Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Before Senate (Full) | NBC News

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Before Senate (Full) | NBC News


>>>THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT. HERE’S LESTER HOLT AND SAVANNAH GUTHRIE.>>GOOD DAY, EVERYONE. WE’RE COMING ON THE AIR ON A VERY BUSY NEWS DAY TO TELL YOU WE HAVE MARK ZUCKERBERG ABOUT TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS. HE WILL LIKELY FACE VERY TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS COMPANY’S ABILITY TO SAFEGUARD THE PERSONAL DATA OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF FACEBOOK USERS, INFORMATION IMPROPERLY OBTAINED BY THE DATA COMPANY CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA.>>AND THE 23-YEAR-OLD UNDER INTENSE PUBLIC SCRUTINY, LESS TRUST WITH THE THIRD LARGEST INDUSTRY, LESTER.>>THE CANCELLATION OF THE PRESIDENT’S SCHEDULED FIRST TRIP TO SOUTH AMERICA THIS WEEK AND FALLOUT FROM THE FBI RAID YESTERDAY ON THE OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER MICHAEL COHEN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS, A LOT OF THINGS WE’RE WATCHING. WE’RE MONITORING ALL OF THAT. WE’LL BRING YOU DEVELOPMENTS AS THEY WARRANT.>>MEANWHILE ON CAPITOL HILL, YOU SEE MARK ZUCKERBERG SET TO MAKE HIS OPENING STATEMENT IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS. THIS IS THE JOINT COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE MOST EAGERLY ANTICIPATED HEARINGS IN RECENT MEMORY. NO FEWER THAN 43 U.S. SENATORS SET TO QUESTION MARK ZUCKERBERG. NBC’S JOLENE KENT COVERS THIS FOR US. SHE’S BEEN FOLLOWING FACEBOOK’S STORY. JO, WE EXPECT TO HEAR THE WORDS “I’M SORRY” HERE TODAY.>>THAT’S RIGHT, THE SEVENTH RICHEST PERSON IN THE WORLD, WE EXPECT HIM TO SEVER PERSONAL TIES. HE WILL BE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AND ISSUING A NEW LEVEL OF ACTION AND ADDRESSING THE PRIVACY CONCERNS THAT COME IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA SCANDAL THAT MAY HAVE IMPACTED UP TO 87 MILLION FACEBOOK USERS, MOST OF WHOM LIVE IN THE U.S. HIS TESTIMONY, WHICH HE HAS NOT YET SPOKEN JUST YET, BUT HE’S EXPECTED TO ADDRESS NOT ONLY THE SENATORS BUT USERS OUT THERE WHO HAVE BEGUN LEAVING FACEBOOK AND DELETING THIS PARTICULAR APP AND MIGRATING TO OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA. SO WHAT WE’RE EXPECTING TO HEAR IS NOT JUST AN APOLOGY BUT SOLUTIONS. LAWMAKERS HERE ON CAPITOL HILL ARE TELLING ME THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED NECESSARILY WITH WHAT ZUCKERBERG HAS PUT FORTH SO FAR. HE’S ALREADY ROLLED OUT SOME PRIVACY CHANGES WHERE CENTRALIZATION OF YOUR PRIVACY SETTINGS, BUT THERE LIKELY WILL BE SOME REGULATORY SCRUTINY HERE AS WELL, SAVANNAH.>>LET’S BRING IN THE CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE EXECUTIVE TECH SITE RECODE AND HAS BEEN FOLLOWING FACEBOOK CLOSELY. TARA, WE KNOW HE’S GOING TO APOLOGIZE, WE KNOW THERE IS A PR ASPECT TO THIS, BUT FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, WHAT ARE THE GOALS THAT ZUCKERBERG FACES HERE?>>HE THINK HE HAS TO STAUNCH THE CRITICISM AND AT LEAST HAVE SOME ANSWERS THAT THEY’RE GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEMS THEY CREATED. IT’S A GIANT MESS, AND SAYING I’M SORRY, I’M SORRY, I’M SORRY PROBABLY WON’T CUT IT HERE, BUT HE’LL PROBABLY SAY I’M SORRY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. THERE ARE SOME POLITICIANS ASKING QUESTIONS, AND THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE PRETTY HOSTILE TOWARD WHAT FACEBOOK HAS DONE.>>HE’S BEEN NOTED AS A GUY WHO IS NOT NECESSARILY COMFORTABLE IN FRONT OF CROWDS, CERTAINLY CAMERAS, AND THERE IS A LOT OF ATTENTION ON HIM NOW. DOES THAT PLAY IN HIS FAVOR IN SOME WAYS IN TERMS OF PERCEPTIONS?>>I GUESS. I WROTE HIS COLUMN TODAY SAYING THESE ARE BOYS UNDER SCRUTINY AND IT’S REALLY HARD FOR HIM. HE’S A MAN RUNNING A MAJOR COMPANY. HE’S A BILLIONAIRE. HE STARTED ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL COMPANIES ON THE PLANET. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT, AND IF HE CAN’T HANDLE IT, HE SHOULDN’T BE CEO OF FACEBOOK.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ZUCKERBERG IS NOW BEING INTRODUCED IN OPENING STATEMENTS OF THE CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBERS OF THESE TWO COMMITTEES. THIS IS THE SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. CHUCK GRASSLEY INTRODUCING MARK ZUCKERBERG.>>AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, HIS COMPANY NOW HAS OVER 40 BILLION OF ANNUAL REVENUE AND OVER 2 BILLION MONTHLY ACTIVE USERS. MR. ZUCKERBERG, ALONG WITH HIS WIFE, ALSO ESTABLISHED THE CHAN-ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE TO FURTHER PHILANTHROPIC CAUSES. I NOW TURN TO YOU. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE, AND WHATEVER YOUR STATEMENT IS ORALLY, IF YOU HAVE A LONGER ONE, IT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. SO PROCEED, SIR.>>CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY, CHAIRMAN THUNE, RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN AND RANKING MEMBER NELSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, WE FACE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT ISSUES AROUND PRIVACY, SAFETY AND DEMOCRACY. AND YOU WILL RIGHTFULLY HAVE SOME HARD QUESTIONS FOR ME TO ANSWER. BEFORE I TALK ABOUT THE STEPS WE’RE TAKING TO ADDRESS THEM, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE. FACEBOOK IS AN IDEALISTIC AND OPTIMISTIC COMPANY. FOR MOST OF OUR EXISTENCE, WE FOCUSED ON ALL OF THE GOOD THAT CONNECTING PEOPLE CAN DO. AND AS FACEBOOK HAS GROWN, PEOPLE EVERYWHERE HAVE GOTTEN A POWERFUL NEW TOOL FOR STAYING CONNECTED TO THE PEOPLE THEY LOVE, FOR MAKING THEIR VOICES HEARD AND FOR BUILDING COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES. JUST RECENTLY, WE’VE SEEN THE #METOO MOVEMENT AND THE MARCH FOR OUR LIVES ORGANIZED AT LEAST IN PART ON FACEBOOK. AFTER HURRICANE HARVEY, PEOPLE CAME TOGETHER TO RAISE MORE THAN $20 MILLION FOR RELIEF. AND MORE THAN 70 MILLION SMALL BUSINESSES USED FACEBOOK TO CREATE JOBS AND GROW. BUT IT’S CLEAR NOW WE DIDN’T DO ENOUGH TO PREVENT THESE TOOLS FROM BEING USED FOR HARM AS WELL. THAT GOES FOR FAKE NEWS, FOR FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS AND HATE SPEECH AS WELL AS DEVELOPERS AND DATA PRIVACY. WE DIDN’T TAKE A BROAD ENOUGH VIEW OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE. AND IT WAS MY MISTAKE. AND I’M SORRY. I STARTED FACEBOOK, I RUN IT, AND I’M RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS HERE. SO NOW WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE AND MAKE SURE WE’RE TAKING A BROAD ENOUGH VIEW OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY. IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST CONNECT PEOPLE. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE CONNECTIONS ARE POSITIVE. IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST GIVE PEOPLE A VOICE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE AREN’T USING IT TO HARM OTHER PEOPLE OR TO SPREAD MISINFORMATION. IT’S NOT ENOUGH JUST TO GIVE PEOPLE CONTROL OVER THEIR INFORMATION. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE DEVELOPERS THEY SHARE IT WITH PROTECT THEIR INFORMATION, TOO. ACROSS THE BOARD WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT JUST BUILD TOOLS BUT TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE USED FOR GOOD. IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO WORK THROUGH ALL THE CHANGES WE NEED TO MAKE ACROSS THE COMPANY, BUT I’M COMMITTED TO GETTING THIS RIGHT. THIS INCLUDES THE BASIC RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTING PEOPLE’S INFORMATION WHICH WE FAILED TO DO WITH CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA. SO HERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING TO ADDRESS THIS AND TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. FIRST, WE’RE GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF EXACTLY WHAT CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA DID AND TELLING EVERYONE AFFECTED. WHAT WE KNOW NOW IS THAT CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA IMPROPERLY ACCESSED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT MILLIONS OF FACEBOOK MEMBERS BY BUYING IT FROM AN APP DEVELOPER. THAT INFORMATION — THIS WAS INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE GENERALLY SHARE PUBLICLY ON THEIR FACEBOOK PAGES, LIKE NAMES AND THEIR PROFILE PICTURE AND THE PAGES THEY FOLLOW. WHEN WE FIRST CONTACTED CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, THEY TOLD US THEY HAD DELETED THE DATA. ABOUT A MONTH AGO, WE HEARD NEW REPORTS THAT SUGGESTED THAT WASN’T TRUE. NOW WE’RE WORKING WITH GOVERNMENTS IN THE U.S., THE U.K. AND AROUND THE WORLD TO DO A FULL AUDIT OF WHAT THEY’VE DONE AND TO MAKE SURE THEY GET RID OF ANY DATA THEY MAY STILL HAVE. SECOND, TO MAKE SURE NO OTHER APP DEVELOPERS OUT THERE ARE MISUSING DATA, WE’RE NOW INVESTIGATING EVERY SINGLE ACT THAT HAD ACCESS TO A LARGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION IN THE PAST. IF WE FIND THAT SOMEONE IMPROPERLY USED DATA, WE’RE GOING TO BAN THEM FROM FACEBOOK AND TELL EVERYONE AFFECTED. THIRD, TO PREVENT THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN GOING FORWARD, WE’RE MAKING SURE THAT DEVELOPERS CAN’T ACCESS AS MUCH INFORMATION NOW. THE GOOD NEWS HERE IS WE ALREADY MADE BIG CHANGES TO OUR PLATFORM IN 2014 THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT THIS SITUATION WITH CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA FROM OCCURRING TODAY. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DO, AND YOU CAN FIND MORE DETAILS ON THE STEPS I’M TAKING IN MY WRITTEN STATEMENT. MY TOP PRIORITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR SOCIAL MISSION OF CONNECTING PEOPLE, BUILDING COMMUNITY AND BRINGING THE WORLD CLOSER TOGETHER. ADVERTISERS AND DEVELOPERS WILL NEVER TAKE PRIORITY OVER THAT AS LONG AS I AM RUNNING FACEBOOK. I STARTED FACEBOOK WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE. WE’VE COME A LONG WAY SINCE THEN. WE NOW SERVE MORE THAN 2 BILLION PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, AND EVERY DAY PEOPLE USE OUR SERVICES TO STAY CONNECTED WITH THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER TO THEM MOST. I BELIEVE DEEPLY IN WHAT WE’RE DOING, AND I KNOW THAT WHEN WE ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES, WE’LL LOOK BACK AND VIEW HELPING PEOPLE CONNECT AND GIVING MORE PEOPLE A VOICE AS A POSITIVE FORCE IN THE WORLD. I REALIZE THE ISSUES WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AREN’T JUST ISSUES FOR FACEBOOK IN OUR COMMUNITY, THEY’RE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FOR ALL OF US AS AMERICANS. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY AND I’M READY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.>>I’LL REMIND MEMBERS THAT MAYBE WEREN’T HERE WHEN I HAD MY OPENING COMMENTS THAT WE ARE OPERATING UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE AND THAT APPLIES TO THOSE CHAIRING THE COMMITTEE AS WELL. I START WITH YOU. FACEBOOK HANDLES EXTENSIVE AMOUNTS OF PERSONAL DATA FOR BILLIONS OF USERS. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THAT DATA IS SHARED WITH THIRD-PARTY DEVELOPERS WHO UTILIZE YOUR PLATFORM. AS OF EARLY THIS YEAR, YOU DID NOT ACTIVELY MONITOR WHETHER THAT DATA WAS TRANSFERRED BY SUCH DEVELOPERS TO OTHER PARTIES. MOREOVER, YOUR POLICIES ONLY PROHIBIT TRANSFERS BY DEVELOPERS TO PARTIES SEEKING TO PROFIT FROM SUCH DATA. NUMBER ONE, BESIDES PROFESSOR COGAN’S TRANSFER AND NOW POTENTIALLY CUBE VIEW, DO YOU KNOW ANY INSTANCES WHERE TRANSFERRED TO THIRD PARTY IN BREACH OF FACEBOOK’S TERMS. IF SO, HOW MANY TIMES HAS THAT HAPPENED AND WAS FACEBOOK ONLY MADE AWARE OF THAT TRANSFER BY SOME THIRD PARTY?>>MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. WE’RE NOW CONDUCTING A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO EVERY SINGLE ACT THAT HAS ACCESS TO LARGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. BEFORE WE LOCK DOWN PLATFORM TO PREVENT DEVELOPERS FROM ACCESSING THIS INFORMATION AROUND 2014. WE BELIEVE WE’RE GOING TO BE INVESTIGATING MANY APPS, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF APPS. IF WE FIND ANY SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY WE’RE GOING TO CONDUCT A FULL AUDIT OF THOSE APPS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY ARE USING THEIR DATA. IF WE FIND THEY ARE DOING ANYTHING IMPROPER, WE WILL BAN THEM FROM FACEBOOK AND TELL EVERYONE AFFECTED. I DON’T HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF APPS WE HAVE BANNED HERE. IF YOU’D LIKE, I CAN HAVE MY TEAM FOLLOW UP.>>HAVE YOU REQUIRED AN AUDIT TO ENSURE THE DELETION OF IMPROPERLY TRANSFERRED DATA AND IF SO, HOW MANY TIMES?>>YES, WE HAVE. I DON’T HAVE THE EXACT FIGURE ON HOW MANY TIMES WE HAVE. OVERALL, THE WAY WE ENFORCED OUR PLATFORM POLICIES IN THE PAST, IS WE HAVE LOOKED AT PATTERN OF HOW APPS HAVE USED OUR APIs AND ACCESSED INFORMATION AS WELL ADD PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE REPORTS. GOING FORWARD, WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A MORE PRO-ACTIVE POSITION AND DO MUCH MORE REGULAR SPOT CHECKS AND REVIEWS OF APPS AS WELL AS INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF AUDITS WE DO AND I CAN MAKE SURE OUR TEAM FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PAST STATS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING.>>I WAS GOING TO ASSUME THAT SITTING HERE TODAY YOU HAVE NO IDEA AND IF I’M WRONG, YOU’RE TELLING ME YOU’RE ABLE TO SUPPLY THOSE FIGURES TO US, AT LEAST AS OF THIS POINT?>>I’LL HAVE MY TEAM FOLLOW UP ON WHAT INFORMATION WE HAVE.>>RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE NO CERTAINTY OF WHETHER OR NOT, HOW MUCH OF THAT’S GOING ON, RIGHT? FACEBOOK COLLECTS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DATA FROM CONSUMERS INCLUDING CONTENT, NETWORKS, CONTACT LIST, DEVICE INFORMATION, LOCATION AND INFORMATION FROM THIRD POLICIES. YOUR DATA POLICY IS ONLY A FEW PAGES LONG AND PROVIDES CONSUMERS A FEW EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS COLLECTED AND HOW IT MIGHT BE USED. THE EXAMPLES EMPHASIZE BENIGN USES SUCH AS CONNECTING WITH FRIENDS BUT YOUR POLICY DOES NOT GIVE ANY INDICATION FOR MORE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF SUCH DATA. MY QUESTION, WHY DOESN’T FACEBOOK DISCLOSE TO ITS USERS ALL THE WAYS DATA MIGHT BE USED BY FACEBOOK AND OTHER THIRD PARTIES AND WHAT IS FACEBOOK’S RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM USERS ABOUT THAT INFORMATION?>>I BELIEVE IT’S IMPORTANT TO TELL PEOPLE EXACTLY HOW THE INFORMATION THAT THEY SHARE ON FACEBOOK IS GOING TO BE USED. THAT’S WHY EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU GO TO SHARE SHOTGUN ON FACEBOOK WHETHER IT’S A PHOTO OR A MESSAGE AND MESSENGER. EVERY SINGLE TIME THERE’S A CONTROL RIGHT THERE ABOUT WHO YOU’RE GOING TO BE SHARING IT WITH WHETHER IT’S YOUR FRIENDS OR PUBLIC OR SPECIFIC GROUP. YOU CAN CHANGE THAT AND CONTROL THAT IN LINE. ABOUT PRIVACY, THIS GETS INTO AN ISSUE THAT WE AND OTHERS IN THE TECH INDUSTRY HAVE FOUND CHALLENGING IS LONG PRIVACY POLICIES ARE VERY CONFUSING. IF YOU MAKE IT LONG AND SPELL OUT ALL THE DETAIL THEN YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO REDUCE THE PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO READ IT AND MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO THEM. ONE OF THE THINGS WE STRUGGLED WITH OVER TIME IS MAKE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT AS WELL AS GIVING THEM CONTROLS IN LINE IN THE PRODUCT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHEN THEY’RE TRYING TO USE THEM. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT WE DON’T EXPECT THAT MOST PEOPLE WILL WANT TO GO THROUGH AND READ A FULL LEGAL DOCUMENT.