegate the policing to the governments in question (as a "third party"), in exchange for not having to pay taxes. Then deniability goes both ways!
Plausible deniability, and no liability for the long term effects on the mental health of those exposed to extreme imagery. Knowing these companies almost certainly a tax dodge of some sort is involved too.