>>SENATOR NELSON.>>YESTERDAY WHEN WE TALKED I GAVE THE HARMLESS EXAMPLE THAT I’M A COMMUNICATING WITH MY FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK AND INDICATE THAT I LOVE A CERTAIN KIND OF CHOCOLATE. ALL OF A SUDDEN I START RECEIVING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR CHOCOLATE. WHAT IN I DON’T WANT TO RECEIVE THOSE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENTS? YOUR CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, MS. SANDBURG SUGGESTED ON THE NBC “TODAY SHOW” THAT FACEBOOK USERS WHO DO NOT WANT THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION USED FOR ADVERTISING MIGHT HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT PROTECTION. PAY FOR IT. ARE YOU ACTUALLY CONSIDERING HAVING FACEBOOK USERS PAY FOR YOU NOT TO USE THAT INFORMATION?>>SENATOR, PEOPLE HAVE A CONTROL OVER HOW THEIR INFORMATION IS USED IN ADS IN THE PRODUCT TODAY. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN EXPERIENCE WHERE YOUR ADS AREN’T TARGETED USING ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE, YOU CAN TURN OFF THIRD PARTY INFORMATION. WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME PEOPLE DON’T LIKE ADS, PEOPLE REALLY DON’T LIKE ADS THAT AREN’T RELEVANT. WHILE THERE IS SOME DISCOMFORT, FOR SURE, WITH USING INFORMATION IN MAKING ADS MORE RELEVANT. THE OVERWHELMING FEEDBACK WE GET FROM OUR COMMUNITY IS PEOPLE WOULD RATHER HAVE US SHOW RELEVANT CONTENT THERE THAN NOT. WE OFFER THIS CONTROL THAT YOU’RE REFERENCING. SOME PEOPLE USE IT. IT’S NOT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON FACEBOOK. I THINK THAT’S A GOOD LEVEL OF CONTROL TO OFFER. I THINK WHAT CHERYL WAS SAYING WAS THAT IN ORDER TO NOT RUN ADS AT ALL, WE WOULD STILL NEED SOME SORT OF BUSINESS MODEL.>>THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS MODEL. I TAKE IT THAT, AND I USE THE HARMLESS EXAMPLE OF CHOCOLATE BUT IF IT GOT INTO MORE PERSONAL THING. COMMUNICATING WITH FRIENDS, AND I WANT TO CUT IT OFF, I’M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY YOU IN ORDER NOT TO SEND ME USING MY PERSONAL INFORMATION SOMETHING THAT I DON’T WANT. THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD MS. SANDBURG TO SAY. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES. TO BE CLEAR WE DON’T OFFER AN OPTION TODAY FOR PEOPLE TO NOT PAY TO SHOW ADS. WE THINK OFFERING AN AD SUPPORTED SERVICE IS MOST ALIGNED WITH OUR MISSION OF TRYING TO CONNECT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. WE WANT TO OFFER A FREE SERVICE THAT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD. THAT’S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN REACH BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.>>YOU CONSIDER MY PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE DATA, THE COMPANY’S DATA, NOT MY DATA? IS THAT IT?>>NO, SENATOR. THE FIRST LINE OF OUR TERMS OF SERVICE IS A THEY YOU CONTROL AND OWN THE INFORMATION AND CONTENT THAT YOU PUT ON FACEBOOK.>>THE RECENT SCANDAL IS OBVIOUSLY FRUSTRATING. NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT AFFECTED 87 MILLION BUT BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE PART OF A PATTERN OF LAX DATA PRACTICES BY THE COMPANY GOING BACK YEARS. BACK IN 2011, IT WAS A SETTLEMENT WITH THE FTC AND NOW WE DISCOVER YET ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE THE DATA WAS FAILED TO BE PROTECTED. WHEN YOU DISCOVERED THE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA THAT FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, WHY DIDN’T YOU INFORM THOSE 87 MILLION?>>WHEN WE LEARNED IN 2015 THAT CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA BOUGHT DATA FROM AN APP DEVELOPER ON FACEBOOK THAT PEOPLE SHARED IT WITH, WE DID TAKE ACTION. WE TOOK DOWN THE APP AND WE DEMANDED THAT BOTH THE APP DEVELOPER AND CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA DELETE AND STOP USING ANY DATA THEY HAD. THEY TOLD US THEY DID THIS. IN RETROSPECT IT WAS BAD TO BELIEVE THEM. THAT’S NOT A MISTAKE WE WILL MAKE.>>YOU DID THAT AND APOLOGIZED FOR IT. YOU DIDN’T NOTIFY THEM. DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY 87 MILLION FACEBOOK USERS?>>WHEN WE HEARD BACK FROM CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA THAT THEY TOLD US THEY WEREN’T USING THE DATA AND DELETED IT. WE CONSIDERED IT A CLOSED CASE. THAT WAS CLEARLY A MISTAKE. WE SHOULDN’T HAVE TAKEN THEIR WORD FOR IT AND WE UPDATED OUR POLICIES.>>DID ANYBODY NOTIFY THE FTC?>>NO, SENATOR, FOR THE SAME REASON. WE CONSIDERED IT A CLOSED CASE.>>SENATOR.>>WOULD YOU DO THAT DIFFERENTLY TODAY, PRESUMELY? THE END RESPONSE TO SENATOR NELSON’S QUESTION.>>YES.>>THIS MAY BE YOUR FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESS BUT IT’S NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT FACEBOOK HAS FACED TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS PRIVACY POLICIES. WIRED MAGAZINE NOTED THAT YOU HAVE A 14 YEAR HISTORY OF APOLOGIZING FOR ILL ADVISED DECISIONS REGARDING USER PRIVACY NOT UNLIKE THE ONE YOU MADE JUST NOW IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. AFTER MORE THAN A DECADE OF PROMISES TO DO BETTER, HOW IS TODAY’S APOLOGY DIFFERENT AND WHY SHOULD WE TRUST FACEBOOK TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO ENSURE USER PRIVACY AND GIVE PEOPLE A CLEARER PICTURE OF YOUR PRIVACY POLICIES?>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN RUNNING THE COMPANY. I THINK IT’S PRETTY MUCH IMPOSSIBLE TO START A COMPANY IN YOUR DORM ROOM AND GROW IT TO BE AT THE SCALE WE’RE AT NOW WITHOUT MAKING SOME MISTAKES. BECAUSE OUR SERVICE IS ABOUT HELPING PEOPLE CONNECT AND INFORMATION, THOSE MISTAKES HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IN HOW — WE TRY NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE MULTIPLE TIMES BUT IN GENERAL A LOT OF THE MISTAKES ARE AROUND HOW PEOPLE CONNECT TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE. OVERALL, I WOULD SAY THAT WE’RE GOING THROUGH A BROADER PHILOSOPHICAL SHIFT IN OUR WE APPROACH OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A COMPANY. FOR THE FIRST 10 OR 12 YEARS OF THE COMPANY, I VIEWED OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS BUILDING TOOLS. IF WE CAN PUT THOSE TOOLS IN PEOPLE’S HANDS THEN THAT WOULD EMPOWER PEOPLE TO DO GOOD THINGS. WHAT I THINK WE’VE LEARNED NOW, ACROSS A NUMBER OF ISSUES, NOT JUST DATA PRIVACY BUT FAKE NEWS AND FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, IS WE NEED TO TAKE AN ACTIVE VIEW. IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO BUILD TOOLS. WE NEED TO TAKE A MORE ACTIVE APPROACH. MAKING SURE THE MEMBERS ARE USING THESE TOOLS IN A WAY THAT WILL IF GOOD AND HEALTHY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE WILL MEASURE US BY OUR RESULTS ON THIS. IT’S NOT THAT I EXPECT ANYTHING I SAY HERE TODAY TO NECESSARILY CHANGE PEOPLE’S VIEW. I’M COMMITTED TO GETTING THIS RIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT OVER THE M COING — THE COMING YEARS, PEOPLE WILL SEE REAL DIFFERENCES.>>I’M GLAD THAT YOU ALL HAVE GOTTEN THAT MESSAGE. AS WE DISCUSSED IN MY OFFICE YESTERDAY, THE LINE BETWEEN LEGITIMATE POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND HATE SPEAK CAN BE HARD TO IDENTIFY ESPECIALLY WHEN RELYING ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR THE INITIAL DISCOVERY. CAN YOU DISCUSS WHAT STEPS FACEBOOK TAKES AND WHERE YOU MAY DRAW THE LINE OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT HATE SPEECH?>>YES. I’LL SPEAK TO HATE SPEECH AND THEN I’LL TALK ABOUT ENFORCING OUR CONTENT POLICIES MORE BROADLY. MAYBE IF YOU’RE OKAY WITH IT, I’LL GO IN THE OTHER ORDER. FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE COMPANY, IN 2004, I STARTED IT IN MY DORM ROOM. IT WAS ME AND MY ROOMMATE. WE DIDN’T HAVE AI TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD LOOK AT THE CONTENT THAT PEOPLE WERE SHARING. WE HAD TO ENFORCE OUR CONTENT POLICIES REACTIVELY. PEOPLE SHOULD SHARE WHAT THEY WANTED AND IF SOMEONE IN THE COMMUNITY FOUND IT TO BES OFFIVE OR AGAINST OUR POLICIES, THEY WOULD FLAG IT FOR US. NOW INCREASINGLY, WE’RE DEVELOPING AI TOOLS THAT CAN IDENTIFY CERTAIN CLASSES OF BAD ACTIVITY PROACTIVELY AND FLAG IT FOR OUR TEAM. BY THE TEND OF THIS YEAR WE’LL HAVE MORE THAN 20,000 PEOPLE WORKING ON SECURITY AND CONTENT REVIEW WORKING ACROSS ALL THESE THINGS. WHEN CONTENT GETS FLAGGED, WE HAVE THOSE PEOPLE LOOK AT IT AND IF IT VIOLATES OUR POLICIES THEN WE TAKE IT DOWN. SOME PROBLEMS LEND THEMSELVES MORE EASILY TO AI SOLUTIONS THAN OTHERS. HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THE HARDEST. DETERMINING IF SOMETHING IS HATE SPEECH IS VERY LIGUISTICALLY NUANCED. CAN TRUST THAT WITH AN AREA LIKE TIENDSING TERRORIST PROPAGANDA. TODAY, 99% OF THE ISIS AND AL QAEDA CONTENT THAT WE TAKE DOWN ON FACEBOOK OUR AI SYSTEMS FLAG BEFORE ANY HUMAN SEES IT. THAT’S A SUCCESS IN TERMS OF ROLLING OUT AI TOOLS THAT CAN PROACTIVELY POLICE AND ENFORCE SAFETY ACROSS THE COMMUNITY. HATE SPEECH, I’M OPTIMISTIC THAT OVER A FIVE TO TEN YEAR PERIOD WE’LL HAVE AI TOOLS THAT CAN GET INTO SOME OF THE NUANCES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTENT TO BE MORE ACCURATE IN FLAGGING THINGS FOR OUR SYSTEMS. TODAY WE’RE NOT JUST THERE ON THAT. A LOT OF THIS IS STILL REACTIVE. PEOPLE FLAG IT. WE HAVE PEOPLE LOOK AT IT. WE HAVE POLICIES TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS NOT SUBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. THERE’S A HIGHER ERROR RATE THAN I’M HAPPY WITH IT.>>THANKS. WHAT IS FACEBOOK DOING TO PREVENT FOREIGN ACTORS FROM INTERFERING IN U.S. ELECTIONS.>>THANK YOU, SENATOR. THIS IS ONE OF MY TOP PRIORITIES IN 2018 IS TO GET THIS RIGHT. ONE OF MY GREATEST REGRETS IN RUNNING THE COMPANY IS WE WERE SLOW IN IDENTIFYING THE RUSSIAN INFORMATION OPERATIONS IN 2016. WE EXPECTED THEM TO DO A NUMBER OF MORE TRADITIONAL CYBER ATTACKS WHICH WE DID IDENTIFY AND NOTIFY THE CAMPAIGNS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO HACK INTO THEM. WE WERE TRY TO IDENTIFYING THE NEW INFORMATION OPERATIONS.>>WHEN DID YOU IDENTIFY NEW OPERATIONS?>>RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF 2016 ELECTION ITSELF. SINCE THEN, WE — 2018 IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT YEAR FOR ELECTIONS. NOT JUST WITH THE U.S. MID TERMS BUT AROUND THE WORLD THERE’S IMPORTANT ELECTIONS IN INDIA, BRAZIL AND MEXICO AND PAKISTAN AND HUNGARY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE ELECTIONS. SINCE THE 2016 ELECTION THERE’S BEEN SEVERAL IMPORTANT ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD WHERE WE’VE HAD THE BETTER RECORD. THERE’S THE FRENCH ELECTION, THE GERMAN ELECTION.>>EXPLAIN WHAT IS BETTER ABOUT THE RECORD.>>WE HAVE A NEW AI TOOL THAT IDENTIFIES FAKE ACCOUNTS. BETWEEN THOSE THREE ELECTIONS WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE TEN OF,000 — THOUSANDS OF ACCOUNTS. THE NATURE OF THESE ATTACKS IS THERE ARE PEOPLE IN RUSSIA WHOSE JOB IT IS TO TRY TO EXPLOIT OUR SYSTEMS AND OTHER INTERNET SYSTEMS AND OTHER SYSTEMS AS WELL. THIS IS AN ARM’S RACE. THEY GOING TO KEEP ON GETTING BETTER AT THIS AND WE NEED TO KEEP ON GETTING BETTER IN THIS TOO WHICH IS WHY ONE OF THE THINGS I MENTIONED BEFORE IS WE’RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN 20,000 PEOPLE BY TEND OF THIS YEAR WORKING ON SECURITY AND CONTENT REVIEW ACROSS THE COMPANY.>>SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT AUTOMATED BOTS THAT SPREAD DISINFORMATION. WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PUNISH THOSE WHO EXPLOIT YOUR PLATFORM IN THAT REGARD?>>WELL, YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE FAKE ACCOUNT ON FACEBOOK. YOUR CONTENT HAS TO BE AUTHENTIC. WE BUILD TECHNICAL TOOLS TO TRY TO IDENTIFY WHEN PEOPLE ARE CREATING FAKE ACCOUNTS ESPECIALLY LARGE NETWORKS OF FAKE ACCOUNTS LIKE THE RUSSIANS HAVE IN ORDER TO REMOVE ALL OF THAT CONTENT. AFTER THE 2016 ELECTION, OUR TOP TRY YOURTY WAS PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF OTHER ELECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD. AT THE SAME TIME WE HAD A PARALEGAL EFFORT TO TRACE BACK TO RUSSIA THE IA ACTIVITY. THAT WAS PART OF RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THAT DID THIS BASIC — ACTIVITY IN 2016. WE WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE A NUMBER OF RUSSIAN MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS WERE OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THIS INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY. WE TOOK THE STEP LAST WEEK. IT WAS A PRETTY BIG STEP OF TAKING DOWN SANCTIONED NEWS ORGANIZATIONS IN RUSSIA AS PART OF AN OPERATION TO REMOVE 270 FAKE ACCOUNTS AND PAGES, PART OF THE BROADER NETWORK IN RUSSIA. IT WAS PRIMARILY TARGETING SPREADING MISINFORMATION IN RUSSIA AS WELL AS RUSSIAN SPEAKING NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES.>>HOW MANY ACCOUNTS OF THIS TYPE HAVE YOU TAKEN DOWN?>>IN THE IRA SPECIFICALLY, THE ONE WE PEGGED BACK TO THE IRA, WE CAN IDENTIFY THE 470 IN THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS AND THE 270 THAT WE SPECIFICALLY WENT AFTER IN RUSSIA LAST WEEK. THERE ARE MANY OTHERS THAT OUR SYSTEMS CATCH WHICH ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO ATTRIBUTE TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. THE NUMBER WOULD BE ON TENS OF THOUSANDS. I’LL BE HAPPY TO HAVE MY TEAM FOLLOW UP ON THAT.>>WOULD YOU PLEASE. IF YOU KNEW IN 2015 THAT CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA WAS USING THE INFORMATION, WHY DIDN’T FACEBOOK BAN CAMBRIDGE IN 2014? WHY DID YOU WAIT?>>THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION. CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA WASN’T USING OUR SERVICES IN 2015. THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED OUR TEAM IS WHY DID WE WAIT UNTIL WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE REPORTS LAST MONTH TO BAN THEM. AS OF THE TIME WLERNED ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITY IN 2015, THEY WEREN’T RUNNING PAGES. WE HAD NOTHING TO BAN.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR HATCH.>>THIS IS THE MOST INTENSE PUBLIC RELATED HEARING FOR A TECH OPERATION. THE RECENT STORIES ABOUT CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA AND DATA MINING ON SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT CONSUMER PRIVACY. I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. THESE STORIES TOUCH ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE INTERNET ECONOMY AND THE WAY THE WEBSITES THAT DRIVE OUR INTERNET ECONOMY MAKE MONEY. SOME HAVE PROFESSED THEMSELVES SHOCKED, SHOCKED THAT COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE SHARE DATA WITH ADVERTISERS. DID ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS STOP TO ASK WHY FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE DON’T CHARGE FOR ACCESS. NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE. EVERYTHING INVOLVES TRADE OFF. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY MONEY, YOU’LL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN SOME OTHER WAY, IT SEEMS TO ME. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE SEEING HERE. THESE GREAT WEBSITES THAT DON’T CHARGE FOR ACCESS, THEY EXTRACT VALUE IN SOME OTHER WAY. THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AS LONG AS THEY ARE UP FRONT ABOUT WHAT THEY’RE DOING. IN MY MIND THE ISSUE HERE IS TRANSPARENCY. IT’S CONSUMER CHOICE. DO USERS UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY’RE AGREEING TO WHEN THEY ACCESS A WEBSITE OR AGREE TO TERMS OF SERVICE. ARE WEBSITES UP FRONT ABOUT HOW THEY EXTRACT VALUE FROM USERS OR DO THEY HIDE THE BALL. THE CONSUMERS HAVE THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT TO VISIT A PARTICULAR WEBSITE. TO MY MIND THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WE SHOULD ASK OR BE FOCUSING ON. I REMEMBER YOUR FIRST VISIT TO CAPITOL HILL IN 2010. YOU SPOKE TO THE TASK FORCE, WHICH I CHAIR. YOU SAID THAT FACEBOOK WOULD ALWAYS BE FREE. IS THAT STILL YOUR OBJECTIVE?>>SENATOR, YES. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A VERSION OF FACEBOOK THAT IS FREE. IT’S OUR MISSION TO TRY TO HELP CONNECT EVERYONE AROUND THE WORLD. WE BELIEVE WE NEED TO OFFER A SERVICE THAT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD.>>HOW DO YOU SUSTAIN A BUSINESS MODEL IN WHICH USERS DON’T PAY FOR YOUR SERVICE?>>SENATOR, WE RUN ADS.>>I SEE. THAT’S GREAT. WHEN EVER A CONTROVERSY LIKE THIS ARISES THERE’S A DANGER THAT CONGRESS’S RESPONSE WILL BE TO STEP IN AND OVERREGULATE. THAT’S BEEN THE EXPERIENCE THAT I’VE HAD IN MY 42 YEARS HERE. IF YOUR VIEW, WHAT SORTS OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGES WOULD HELP TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA STORY HAS REVEALED AND WHAT SORTS OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGES WOULD NOT HELP TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE?>>SENATOR, I THINK THERE ARE A FEW CATEGORIES OF LEGISLATION THAT MAKES SENSE TO CONSIDER. AROUND PRIVACY SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE FEW PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO DISCUSS AND CODIFY INTO LAW. ONE IS AROUND HAVING A SIMPLE AND PRACTICAL SET OF WAYS THAT YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU’RE DOING WITH DATA. WE TALKED A BIT EARLIER AROUND THE COMPLEXITY OF LAYING OUT THIS LONG PRIVACY POLICY. IT’S HARD TO SAY THAT PEOPLE FULLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING WHEN IT’S ONLY WRITTEN OUT IN A LONG LEGAL DOCUMENT. THE STUFF NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY WHERE PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT. WHERE CONSUMERS CAN UNDERSTAND IT. THAT CAN ALSO CAPTURE THE NUANCES OF HOW THE SERVICES WORK THAT’S NOT OVERLY RESTRICTED ON PROVIDING THE SERVICES. THAT’S ONE. THE SECOND IS AROUND GIVING PEOPLE COMPLETE CONTROL. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE FOR FACEBOOK. EVERY PIECE OF CONTENT YOU OWN AND YOU HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER WHO SEE S IT AND HOW YOU SHARE IT. YOU CAN REMOVE IT AT ANY TIME. THAT’S WHY EVERY DAY ABOUT A HUNDRED BILLION TIMES DAY, PEOPLE COMES TO ONE OF OUR SERVICES AND POST A PHOTO. THEY KNOW THEY HAVE THAT CONTROL AND WHO THEY SAY IT WILL GO TO IS WHO SEES THE CONTENT. THAT’S IMPORTANT OPINION THAT SHOULD APPLY TO EVERY SERVICE. THE THIRD IS AROUND ENABLING INNOVATION. SOME OF THESE ARE SENSITIVE LIKE FACE RECOGNITION. I THINK THERE’S A BALANCE THAT’S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO STRIKE HERE WHERE YOU OBTAIN SPECIAL CONSENT FOR FEATURES LIKE FACE RECOGNITION BUT WE STILL NEED TO MAKE IT SO THAT AMERICAN COMPANIES CAN INNOVATE IN THOSE AREAS OR ELSE WE’RE GOING TO FALL BEHIND CHINESE COMPETITORS AND OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD WHO HAVE DIFFERENT REGIMES FOR DIFFERENT NEW FEATURES LIKE THAT.>>SENATOR CANTWELL.>>THANK YOU. DO YOU KNOW WHO PALANTIR IS?>>I DO.>>SOME PEOPLE HAVE REFERRED TO THEM AS STANFORD ANALYTICA. DO YOU AGREE?>>I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT.>>DO YOU THINK PALANTIR TAUGHT CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA PRESS REPORTS ARE SAYING HOW TO DO THESE TACTICS?>>SENATOR, I DON’T KNOW.>>DO YOU THINK THAT PALANTIR HAS EVER SCRAPPED DATA FROM FACEBOOK?>>I’M NOT AWARE OF THAT.>>OKAY. DO YOU THINK THAT DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AS CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA WAS PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN UNDER PROJECT ALAMO, WERE THERE ANY FACEBOOK PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT SHARING OF TECHNIQUE AND INFORMATION?>>SENATOR, WE PROVIDED SUPPORT TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SIMILAR TO WHAT WE PROVIDE TO ANY ADVERTISER OR CAMPAIGN WHO ASKS FOR IT.>>THAT WAS A YES? IS THAT A YES?>>SENATOR, CAN YOU REPEAT THE SPECIFIC QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU’RE ASKING.>>DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, CAM BRIDGE ANALYTICA WORKED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO REFINE TACTICS AND WERE FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THAT?>>SENATOR, I DON’T KNOW THAT OUR EMPLOYEES WERE INVOLVED WITH CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA. I KNOW WE DID HELP OUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH SALES SUPPORT THE SAME OTHER WAY WE DO WITH OTHER CAMPAIGNS.>>THEY MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED. MAYBE THAT’S SOMETHING YOUR INVESTIGATION WILL FIND OUT.>>I CAN HAVE MY TEAM GET BACK TO YOU ON ANY SPECIFICS THERE THAT I DON’T KNOW SITTING HERE TODAY.>>HAVE YOU HEARD OF TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT?>>NO, I DO NOT.>>TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS WAS 2003. JOHN ASHCROFT AND OTHERS TRYING TO DO SIMILAR THINGS TO WHAT I THINK IS BEHIND ALL OF THIS. GEOPOLITICAL FORCES TRYING TO GET DATA AND INFORMATION TO INFLUENCE A PROCESS. WHEN I LOOK AT PALANTIR AND WHAT THEY’RE DOING AND I LOOK AT WHAT’S APP WHICH IS ANOTHER ACQUISITION AND I LOOK AT WHERE YOU ARE FROM THE 2011 DESENT DECREE AND WHERE YOU ARE TODAY I’M THINKING IS THIS GUY OUT FOXING FOXES OR IS HE GOING ALONG WITH WHAT IS A MAJOR TREND TO TRY TO HARVEST INFORMATION FOR POLITICAL FORCES. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS DO YOU SEE THAT THOSE APPLICATIONS, THAT THOSE COMPANIES PALANTIR AND EVEN WHAT’S APP ARE GOING TO FALL INTO THE SAME SITUATION THAT YOU’VE JUST FALLEN INTO OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS?>>SENATOR, I’M NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY. OVERALL, I DO THINK THAT THESE ISSUES AROUND INFORMATION ACCESS ARE CHALLENGING. TO THE SPECIFICS ABOUT THOSE APPS, I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT PALANTIR IS. WHAT’S APP COLLECTS VERY LITTLE INFORMATION. I THINK IS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE THE KIND OF ISSUES BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SERVICES ARCHITECTED. I THINK THESE ARE BROAD ISSUES ACROSS THE TECH INDUSTRY.>>I GUESS GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD WHERE FACEBOOK IS AND WHY YOU’RE HERE TODAY, I GUESS PEOPLE WOULD SAY THEY DIDN’T ACT BOLDLY ENOUGH AND THE FACT THAT P PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON WAS AN INVESTOR AND IT WAS LAST MONTH THAT THE BOLTON PACT WAS UPSET HOW THE AMERICANS WERE BECOMING LIMP WRISTED. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE INTERESTED IN THIS LARGER EFFORT AND WHAT I THINK MY CONSTITUENTS WANT TO KNOW IS WAS THIS DISCUSSED AT YOUR BOARD MEETINGS AND WHAT ARE THE APPLICATIONS AND INTEREST THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED WITHOUT PUTTING REAL TEETH INTO THIS. WE DON’T WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS SITUATION AGAIN. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ALL TALENT. MY QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE ALL THE WILL TO HELP US SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?>>YES, SENATOR. DATA PRIVACY AND FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ARE TOPICS WE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD MEETING. THESE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES WE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD MEETING. WE FEEL A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY TO GET THIS RIGHT.>>DO YOU BELIEVE THE EUROPEAN REGULATION SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE IN THE U.S. IN. >>I THINK EVERY ONE IN THE WORLD DESERVES GOOD PRIVACY PROTECTION. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE IMPLEMENT THE EXACT SAME REGULATION, I WOULD GUESS THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT SENSIBILITIES IN THE U.S. AS TO OTHER COUNTRIES. WE’RE COMMITTED TO ROLLING OUT THE CONTROLS AND AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT AND THE SPECIAL CONTROLS AROUND SENSITIVE TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY LIKE FACE RECOGNITION THAT ARE REQUIRED IN GDPR. WE’RE DOING THAT AROUND THE WORLD. I THINK IT’S CERTAINLY WORTH DISCUSSING WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE U.S. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TODAY IS WE’RE GOING TO GO FORWARD AN IMPLEMENT THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE REGULATORY OUTCOME IS.>>SENATOR.>>THANK YOU. MY QUESTION WILL BE A FOLLOW UP ON WHAT SENATOR HATCH WAS TALKING ABOUT AND LET ME AGREE WITH BASICALLY HIS ADVICE THAT WE DON’T WANT TO OVERREGULATE TO THE POINT WHERE WE’RE STIFLING INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT. I UNDERSTAND WITH REGARD TO SUGGESTED RULES OR SUGGESTED LEGISLATION THERE ARE TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT OUT THERE. ONE WOULD BE THE ISP, THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO ARE ADVOCATING FOR PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS THAT APPLY TO ALL ONLINE ENTITIES EQUALLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE INTERNET ECOSYSTEM. FACEBOOK IS AN EDGE PROVIDER. EDGE PROVIDERS MAY NOT SUPPORT THAT EFFORT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODELS THAN THE ISPs AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LIKE SERVICES. DO YOU THINK WE NEED CONSISTENT PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUME S ACROSS THE ENTIRE INTERNET ECOSYSTEM THAT ARE BASED ON THE TYPE OF CONSUME EVERY INFORMATION BEING COLLECTED, USED OR SHARED REGARDLESS OF THE ENTITY DOING THE COLLECTING OR USING OR SHARING?>>SENATOR, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. I WOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ISPs WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE THE PIPES OF THE INTERNET AND THE PLATFORMS LIKE GOOGLE OR FACEBOOK OR TWITTER OR YOUTUBE THAT ARE THE APPS OR PLATFORMS ON TOP OF THAT. I THINK IN GENERAL THE EXPECTATIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE OF THE PIPES ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE PLATFORMS. THERE MIGHT BE AREAS WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE REGULATION IN ONE AND LESS IN THE OTHER. I THINK THERE WILL BE OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE REGULATION OF THE OTHER TYPE. ON THE PIPES, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT I THINK WE FACE AND HAVE DEBATED IS — >>WHEN YOU SAY PIPES?>>ISPs. I KNOW NET NEUTRALITY HAS BEEN A HOTLY DEBATED TOPIC AND ONE OF THE REASONS I’VE BEEN OUT THERE SAYING I THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE CASE IS BECAUSE I LOOK AT MY OWN STORY OF WHEN I WAS GETTING STARTED BUILDING FACEBOOK AT HARVARD, I ONLY HAD ONE OPTION FOR AN ISP TO USE. IF I HAD TO PAY EXTRA IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SO MY APP COULD BE SEEN OR USED BY OTHER PEOPLE, THEN WE PROBABLY WOULDN’T BE HERE TODAY.>>WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVACY CONCERNS. LET ME JUST SAY WE’LL HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS, BUT I THINK YOU AND I AGREE THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE MAJOR ITEMS OF DEBATE IF WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD AND DO THIS FROM A GOVERNMENTAL STAND POINT. LET ME MOVE ONTO ANOTHER COUPLE OF ITEMS. IS IT TRUE THAT THAT FACEBOOK COLLECTS THE CALL AND TEXT HISTORIES OF ITS USERS THAT USE ANDROID PHONES?>>WE HAVE AN APP CALLED MESSENGER AND THAT APP OFFERS PEOPLE AN OPTION TO SYNC THEIR TEXT MESSAGES INTO THE MESSAGING APP SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR TEXTS AND FACEBOOK MESSAGES IN ONE PLACE. WE ALSO ALLOW PEOPLE THE OPTION OF — >>YOU CAN OPT IN OR OUT OF THAT?>>YES. IT’S OPT IN. YOU HAVE TO AFFIRMATIVELY SAY THAT YOU WANT TO SYNC THAT INFORMATION BEFORE WE GET ACCESS.>>UNLESS YOU OPT IN, YOU DON’T COLLECT THAT INFORMATION IN. >>THAT’S CORRECT.>>IS THERE PRACTICE DONE AT ALL WITH MINORS OR DO YOU MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR PERSONS AGE 13 TO 17?>>I DO NOT KNOW. WE CAN FOLLOW UP.>>ONE OTHER THING. THERE’S BEEN REPORTS THAT FACEBOOK WITH TRACK USERS INTERNET BROWSING ACTIVITY EVEN AFTER THAT USER ARE HAS LOGGED OFF OF THE FACEBOOK PLATFORM. CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS TRUE?>>SENATOR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET THIS ACCURATE SO PROBABLY BE BETTER TO HAVE MY FAMILY FOLLOW UP.>>YOU DON’T KNOW?>>I KNOW THAT PEOPLE USE COOKIES ON THE INTERNET AND YOU CAN PROBABLY CORRELATE ACTIVITY BETWEEN SESSIONS. WE DO THAT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, INCLUDING SECURITY AND INCLUDING MEASURING ADS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ADD EXPERIENCES ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHICH PEOPLE CAN OPT OUT OF. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I’M PRECISE? MY ANSWER.>>WHEN YOU GET BACK TO ME, SIR, WOULD YOU ALSO LET US KNOW HOW FACEBOOK DISCLOSES TO ITS USERS THAT ENGAGING IN THIS TYPE OF TRACKING GIVES US THAT RESULT.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>THANK YOU, SENATOR.>>I ASSUME FACEBOOK’S BEEN SERVED SUBPOENAS FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER’S OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>HAVE YOU OR ANYONE AT FACEBOOK BEEN INTERVIEWED?>>YES.>>HAVE YOU BEEN INTERVIEWED?>>I HAVE NOT. I HAVE NOT.>>OTHERS HAVE IN. >>I BELIEVE SO. I WANT TO BE CAREFUL HERE BECAUSE THAT — OR WORK WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN AN OPEN SESSION I’M NOT REVEALING SOMETHING THAT’S CONFIDENTIAL.>>I UNDERSTAND. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR YOU HAVE BEEN CONTACTED AND HAVE HAD SUBPOENAS?>>LET ME CLARIFY THAT. I’M NOT AWARE OF A SUBPOENA. I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE BUT I KNOW WE’RE WORKING WITH THEM.>>THANK YOU. SIX MONTHS AGO GENERAL COUNSEL PROMISED YOU WERE TAKING STEPS TO PREVENT UNWITTING CO-CONSPIRATOR BUT THESE UNVERIIED DIVISIVE PAGES ARE ON FACEBOOK TODAY. THEY LOOK A LOT LIKE THE RUSSIAN GROUPS USED TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. ARE YOU ABLE TO CONFIRM WHETHER THEY ARE RUSSIAN CREATED GROUPS, YES OR NO?>>SENATOR, YOU ASKING ABOUT THOSE SPECIFICALLY?>>YES.>>SENATOR, LAST WEEK WE ANNOUNCD MAJOR CHANGE TO OUR ADS AND PAGES POLICIES THAT WE WILL BE VERIFYING THE IDENTITY OF EVERY SINGLE ADVERTISER — >>SPECIFIC ONES. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE?>>I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE PIECES OF CONTENT SPECIFICALLY.>>IF YOU DID THIS POLICY OVER A WEEK AGO, YOU’D BE ABLE TO VERIFY THEM IN. >>WE ARE WORKING ON THAT NOW. WHAT WE’RE DOING IS WE’RE GOING TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF ANY ADVERTISER WHO IS RUNNING A POLITICAL OR ISSUE RELATED AD. THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THE HONEST ADS ACT IS PROPOSING AND WE’RE FOLLOWING THAT. WE’RE ALSO GOING TO DO THAT FOR PAGES.>>YOU CAN’T ANSWER ON THESE?>>I’M NOT FAMILIAR.>>WILL YOU FIND OUT THE ANSWER AND GET BACK TO ME?>>I’LL HAVE MY TEAM GET BACK TO YOU. I THINK IT’S WORTH ADDING THAT WE’RE GOING TO DO THE SAME VERIFICATION OF THE IDENTITY AND LOCATION OF A MINS WHO ARE RUNNING LARGE PAGES. EVEN IF THEY AREN’T BUYING ADS, THAT WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE EFFORTS OR OTHER UNAUTHENTIC EFFORT.>>SOME MIGHT SAY IT’S ABOUT TIME. SIX MONTHS AGO I ASKED GENERAL COUNSEL ABOUT FACEBOOK IS A BREEDING GROUND FOR HATE SPEECH AGAINST ROHINYJA REFUGEES. YOU SAY YOU USE AI TO FIND THIS. THIS IS THE TYPE OF CONTENT I’M REFERRING TO. IT’S CALLS FOR THE DEATH OF A MUSLIM JOURNALIST. THAT THREAT WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH YOUR DETECTION SYSTEM. IT SPREAD QUICKLY. IT TOOK ATTEMPT AFTER ATTEMPT TO GET YOU TO REMOVE IT. WHY COULDN’T IT BE REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS.>>WHAT’S HAPPENING IN MYANMAR IS A TERRIBLE TRAGEDY.>>WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT.>>YOU AND INVESTIGATORS HAVE BLAMED — YOU BLAME FACEBOOK FOR PLAYING A ROLE IN THAT GENERAL VISE. WE ALL AGREE SOCIAL SECURITY TERRIBLE. HOW CAN YOU DEDICATE RESOURCES TO MAKE SURE SUCH HATE SPEECH IS TAKING DOWN IN 24 HOURS.>>WE’RE WORKING ON THIS. THERE’S THREE SPECIFIC THINGS WE’RE DOING. WE’RE HIRING DOZENS MORE BURMESE LANGUAGE CONTENT USERS. IT’S HARD TO DO IT WITHOUT PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE. WE’RE WORKING WITH SPECIFICS TO TAKE DOWN THEIR ACCOUNT. THIRD, IS WE’RE STANDING THE UP A PRODUCT TEAM TO DO SPECIFIC PRODUCT CHANGES IN MYANMAR AND OTHER COUNTRIES THAT MAY HAVE SIMILAR ISSUES IN THE FUTURE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING.>>SENATOR CRUZ AND I SENT A LETTER TO APPLE ASKING WHAT THEY WILL DOING ABOUT CHINESE SENSORSHIP. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU’LL DO ABOUT CHINESE SENSORSHIP WHEN THEY COME TO YOU.>>SENATOR GRAHAM IS UP NEXT.>>ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANDREW BOSWORTH?>>YES, SENATOR, I AM.>>HE SAID SO WE CONNECT MORE PEOPLE, MAYBE SOMEONE DIES IN A TERRORIST ATTACK COORDINATING ON OUR TOOLS. WE BELIEVE IN CONNECTING MORE PEOPLE SO DEEPLY THAT ANYTHING THAT ALLOWS US TO CONNECT PEOPLE MORE OFTEN IS DE FACTO GOOD. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?>>NO I DO NOT. BOS WROTE THAT AS AN INTERNAL NOTE. WE HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION INTERNALLY. I DISAGREED WITH IT AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMENTS THE PEOPLE DID TOO.>>YOU DID A BAD JOB OF COMMUNICATING YOUR DISPLEASURE BECAUSE IF HE UNDERSTOOD WHERE YOU’RE AT, HE WOULD HAVE NEVER SAID IT.>>WE TRY TO RUN OUR COMPANY WHERE PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS OPINIONS INTERNALLY.>>THIS IS AN OPINION THAT DISTURBS ME. IF SOMEBODY THAT SAID THIS THAT WORKS FOR ME, I’D FIRE THEM. WHO IS YOUR BIGGEST COME PET TER?>>WE HAVE A LOT OF COMPETITORS.>>WHO IS THE BIGGEST?>>CAN I GIVE A BUNCH. THREE CATEGORIES. ONE IS THE TECH PLATFORMS. GOOGLE, MIMICROSOFT.>>IF I BUY A FORD AND IT DOESN’T WORK WELL, I CAN BUY A CHEVY. IF I’M UPSET WITH FACEBOOK, WHAT’S THE EQUIVALENT PRODUCT THAT I CAN SIGN UP FOR?>>THE SECOND CATEGORY THAT I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT — >>I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT CATEGORIES. I’M TALKING A REAL COMPETITION YOU FACE. CAR COMPANIES FACE A LOT OF COMPETITION IF THEY FACE A DEFECTIVE CAR. PEOPLE STOP BUYING THAT CAR. IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO FACEBOOK IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR?>>YES. THE AVER RAJ AMERICAN USES AGTS DIFFERENT APPS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND STAY IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE.>>THE SAME SERVICE YOU PROVIDE? IS TWITTER THE SAME?>>IT OVERLAPS.>>YOU DON’T THINK YOU HAVE A MONOPOLY?>>IT DOESN’T FEEL LIKE THAT TO ME.>>IT DOESN’T. INSTAGRAM. YOU BOUGHT IT. WHY DID YOU BUY INSTAGRAM?>>THEY WERE VERIAL LENDED APP DEVELOPERS MAKING GOOD USE OF OUR PLATFORM AND UNDERSTOOD OUR VALUES.>>IT’S A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION. MY POINT IS ONE WAY TO REGULATE A COMPANY IS THROUGH COMPETITION, THROUGH GOVERNMENT REGULATION. HERE’S THE QUESTION THAT ALL OF US NEED TO ANSWER. WHAT DO WE TELL OUR CON STIMP WENTS GIVEN WHAT’S HAPPENED HERE WHY WE SHOULD LET YOU SELF-REGULATE. WHAT WOULD YOU TELL PEOPLE IN SOUTH CAROLINA THAT GIVEN ALL THE THINGS WE DISCOVERED HERE IT’S A GOOD IDEA FOR US TO RELY UPON YOU TO REGULATE YOUR OWN BUSINESS PRACTICES?>>MY POSITION IS NOT THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO REGULATION. I THINK THE INTERNET IS — >>DO YOU EMBRACE REGULATION?>>I THINK THE REAL QUESTION AS THE INTERNET BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT IN PEOPLE’S LIVES IS WHAT IS THE RIGHT REGULATION.>>YOU AS COMPANY, WELCOME REGULATION?>>I THINK IF IT’S THE RIGHT REGULATION THEN YES.>>DO YOU THINK THE EUROPEANS HAVE IT RIGHT?>>I THINK THEY GET THINGS RIGHT.>>HAVE YOU EVER SUBMITTED — THAT’S TRUE. WOULD YOU WORK WITH US IN TERMS OF WHAT REGULATIONS YOU THINK ARE NECESSARY IN YOUR INDUSTRY?>>ABSOLUTELY.>>WOULD YOU SUBMIT TO US SOME PROPOSED REGULATIONREGULATIONS?>>YES. I’LL HAVE MY TEAM FOLLOW UP WITH YOU SO WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ACROSS THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WHERE I THINK THIS DISCUSSION NEEDS TO HAPPEN.>>LOOK FORWARD TO IT. WHEN YOU SIGN UP FOR FACEBOOK, YOU SIGN UP FOR TERMS OF SERVICE. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?>>YES.>>IT SAYS THE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF FACEBOOK AND THE PRODUCTS, FEATURES, APPS, TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE WE OFFER EXCEPT WHERE WE STATE SEPARATE TERMS AND NOT WHERE THESE APPLIES. I’M A LAWYER AND I HAVE NO IDEA. DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE CONSUMERS UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY ARE SIGNING UP FOR?>>I DON’T THINK THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON LIKELY READS THAT WHOLE DOCUMENT. I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT AND HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO.>>DO YOU AGREE WITH ME YOU BETTER COME UP WITH DIFFERENT WAYS BECAUSE THERE AIN’T WORKING?>>SENATOR, I THINK IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT IS TRUE. I THINK IN OTHER AREAS LIKE THE CORE PART OF WHAT WE DO. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE MOST BASIC LEVEL, PEOPLE COME TO FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, WHAT’S APP MESSENGER ABOUT A HUNDRED BILLIONS TIMES A DAY TO SHARE A CONTENT OR MESSAGE WITH SPECIFIC SET OF PEOPLE. PEOPLE UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CONTROLS THIS LINE EVERY TIME AND GIVEN THE VOLUME OF THE ACTIVITY AND THE VALUE THAT PEOPLE TELL US THEY ARE GETTING FROM THAT, I THINK THAT CONTROL IN LINE DOES SEEM TO BE WORKING FAIRLY WELL. WE CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER AND THERE SERVICES COMPLEX AND YOU GO AND POST A PHOTO. I AGREE THAT IN MANY PLACES WE COULD DO BETTER. FOR THE CORE OF THE SERVICE IT IS QUITE CLEAR.>>THANK YOU, SENATOR.>>I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS BAD. YOU ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS BREACH OF TRUST AND THE WAY I EXPLAIN IT TO MY CONSTITUENTS IS IF SOMEONE BREAKS INTO MY APARTMENT WITH A CROWBAR AND TAKE MY STUFF, IT’S LIKE IF THE MANAGER GAVE THEM THE KEYS OR IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE ANY LOCKS ON DOORS, IT’S STILL BREAK IN. I BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE LAWS AND RULES THAT ARE SOPHISTICATED AS THE BRILLIANT PRODUCTS THAT YOU’VE DEVELOPED HERE. WE JUST HAVEN’T DONE THAT YET. ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I’M FOCUSED ON IS THE ELECTION. I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT THAT YOU AND FACEBOOK AND NOW TWITTER HAVE GIVEN TO THE HONEST ADS ACT BILL THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT I’M LEADING WITH SENATOR McCAIN AND WARNER. AS WE WORK TO PAS THIS LAW SO WE HAVE THE SAME RULES THIS PLACE TO DISCLOSE POLITICAL ADS AND ISSUE ADS AS WE DO FOR TV AND RADIO AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS THAT YOU’RE GOING TO TAKE EARLY ACTION, AS SOON AS JUNE, BEFORE THIS ELECTION, SO PEOPLE CAN VIEW THESE ADS INCLUDING ISSUE ADS, IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT BEFORE I GO INTO THIS MORE DETAIL TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT AREA FOR THE WHOLE INDUSTRY TO MOVE ON. THE TWO SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE’RE DOING ARE ONE IS AROUND TRANSPARENCY. NOW YOU’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO AND CLICK ON ANY ADVERTISER OR ANY PAGE ON FACEBOOK AND SEE ALL THE ADS THEY ARE RUNNING. THAT BRINGS ADVERTISING ONLINE, ON FACEBOOK TO AN EVEN HIGHER STANDARDS THAN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE ON TV OR PRINT MEDIA BECAUSE THERE’S NOWHERE YOU CAN SEE ALL THE TV ADS SOMEONE IS RUNNING. THIS CAMPAIGN OR THIRD PARTY IS SAYING DIFFERENT MESSAGES TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEOPLE IS IMPORTANT.>>SENATOR WARNER AND I HAVE CALLED OR GOOGLE TO DO THE SAME. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A PATCH WORK OF ADS. I HOPE YOU’LL BE WORKING WITH US TO PASS THIS BILL, IS THAT RIGHT?>>WE WILL.>>THANK YOU. ON THE SUBJECT OF CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, WERE THESE PEOPLE, THE 87 MILLION PEOPLE, USERS CONCENTRATED IN CERTAIN STATES? ARE YOU ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY ARE FROM?>>I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION WITH ME BUT WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE. >>AS WE KNOW THAT ELECTION WAS CLOSE AND IT WAS ONLY THOUSANDS VOTES IN CERTAIN STATES. YOU ALSO ESTIMATED THAT ROUGHLY 126 MILLION PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN SHOWN CONTENT FROM FACEBOOK PAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGTS SI. HAVE YOU DETERMINED WHETHER ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE THE SAME FACEBOOK USERS WHOSE DATA WAS SHARED WITH CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA? ARE YOU ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?>>WE’RE INVESTIGATING THAT NOW. WE BELIEVE IT’S POSSIBLE THERE WILL BE A CONNECTION THERE.>>THAT SEEMS LIKE A BIG DEAL AS WE LOOK BACK AT THAT LAST ELECTION. FORMER CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA EMPLOYEE CHRISTOPHER WILEY SAID THE DATA IT IMPROPERLY OBTAINED FROM FACEBOOK USERS COULD BE STORED IN RUSSIA. DO YOU AGREE THAT’S A POSSIBILITY?>>SORRY, ARE YOU ASK IF CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA COULD BE STORED IN RUSSIA?>>THAT’S WHAT HE SAID THIS WEEKEND ON A SUNDAY SHOW.>>I DON’T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT. ONE OF THE STEPS WE NEED TO TAKE IS DO A FULL AUDIT OF ALL OF CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA SYSTEMS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY’RE DOING, MAKE SURE THEY REMOVE THE DATA AND IF THEY HAVEN’T WE’LL TAKE LEGAL ACTION FOR THEM TO DO SO. THAT AUDIT, WE HAVE SEEDED THAT IN ORDER TO LET THE UK GOVERNMENT LET THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION FIRST. WE’RE COMMITTED TO COMPLETING THAT.>>YOU STATED YOU WOULD SUPPORT SOME PRIVACY RULES SO EVERYONE IS PLAYING BY THE SAME RULES HERE. YOU ALSO SAID HERE YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED CUSTOMERS EARLIER. WOULD YOU SUPPORT A RULE THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO NOTIFY YOUR USERS OF A BREACH WITHIN 72 HOURS?>>SENATOR, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE OUR TEAM FOLLOW UP WITH YOURS TO DISCUSS DETAILS AROUND THAT AND MORE.>>THANK YOU.>>I THINK PART OF THIS WAS WHEN PEOPLE DON’T EVEN KNOW THEIR DATA HAS BEEN BREACHED, THAT’S A HUGE PROBLEM. I THINK WE GET TO SOLUTION FASTERS WHEN WE GET THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE. THANK YOU AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO PASSING THIS BILL. WE’D LOVE TO PASS IT BEFORE THE ELECTION ON THE HONEST ADS AND LOOKING FORWARD TO BETTER DISCLOSURE THIS ELECTION. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU SENATOR KLOBUCHAR.>>THANK YOU. I TOLD YOU WHEN I SENT MY BUSINESS CARDS DOWN TO BE PRESENTED THEY CAME BACK FROM THE SENATE PRINT SHOP WITH A MESSAGE. IT WAS THE FIRST BUSINESS CARD THEY EVER PRINTED A FACEBOOK ADDRESS ON. THERE ARE DAYS WHEN I’VE REGRETTED THAT BUT MORE DAYS WE GET LOTS OF INFORMATION. THERE ARE DAYS I WONDER IF FACEBOOK FRIEND S A LITTLE MISAT A TIMED. IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE I HAVE THOSE EVERY SINGLE DAY. THE PLATFORM YOU CREATED IS REALLY IMPORTANT. MY SON WHO IS 13 IS DEDICATED TO INSTAGRAM. HE WOULD WANT TO BE SURE I MENTION THAT WHILE I’M HERE WITH YOU. LOTS OF WAYS TO CONNECT PEOPLE. THE INFORMATION IS AN IMPORTANT COMMODITY AND IT’S WHAT MAKES YOUR BUSINESS WORK. I GET THAT. HOWEVER, I WONDER ABOUT SOME OF THE COLLECTION EFFORTS AND MAYBE WE CAN GO THROUGH LARGELY EVEN YES AND NO AND WE’LL GET BACK TO MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION OF THIS. DO YOU COLLECT USER DATA THROUGH CROSS DEVICE TRACKING?>>I BELIEVE WE DO LINK PEOPLE’S ACCOUNTS BETWEEN DEVICES IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM AND OTHER EXPERIENCES CAN BE SYNCED.>>THAT WOULD INCLUDE OFFLINE DATA. DATA THAT’S NOT LINKED TO FACEBOOK BUT SOME DEVICE THEY WENT THROUGH FACEBOOK ON? IS THAT RIGHT?>>SENATOR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS RIGHT. I WANT TO HAVE MY FAMILY TOLL UP WITH YOU ON THAT AFTER WARDS.>>THAT DOESN’T SEEM THAT COMPLICATED TO ME. YOU UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER THAN I DO. DO YOU TRACK DEVICES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO USES FACEBOOK HAS THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE DEVICE THEY USE FOR THEIR FACEBOOK CONNECTION BUT NOT NECESSARILY CONNECTED TO FACEBOOK?>>I’M IN THE SURE OF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.>>REALLY?>>YES. THERE MAY BE SOME DATA NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT WE DO. I DON’T HAVE THAT SITTING HERE TODAY.>>THE FTC FLAGGED CROSS DEVICE TRACKING AS ONE OF THEIR CONCERNS. GENERALLY THAT PEOPLE ARE TRACKING DEVICES THAT THE USERS OF SOMETHING LIKE FACEBOOK DON’T KNOW THEY’RE BEING TRACKED. HOW DO YOU DISCLOSE YOUR COLLECTION METHODS? IS THAT ALL IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT I WOULD SEE AND AGREE TO BEFORE I ENTERED INTO FACEBOOK?>>YES. THERE ARE TWO WAYS WE DO THIS. SOMEONE WE TRY TO BE EXHAUSTIVE IN TERMS OF SERVICE AND PRIVACY POLICIES. MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE TRY TO PROVIDE INLINE CONTROLS SO THAT PEOPLE ARE IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND. THEY CAN EITHER GO TO SETTINGS OR SHOW THEM AT THE TOP OF THE APP. PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ALL CONTROLS AND SETTINGS THEY HAVE AND CAN CONFIGURE THEIR EXPERIENCE THE WAY THEY WANT.>>DO PEOPLE NOW GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO TRACK SPECIFIC DEVICES IN THEIR CONTRACT AND IF THEY DO IS THAT A RELATIVELY NEW ADDITION TO WHAT YOU DO?>>SENATOR — >>AM I ABLE TO OPT OUT? AM I ABLE TO SAY IT’S OKAY FOR YOU TO TRACK WHAT I’M SAYING ON FACEBOOK BUT DON’T TRACK WHAT I’M TEXTING TO SOMEBODY ELSE OFF FACEBOOK, ON AN ANDROID PHONE?>>YES, SENATOR. IN GENERAL FACEBOOK IS NOT COLLECTING DATA FROM OTHER APPS THAT YOU USE. THERE MAY BE SOME SPECIFIC THINGS ABOUT THE DEVICE YOU’RE USING THAT FACEBOOK NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND IN ORDER TO OFFER THE SERVICE BUT IF YOU’RE USING GOOGLE OR USING SOME TEXTING APP, UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY OPT IN THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE THE TEXTING APP INFORMATION, FACEBOOK WOULDN’T SEE THAT.>>HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY OR IS THAT A RECENT ADDITION TO HOW YOU DEAL WITH THOSE OTHER WAYS THAT IE MIGHT COMMUNICATE?>>SENATOR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS HOW THE MOBILE OPERATING SYSTEMS ARE ARCHITECTED.>>YOU DON’T HAVE BUNDLED PERMISSIONS FOR HOW I CAN AGREE TO WHAT DEVICES I MAY USE THAT YOU MAY HAVE CONTACT WITH? DO YOU BUNDLE THAT PERMISSION OR AM AABLE TO SAY WHAT I’M WILLING FOR YOU TO WATCH AND WHAT I DON’T WANT YOU TO WATCH? I THINK WE MAY HAVE TO TAKE THAT FOR THE RECORD BASED ON EVERYBODY ELSE’S TIME.>>THANK YOU, SENATOR.>>THANK YOU. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE SHARING NAME OF THE HOTEL YOU STAYED IN LAST NIGHT?>>NO.>>IF YOU MESSAGED ANYBODY THIS WEEK, WOULD YOU SHARE WITH US THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE YOU MESSAGED?>>NO, I WOULD PROBABLY NOT CHOOSE TO DO THAT PUBLICLY HERE.>>I THINK THIS MIGHT BE WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY. THE LIMITS OF YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND HOW MUCH YOU GIVE AWAY IN MODERN AMERICA IN THE NAME OF QUOTE, CONNECTING PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. THE QUESTION OF WHAT INFORMATION FACEBOOK’S COLLECTING, WHO THEY ARE SENDING IT TO AND WHETHER THEY ASKED ME IN ADVANCE MY PERMISSION TO DO THAT. IS THAT FAIR THING FOR A USER OF FACEBOOK TO EXPECT?>>YES, SENATOR. I THINK EVERY SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER HOW THEIR INFORMATION IS USED. AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS, I THINK THAT IS LAID OUT IN SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE CONTROL IN THE PRODUCT ITSELF. THE MOST IMPORTANT WAY THIS HAPPENS ACROSS OUR SERVICES IS THAT EVERY DAY PEOPLE COME — >>AS WE REACH THE 4:00 HOUR IN THE EAST YOU’RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE OF FACEBOOK CEO SENATE TESTIMONY. SOME YOU HAVE WILL NOW BE RETURNING TO REGULAR PROGRAMMING FOR. FOR THE REST OF YOU, OUR COVERAGE CONTINUES. CONTINUES. >>IN THE PAST, SOMETIMES THAT INFORMATION IS GOING WAY BEYOND THEIR FRIENDS. SOMETIMES PEOPLE MADE MONEY OFF SHARING THAT, CORRECT?>>SENATOR, I THINK YOU’RE REFERRING TO THE DEVELOPER PLATFORM. IT MAY BE USEFUL TO GIVE BACKGROUND ON HOW WE SET IT UP, IF THAT’S USEFUL. >>I HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT, SO MAYBE YOU CAN DO THAT FOR THE RECORD. BECAUSE I HAVE A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK. YOU HAVE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED SOMETHING THAT IS CALLED MESSENGER KIDS. FACEBOOK CREATED AN APP ALLOWING KIDS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 6 AND 12 TO SEND VIDEO AND TEXT MESSAGES THROUGH FACEBOOK AS AN EXTENSION OF THEIR PARENTS’ ACCOUNT. YOU HAVE CARTOON-LIKE STICKERS AND CONTENT THAT APPEALS TO FIRST GRADERS. ON JANUARY 30th, CAMPAIGN FOR COMMERCIAL-FREE CHILDHOOD. POINTED TO A WEALTH OF RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING THAT EXCESSIVE USE OF DIGITAL DEVICES AND SOCIAL MEDIA IS HARMFUL TO KIDS AND ARGUED THAT YOUNG CHILDREN SIMPLY ARE NOT READY TO HANDLE SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AT AGE 6. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT DATA THAT IS BEING GATHERED ABOUT THESE KIDS. AND OTHER CERTAIN LIMITS, WE KNOW, WHICH CHILDREN’S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. WHAT GUARANTEES CAN GIVE YOU THAT NO DATA FROM MESSENGER KIDS IS OR WILL BE SHARED WITH THOSE THAT MIGHT VIOLATE THAT LAW. >>SENATOR, A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT HERE. THE BACKGROUND ON MESSENGER KIDS IS WE HEARD FEEDBACK FROM THOUSANDS OF PARENTS THAT THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH THEIR KIDS AND CALL THEM, USE APPS LIKE FACETIME WHEN THEY’RE WORKING LATE OR NOT AROUND AND WANT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR KIDS BUT THEY WANT COMPLETE CONTROL. I THINK WE CAN AGREE WHEN YOUR KID IS 6 OR 7, EVEN IF THEY HAVE ACCESS TO A PHONE, YOU WANT TO CONTROL EVERYONE WHO THEY CONTACT. THERE WASN’T AN APP THAT DID THAT. WE BUILT THIS SERVICE TO DO THAT. THE APP COLLECTS A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT IS NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE SERVICE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MESSAGES THAT PEOPLE SEND IS SOMETHING THAT WE COLLECT IN ORDER TO OPERATE THE SERVICE. BUT IN GENERAL, THAT DATA IS NOT GOING TO BE SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES. IT IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE BROADER FACEBOOK — >>EXCUSE ME, AS A LAWYER I PICKED UP THE WORD ON THE PHRASE “IN GENERAL.” IT SEEMS TO SUGGEST IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IT WILL BE SHARED WITH THIRD PARTIES. >>NO, IT WILL NOT. >>ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE HAVING REACHED ADULT AGE, HAVING GROWN UP WITH MESSENGER KIDS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DELETE THE DATA THAT YOU’VE COLLECTED?>>SENATOR, YES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN YOU BECOME 13, WHICH IS THE LEGAL LIMIT. WE DON’T ALLOW PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 13 TO USE FACEBOOK. YOU DON’T AUTOMATICALLY GO FROM HAVING A MESSENGER KIDS ACCOUNT TO A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT. YOU HAVE TO START OVER AND GET A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT. SO I THINK IT’S A GOOD IDEA TO CONSIDER MAKING SURE THAT ALL THAT INFORMATION IS DELETED AND, IN GENERAL, PEOPLE WILL BE STARTING OVER WHEN THEY GET THEIR FACEBOOK OR OTHER ACCOUNTS. >>I HAVE A FEW SECONDS, ILLINOIS HAS A BIO METRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT, OUR STATE DOES, TO REGULATE THE COMMERCIAL USE OF FACIAL AND FINGER SCANS IN THE LIKE. WE’RE IN A DEBATE ON THAT, I’M AFRAID FACEBOOK IS TRYING TO CARVE OUT EXCEPTIONS TO THAT. I HOPE YOU’LL FILL ME IN ON HOW IT’S CONSISTENT WITH PROTECTING PRIVACY. >>THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG FOR BEING HERE. I NOTE UP UNTIL 2014, THE MANTRA OR MOTTO OF FACEBOOK WAS “MOVE FAST AND BREAK THINGS” IS THAT CORRECT?>>I DON’T KNOW WHEN WE CHANGED IT, BUT THE MANTRA IS CURRENTLY “MOVE FAST WITH STABLE INFRASTRUCTURE” WHICH IS A MUCH LESS SEXY MANTRA. >>IT SOUNDS MORE BORING. BUT MY QUESTION IS, DURING THE TIME IT WAS FACEBOOK’S MANTRA, OR MOTTO TO MOVE FAST AND BREAK THINGS, DO YOU THINK SOME OF THE MISJUDGMENTS, PERHAPS, MISTAKES YOU’VE ADMITTED TO HERE WERE AS A RESULT OF THAT CULTURE OR THAT ATTITUDE, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARDS TO PERSONAL PRIVACY OF INFORMATION OF YOUR SUBSCRIBERS?>>SENATOR, I THINK WE MADE MISTAKES BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT THE BROADEST MISTAKES WE MADE HERE IS NOT TAKING A BROAD ENOUGH VIEW OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY. THE MOVE FAST CULTURAL VALUE IS MORE TACTICAL AROUND WHETHER ENGINEERS CAN SHIP THINGS AND DIFFERENT WAYS WE OPERATE. BUT I THINK THE BIG MISTAKE THAT WE’VE MADE LOOKING BACK ON THIS IS VIEWING OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS JUST BUILDING TOOLS RATHER THAN VIEWING OUR WHOLE RESPONSIBILITY AS MAKES SURE THOSE TOOLS ARE USED FOR GOOD. >>I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY YOUR — OR EARLY IN THE PAST, WE’VE BEEN TOLD THAT PLATFORMS LIKE FACEBOOK, TWITTER, INSTAGRAM, THE LIKE ARE NEUTRAL PLATFORMS AND THE PEOPLE WHO OWN AND RUN THOSE FOR PROFIT NOT CRITICIZING DOING SOMETHING FOR PROFIT IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT THEY HAVE BORE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CONTENT. YOU AGREE NOW THAT FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE NOT NEUTRAL PLATFORMS BUT BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENT. >>I AGREE THAT WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT. I THINK THERE’S ONE OF THE BIG SOCIETAL QUESTIONS THAT I THINK WE’RE GOING TO NEED TO ANSWER IS THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE IS BASED ON THIS REACTIVE MODEL THAT ASSUMES THERE AREN’T AI TOOLS THAT CAN PROACTIVELY TELL WHETHER SOMETHING WAS TERRORIST CONTENT OR SOMETHING BAD. IT NATURALLY RELIED ON REQUIRING PEOPLE TO FLAG FOR A COMPANY AND THE COMPANY NEEDING TO TAKE REASONABLE ACTION. IN THE FUTURE, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TOOLS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY MORE TYPES OF BAD CONTENT. I THINK THERE ARE MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION QUESTIONS THAT I THINK WE’LL HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH AS A SOCIETY ABOUT WHEN WE WANT TO REQUIRE COMPANIES TO TAKE ACTION PRO ACTIVELY ON CERTAIN OF THOSE THINGS. AND WHEN IT GETS IN THE WAY — >>I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT. >>ALL RIGHT. >>TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS. SO, INTERESTINGLY, THE TERMS OF THE — WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, THE TERMS OF SERVICE IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT WHICH DISCLOSES TO YOUR SUBSCRIBERS HOW THEIR INFORMATION WILL BE USED. HOW FACEBOOK IS GOING TO OPERATE. BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU DOUBT EVERYBODY READS OR UNDERSTANDS THAT LEGALESE, THOSE TERMS OF SERVICE. IS THAT TO SUGGEST THAT THE CONCEPT THAT PEOPLE GIVE IS NOT INFORMED CONSENT. THEY MAY NOT READ IT, IF THEY READ IT, THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND IT. >>I THINK WE HAVE A BROADER RESPONSIBILITY THAN WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. >>I’M TALKING ABOUT I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT I’M ASKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF WHAT YOUR SUBSCRIBERS UNDERSTAND IN TERMS OF HOW THEIR DATA IS GOING TO BE USED. BUT LET ME GO TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE UNDER PARAGRAPH TWO. YOU SAY YOU OWN ALL THE CONTENT AND INFORMATION YOU POST ON FACEBOOK. THAT’S WHAT YOU’VE TOLD US TODAY A NUMBER OF TIMES. IF I CHOOSE TO TERMINATE MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT, CAN I BAR FACEBOOK OR ANY THIRD PARTIES FROM USING THE DATA THAT I PREVIOUSLY SUPPLIED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER?>>YES, SENATOR, IF YOU DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT, WE SHOULD GET RID OF YOUR INFORMATION. >>YOU SHOULD OR DO?>>WE DO. >>HOW ABOUT THIRD PARTIES YOU HAVE CONTRACTED WITH? DO YOU USE SOME OF THAT UNDERLYING INFORMATION, PERHAPS TO TARGET ADVERTISING FOR THEMSELVES? YOU CAN’T — DO YOU CLAW BACK THAT INFORMATION, AS WELL, OR DOES IT REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY?>>SENATOR, I’M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP. THERE’S A COMMON MISPERCEPTION ABOUT FACEBOOK THAT WE SELL DATA TO ADVERTISERS. AND WE DO NOT SELL DATA TO ADVERTISERS. >>YOU CLEARLY RENT IT. >>WHAT WE ALLOW IS FOR ADVERTISERS TO TELL US WHO THEY WANT TO REACH, AND THEN WE DO THE PLACEMENT. SO IF AN ADVERTISER COMES TO US AND SAYS, ALL RIGHT, I’M A SKI SHOP AND I WANT TO SELL SKIS TO WOMEN, THEN WE MIGHT HAVE SOME SENSE BECAUSE PEOPLE SHARED SKIING-RELATED CONTENT OR SAID THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THAT. THEY SHARED WHETHER THEY’RE A WOMAN. AND THEN WE CAN SHOW THE ADS TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE WITHOUT THAT DATA CHANGING HANDS AND GOING TO THE ADVERTISER. THAT’S A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF HOW OUR MODEL L WORKS AND SOMETHING THAT IS MISUNDERSTOOD. I APPRECIATE YOU BROUGHT IT UP. >>SENATOR, CORNYN, THANK YOU.>>>WE INDICATED WE WOULD TAKE A COUPLE OF BREAKS AND GIVE OUR WITNESS AN OPPORTUNITY. I THINK WE’VE BEEN GOING NOW FOR JUST UNDER TWO HOURS, SO — >>WE CAN DO A FEW MORE. >>YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING? MAYBE 15 MINUTES. DOES THAT WORK?>>ALL RIGHT. WE’LL KEEP GOING. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL IS UP NEXT. AND WE WILL COMMENCE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY, MR. ZUCKERBERG. YOU TOLD US TODAY AND THE WORLD THAT FACEBOOK WAS DECEIVED BY ALEXANDER McHOCAN. >>YES. >>FACEBOOK WAS UNNOTICED THAT HE COULD SELL THAT USER INFORMATION. HAVE YOU SEEN THE TERMS OF SERVICE BEFORE?>>I HAVE NOT. >>WHO, IN FACEBOOK, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEING THOSE TERMS OF SERVICE THAT PUT YOU ON NOTICE THAT THAT INFORMATION BE SOLD?>>SENATOR, OUR APP REVIEW TEAM WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. >>HAS ANYONE BEEN FIRED ON THE APP REVIEW TEAM?>>SENATOR, NOT BECAUSE OF THIS.>>DOESN’T THAT TERM OF SERVICE CONFLICT WITH THE FTC ORDER THAT FACEBOOK WAS UNDER AT THIS VERY TIME THAT THIS TERM OF SERVICE WAS, IN FACT, PROVIDED TO FACEBOOK? AND YOU’LL NOTE THAT THE FTC ORDER SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES FACEBOOK TO PROTECT PRIVACY. ISN’T THERE A CONFLICT THERE?>>SENATOR, IT CERTAINLY APPEARS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT THIS APP DEVELOPER SUBMITTED A TERM THAT WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE RULES OF THE PLATFORM. >>WELL, WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS, IN EFFECT, WILLFUL BLINDNESS. IT WAS HEEDLESS AND RECKLESS, IN FACT, AMOUNTED TO A VIOLATION OF THE FTC CONSENT DECREE. WOULD YOU AGREE?>>NO, SENATOR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS NOT THAT THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE. AS I’VE SAID A NUMBER OF TIMES TODAY, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A BROADER VIEW OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AROUND PRIVACY THAN WHAT IS MANDATED IN THE CURRENT LAW. >>HERE IS MY RESERVATION, MR. ZUCKERBERG, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT MY TIME IS LIMITED. WE’VE SEEN THE APOLOGY TOURS BEFORE. YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO HAVE REPORTED THIS VIOLATION OF THE FTC CONSENT DECREE, AND WE HAVE LETTERS. WE’VE HAD CONTACTS WITH FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES. I’M GOING TO SUBMIT A LETTER FROM THE RECORD, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, THAT INDICATES NOT ONLY A LACK OF RESOURCES BUT A LACK OF INTENTION — ATTENTION TO PRIVACY. SO MY RESERVATION ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY IS THAT I DON’T SEE HOW YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES OF THE ROAD. YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS TO MONETIZE USER INFORMATION TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT OVER PRIVACY. AND UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES AND REQUIREMENTS ENFORCED BY AN OUTSIDE AGENCY, I HAVE NO ASSURANCE THAT THESE KINDS OF, A., COMMITS ARE GOING TO PRODUCE ACTION. SO I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, AND THEY’RE BASED ON LEGISLATION THAT I’VE OFFERED. LEGISLATION THAT SENATOR MARCY IS INTRODUCING TODAY. THE CONSENT ACT, WHICH I’M JOINING. DON’T YOU AGREE THAT COMPANIES OUGHT TO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE USERS WITH CLEAR, PLAIN INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THEIR DATA WILL BE USED AND SPECIFIC ABILITY TO CONSENT TO THE USE OF THAT INFORMATION?>>SENATOR, I GENERALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU’RE SAYING. I LAID IT OUT EARLIER WHEN I TALKED ABOUT WHAT — >>WOULD YOU AGREE TO AN OPT-IN AS OPPOSED TO AN OPT-OUT?>>SENATOR, I THINK THAT THAT IS CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE TO DISCUSS, AND I THINK THE DETAILS AROUND THIS MATTER A LOT. >>WOULD YOU AGREE THAT USERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS ALL OF THEIR INFORMATION?>>SENATOR, YES, OF COURSE. >>ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU COLLECT AS A RESULT OF PURCHASING FROM DATA BROKERS AS WELL AS TRACKING THEM?>>SENATOR, WE HAVE ALREADY A DOWNLOAD YOUR INFORMATION TOOL THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SEE AND TAKE OUT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT FACEBOOK — THEY’VE PUT INTO FACEBOOK OR FACEBOOK KNOWS ABOUT THEM. I AGREE, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT. >>I HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER SPECIFIC REQUESTS THAT YOU AGREE TO SUPPORT AS PART OF LEGISLATION. I THINK LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY FOR THE RULES OF THE ROAD HAVE TO BE THE RESULT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. WE HAVE — FACEBOOK HAS PARTICIPATED RECENTLY IN THE FIGHT AGAINST SCOURGE — THE SCOURGE OF SEX TRAFFICKING AND THE BILL THAT WE’VE JUST PASSED AND WILL BE SIGNED INTO LAW TOMORROW. THE STOP EXPLOITING SEX TRAFFICKING ACT WAS THE RESULT OF OUR COOPERATION. I HOPE WE CAN COOPERATE ON THIS KIND OF MEASURE, AS WELL. >>SENATOR, I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING MY TEAM WORK WITH YOU ON THIS. >>SENATOR CRUZ. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. DOES FACEBOOK CONSIDER ITSELF A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM?>>SENATOR, WE CONSIDER OURSELVES TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. >>LET ME ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. DOES FACEBOOK CONSIDER ITSELF TO BE A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF YOUR COMPANY HAVE GIVEN CONFLICTING ANSWERS ON THIS. ARE YOU A FIRST AMENDMENT SPEAKER EXPRESSING YOUR VIEWS OR A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM ALLOWING EVERYONE TO SPEAK. >>HERE IS HOW WE THINK ABOUT THIS, SENATOR, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT — THERE ARE CERTAIN CONTENT THAT CLEARLY WE DO NOT ALLOW. RIGHT. HATE SPEECH, TERRORIST CONTENT, NUDITY. ANYTHING THAT MAKES PEOPLE FEEL UNSAFE IN THE COMMUNITY. THAT’S WHY WE TRY TO REFER AS A PLATFORM — >>THE TIME IS CONSTRAINT. IT’S A SIMPLE QUESTION. THE PREDICATE FOR SECTION 230 UNDER THE CDA IS THAT YOU’RE A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM. DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM. ARE YOU ENGAGED IN POLITICAL SPEECH, WHICH IS YOUR RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT?>>OUR GOAL IS NOT TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL SPEECH. I’M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIFIC LEGAL LANGUAGE OF THE LAW THAT YOU SPEAK TO, SO I WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON THAT. I’M JUST TRYING TO LAY OUT HOW BROADLY I THINK ABOUT THIS. >>I WILL SAY THERE ARE A GREAT MANY AMERICANS, MR. ZUCKERBERG, I THINK ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT FACEBOOK AND OTHER TECH COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN A PERVASIVE PATTERN OF BIAS AND POLITICAL CENSORSHIP. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS INSTANCES WITH FACEBOOK. IN MAY OF 2016 GIZMO REPORTED THAT FACEBOOK SUPPRESSED CONSERVATIVE NEWS. INCLUDING STORIES AND MITT ROMNEY, LOUIS LEARNER, GLENN BECK. IN ADDITION TO THAT, FACEBOOK HAS INITIALLY SHUT DOWN THE CHICK-FIL-A APPRECIATION DAY PAGE. HAS BLOCKED A POST OF FOX NEWS REPORTER. HAS BLOCKED OVER TWO DOZEN CATHOLIC PAGES, AND MOST RECENTLY BLOCKED TRUMP SUPPORTERS DIAMOND AND SILKS PAGE WITH 1.2 MILLION FACEBOOK FOLLOWERS DETERMINING THEIR CONTENT AND BRAND WERE, QUOTE, “UNSAFE TO THE COMMUNITY ACCOUNTS. TO MANY AMERICANS THAT APPEARS TO BE A PERVASIVE PATTERN OF POLITICAL BIAS. >>LET ME SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT THIS, SENATOR. FIRST, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT CONCERN IS COMING FROM BECAUSE FACEBOOK AND THE TECH INDUSTRY ARE LOCATED IN SILICON VALLEY, WHICH IS AN EXTREMELY LEFT-LEANING PLACE. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A CONCERN THAT I HAVE AND THAT I TRY TO ROOT OUT IN THE COMPANY IS MAKING SURE THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY BIAS IN THE WORK THAT WE DO. I THINK IT IS A FAIR CONCERN THAT PEOPLE WOULD — >>LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY AD OR PAGE THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD?>>SENATOR, I’M NOT. >>HOW ABOUT MOVEON.ORG. OR ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE?>>I’M NOT SPECIFICALLY AWARE. I MEAN, I’M NOT SURE. >>IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE 15 TO 20,000 PEOPLE WORKING ON SECURITY AND CONTENT REVIEW. DO YOU KNOW THE POLITICAL ORIENTATION OF THOSE 15 TO 20,000 PEOPLE ENGAGED IN CONTENT REVIEW?>>NO, SENATOR, WE DON’T GENERALLY ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL ORIENTATION WHEN JOINING THE COMPANY. >>AS CEO, HAVE YOU MADE HIRING OR FIRING DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT CANDIDATES THEY SUPPORTED?>>WHY IS PALMER LUCKY — >>THAT’S SPECIFIC — >>YOU DIDN’T MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON — >>I CAN COMMIT IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF A POLITICAL VIEW. >>DO YOU KNOW OF THE 15 TO 20,000 PEOPLE ENGAGED IN CONTENT REVIEW, HOW MANY, IF ANY, HAVE EVER SUPPORTED FINANCIALLY A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE?>>SENATOR, I DO NOT KNOW THAT. >>YOUR TESTIMONY SAYS IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT WE JUST CONNECT PEOPLE. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE CONNECTIONS ARE POSITIVE. IT SAYS WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE AREN’T USING THEIR VOICE TO HURT PEOPLE OR SPREAD MISINFORMATION. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY NOT JUST TO BUILD TOOLS, TO MAKE SURE THOSE TOOLS ARE USED FOR GOOD. MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU FEEL IT’S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSESS GOODERS WHETHER THEY ARE GOOSE AND POSITIVE CONNECTIONS OR ONCES THAT THOSE 15 TO 20,000 PEOPLE DEEM UNACCEPTABLE OR DEPLORABLE?>>SENATOR, YOU’RE ASKING ME PERSONALLY?>>FACEBOOK. >>SENATOR, I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE WOULD ALL AGREE ARE CLEARLY — FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, TERRORISM, SELF-HARM. >>CENSORSHIP. >>WELL, I THINK THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY AGREE THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE TERRORIST PROPAGANDA FROM THE SERVICE. SO THAT I AGREE. I THINK IT’S CLEARLY BAD ACTIVITY THAT WE WANT TO GET DOWN AND WE’RE GENERALLY PROUD OF HOW WELL WE DO AT THAT. NOW, WHAT I CAN SAY, AND I WANT TO GET THIS IN BEFORE THE END HERE, IS THAT I’M VERY COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT FACEBOOK IS A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF WHAT WE DO. WE’RE PROUD OF THE DISCOURSE AND THE DIFFERENT IDEAS THAT PEOPLE CAN SHARE ON THE SERVICE. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS AS LONG AS I’M RUNNING THE COMPANY, I’M GOING TO BE COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE IS THE CASE. >>THANK YOU, SENATOR CRUZ. WANT TO BREAK NOW? OR KEEP GOING? SURE. I MEAN, THAT WAS PRETTY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. >>ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE SENATOR WHITEHOUSE IS UP NEXT. WE HAVE BEEN GOING A GOOD TWO HOURS. WE’LL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES AND RECONVENE. >>THANK YOU.>>>WE’VE BEEN WATCHING THE TESTIMONY OF MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO OF FACEBOOK TAKING A GRILLING FROM SENATORS AND THERE ARE PLENTY MORE TO COME. THIS IS A HEARING EXPECTED TO LAST SEVERAL HOURS. AS NOTED, WE’RE ALMOST A COUPLE OF HOURS INTO IT. THEY’RE TAKING SHORT BREAK. WE WANT TO BRING IN NOW JO LING KENT, WHAT IS THE PERCEPTION OF HOW ZUCKERBERG IS HANDLING WHAT BECAME MORE AGGRESSIVE IN THE LAST FEW LINES OF QUESTIONING?>>Reporter: YEAH, AT THE BEGINNING HERE HE WAS NOT PELTED WITH THE AGGRESSIVE QUESTIONS THAT A LOT OF US WERE EXPECTING. BUT HE HAS BEEN — SENATOR BLUMENTHAL, FOR EXAMPLE, GOING AFTER THE FACEBOOK CEO FOR WILLFUL IGNORANCE OF THE ISSUES RELATING TO CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA AND SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HE HAD FOR HIM. BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MAJOR PLOT POINTS HERE I WANT TO HIT ON THAT WE LEARNED ABOUT FACEBOOK THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT. FIRST, FACEBOOK DID NOT DISCLOSE THE ISSUE WITH CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS. SECOND OF ALL, FACEBOOK CEO MARK ZUCKERBERG DISCLOSING THAT HE DID WORK — FACEBOOK IS WORKING, RATHER WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE, ROBERT MUELLER’S OFFICE. THERE WAS BIT OF WAFFLING OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A SUBPOENA SERVED TO THE COMPANY. THEY DID CONFIRM, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ON THE RECORD, THAT FACEBOOK IS WORKING WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. WE’RE STARTING TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE AROUND THE LINE OF QUESTIONING, BUT ZUCKERBERG SAYING — APOLOGIZING FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF THE COMPANY BUT A LIGHTER ZUCKERBERG HERE THAT WE’RE SEEING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT OF AN ATTITUDE THAN WE’VE SEEN IN YEARS PAST, LESTER. >>JO LING KENT, AS THEY TAKE A BREAK. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE WITH ME. >>THAT’S RIGHT. AND KARA SWISHER IS JOINING US. A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT WHO SPENDS ALL DAY LONG THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES. DO YOU FEEL THAT ANY SENATOR HERE HAS REALLY LAID A GLOVE ON MARK ZUCKERBERG, YOU KNOW, GRILLED HIM TO THE EXTENT IT WOULD MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE? OR DOES THIS FEEL LIKE STUFF HE WAS PREPARED FOR AND HANDLING WELL?>>WELL, IF YOU THINK BEING SLAPPED WITH WET NOODLES IS HARD, I GUESS IT’S HARD. THIS HAS BEEN EASY FOR MARK. AND HE’S DONE A NICE JOB ANSWERING VERY EASY QUESTIONS. I MEAN, I THINK ONLY SENATOR BLUMENTHAL AND SENATOR DURBIN NOTED THE ISSUES. THESE ARE BIGGER ISSUES CALLING WILLFUL IGNORANCE, I WOULD AGREE WITH. SENATOR DURBIN BROUGHT UP THE HOTEL ANALOGY. I THINK IT SHOOK MARK A TINY BIT. OTHERWISE IT’S BEEN AN EASY MORNING FOR THE FACEBOOK CEO. HE’S HANDLED IT JUST FINE BECAUSE IT’S EASY. >>WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE CONSENT DECREE, WHICH RICHARD BLUMENTHAL BROUGHT UP. DOES FACEBOOK FACE JEOPARDY? PREVIOUS MISGIVINGS?>>I THINK THIS IS AN INTERESTING AREA. I THINK THEY GRIEVED TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THINGS AND THE QUESTION IS CAN THEY PROVE THEY VIOLATED THESE THINGS? OR CAN THEY MAKE THE CAUSE, EXCEL, WE DIDN’T MANAGE IT WELL. WE MEANT TO DO IT. WE HAVE THE RULES IN PLACE. SO THAT’S GOING TO BE THE HARD BAA — PART IS PROVING THEY MEANT TO DO IT OR WILLFULLY DID IT. I THINK IT’S INTERESTING SENATOR BLUMENTHAL USED THE TERM “WILLFUL.” I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT DESCRIPTION RATHER STRONGLY. >>THANK YOU.>>>AND TURNING TO KASIE HUNT WHO IS COVERING THE HEARING WITH US. AS OFTEN HAPPENS, WHEN YOU WATCH A HEARING ON CAPITOL HILL, WE HAVE TWO COMMITTEES HERE AND BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES YOU CAN GET INTO. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT PRIVACY, RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. WE HEARD SENATOR CRUZ TALKING ABOUT CENSORSHIP. EACH SENATOR IS BRINGING HIS OR HER AGENDA TO THE QUESTIONING.>>Reporter: 40 PLUS SENATORS QUESTIONING MARK ZUCKERBERG TODAY IN A RARE JOINT HEARING. AND YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. EACH ONE BRINGING THEIR OWN AGENDA, THEIR OWN SET OF QUESTIONS, AND SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, NOT ALLOWING ZUCKERBERG TO FINISH AN ANSWER BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT. AND MANY OF MY SOURCES POINTED OUT THERE WERE INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING WHERE MANY OF THESE SENATORS WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE IN THEIR 60s, 70s, EVEN OLDER DON’T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY’RE ASKING ABOUT. AND THAT WAS EVIDENT HERE AND THAT, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, GAVE ZUCKERBERG AN OPENING TO DEFEND HIS COMPANY. BUT I DO THINK THAT WHAT IS IMPORTANT FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL SIDE OF THIS IS WHAT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IS CONGRESS GOING TO DO OR NOT DO TO REGULATE BIG TECH? TO POTENTIALLY PROTECT USERS’ PRIVACY. MARK ZUCKERBERG HAS BEEN SAYING, YES, WE SUPPORT BEING REGULATED. AND THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN THAT FACEBOOK HAS SUPPORTED — AMY KLOBCHAR. THERE’S A MIXED RECORD ON STATE HOUSES OR HERE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS. THERE’S GOING TO BE SOME REAL TESTS FOR THESE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES. ARE THEY ACTUALLY GOING TO STEP UP AND SAY, OKAY, WE’RE WILLING TO ACCEPT SOME RULES THAT WE CAN’T NECESSARILY MAKE FOR OURSELVES. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM HIT ON THIS, AS WELL. PRESSING ZUCKERBERG ON WHETHER THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY, THAT’S ANOTHER WAY, OF COURSE, THE GOVERNMENT COULD REGULATE BIG TECH. SOME BIG QUESTIONS TO GRAPPLE WITH HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS CONGRESS IN GENERAL IS NOT KNOWN FOR MOVING QUICKLY AND TECHNOLOGY HAS MOVED FASTER THAN THEY HAVE. THEY ARE, IN WAYS, BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL, ALONG WITH MARK ZUCKERBERG. >>I FORGET WHO IT WAS REGULATION. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ACCEPT REGULATION. MARK SAID I’LL GET BACK TO YOU. >>I CALL IT AS A RECOVERING LAWYER WEASEL WORDS. WE’LL ACCEPT REGULATION WHERE IT’S APPROPRIATE. THAT’S WHERE ALL THE ACTION IS. WHETHER OR NOT AND I THINK WHAT YOU RAISED WITH KARA SWISHER IS THE OTHER BIG PIECE. THERE’S TWO THINGS FACEBOOK IS FACING. POTENTIAL REGULATION AND THEN PERHAPS MORE CRUCIALLY TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE AND FINANCIALLY IS THIS WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE IN VIOLATION OF THIS AGREEMENT THEY MADE WITH THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION STEMMING FROM ILLEGAL ACTION IN 2011. >>THAT CAN BE BIG FINES.>>HUGE FINES. KARA, LET’S GO BACK TO YOU. I KNOW IT’S SOMETHING YOU COVER A LOT. I MEAN, THAT’S WHERE NOW YOU’RE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT SOME HITTING FACEBOOK WHERE IT HURTS. WE’VE SEEN THE STOCK PRICE TANK. WHEN YOU’VE SEEN RICHARD BLUMENTHAL PUT UP A CHART WITH A TERM OF SERVICE THAT SEEMS TO BE ON ITS SURFACE AND CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FTC, ONE IMAGINES THAT WAS A DIFFICULT MOMENT FOR MARK ZUCKERBERG. >>YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK QUESTION IS ARE THEY GOING TO FACE — THAT’S WHERE FACEBOOK HAD MOST OF THE PROBLEMS IS WITH THE STATES ATTORNEY GENERALS, WHICH IS INTERESTING. MOSTLY TECH COMPANIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN A PASS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NOT JUST — SINCE FOREVER, PRETTY MUCH. IT’LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THEY FOLLOW UP ON THAT. IF THAT HAPPENS. THESE ARE BIG AREAS, OBVIOUSLY, PUBLIC PERCEPTION IS A LOT. ARE THESE PEOPLE TELLING THE TRUTH. BUT THE STOCK PRICE HAS RECOVERED A LITTLE BIT TODAY BECAUSE MARK IS DOING WELL, LARGELY BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS ARE LIGHT, LIGHT QUESTIONS FOR HIM. SO WE’LL SEE IF IT RESULTS IN ANYTHING. I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. >>THERE WEREN’T A LOT OF FIREWORKS. LIVE COVERAGE OF THE FACEBOOK HEARING WILL CONTINUE ON NBCNEWS.COM BUT THIS BRINGS OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE NETWORK TO A CLOSE. THE HEARING IS, OF COURSE, ONE OF THE BIG STORIES WE’RE COVERING TODAY ALONG WITH POSSIBLE NEW U.S. MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA, WITH THE RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR, AND THE STATUS OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IN THE WAKE OF YESTERDAY’S FBI RAID ON THE OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER. SAVANNAH, YOU’LL, OF COURSE, HAVE MORE TOMORROW ON “TODAY.” AND I’LL HAVE COMPLETE DETAILS ON NBC NIGHTLY NEWS ON THIS BUSY NEWS DAY. I’M LESTER HOLT. NBC NEWS, NEW YORK. HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

100 thoughts on “Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Before Senate (Full) | NBC News

  1. YouTube should have banned this video for propaganda against Russia.
    2:54:00 You were slow in identifying it because it never happened until you fabricated it.

  2. This video its self is a hate speech.
    If you ever go to court, just blame Russians and you will be off the hook before you know it.

  3. So, this is facebook. The moment I posted this video, it banned me from posting anything or even commenting anything on facebook. And I am not allowed to delete anything as well.

  4. Bad people maliciously exploited weaknesses of Facebook that was intending to do good things for good people before the bugs were all worked out. That is what happened to Facebook.
    The NSA is a service that intended to do good however it was hacked by bad people who stole malicious viruses which were used against good companies for ransom. That happened as well.
    Zuckerberg is trying to keep Facebook from regulations that will turn it into a blank page.
    When Zuckerberg was asked, "… Yes or no should it be a law?"… he should of looked right at that man and said, "Your the law maker. You know how laws are passed. I don't make laws. Laws are put in place though a process in this country. A bill is authored. It is put on the ballot. People vote on it. It is passed through Congress and then the Senate."
    The NSA was hacked and why isn't anybody asking about the data breach that occurred? Why are there companies collecting data to calculate credit scores? Equifax was broke into and ripped off. I will ask you this, yes or no, should there be a law condemning hackers and scammers to death?

  5. People are forgetting that facebook is nothing more than a platform for people to share their opinions. It's not a news outlet where "fake news" needs to be regulated. The closest to regulation they should have is with regards to hate speech but this too is still opinions. People can make blogs online and write a bunch of crap about practically anything and everything and there are no internet regulations that go around taking down these blogs simply because they don't agree with it. That's literally the first amendment. Honestly, no one is forcing anyone to use a service they don't like or agree with, If you don't like it simply don't use it, but stop trying to regulate everything. And the whole ad frenzy these congress officials keep bringing up makes me think they don't readily use the internet. Literally 90% of internet sites, including youtube, runs ads. These ads unless you click on them don't get your data. They are more of a nuisance than anything. Unbelievable.

  6. Dream it and we'll build it! Full steam ahead with new technologies! As for the potential moral and ethical issues, hmmm…that's an afterthought! Unfortunately, the human propensity for keeping up with ethical issues never keep pace with the progress of new technologies. I'm pretty sure Zuckerberg never would had known his app (Facebook) would be where it is today. Like everything that man has puts their hands on…someone is going to exploit it.

  7. Facebook just admitted that using Facebook can be bad for you
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/facebook-just-admitted-that-using-facebook-can-be-bad-for-you.html

  8. This is circus. USA government was/is using FB for theirs needs for years to spy on theirs citizens and now they are shocked FB is full of holes

  9. 3:36:31 A very important question regarding aggressive permissions, for pretty much any mobile app. A shame it wasn't communicated/understood as well. The political bias of employees as pointed out by senator Cruz and how activity data is used in advertising by senator Schatz were great questions too.

  10. kinda funny how the hot sexretary who doesn't know what is going on smiles and laughs when you think she would!

  11. Humans are a really hypocritical beings ! I mean, for god sakes.. This man created something brilliant with an intent to revolutionise the world of social media and help people with technology. Some scums found loopholes in his product and used it to spread their negative agenda and poisoned something good and pure. Now the whole world wants to turn against him rather than taking individual responsibility of their activities on Facebook. If you use basic common sense, then most of these issues disappear but unfortunately people would rather be dummies than accept that. As for the other issues, this is how things develop and law gets created. Give him the chance to correct the errors rather than judging him.

  12. I'm shocked. Really. This isn't a leader, but an autistic submissive boy (with the face of a fish). What a nobody. I will vote for every facebook-ban possible. Even Trump is better, at least that is a leader with self-confidence.

  13. It's so funny how people in comments bellow talk about security in internet. Facebook should be banned? oh come on!!! We downloaded torrents, and programs, and music and much more stuffs from internet. We get into apps agreeing with terms that we DO NOT read. We use GOOGLE who can manage much more privacy informations… and i'm still think how funny "Facebook should be banned" sounds. people are just hypocrites!

  14. when you accept to log in, you must know that they are going to have your information, its a trouble that they must fix, but how?, we should remember that its a company

  15. Watching this, I can honestly say that our politicians don't understand the technology… and before they pass any legislation, they should have a complete understanding – in at least a broad sense, if not the minutiae – so that we don't have to patchwork the laws as time goes on.

    Example – someone talking about shoes on their account doesn't suddenly get you ads about shoes; it's your browsing other sites for shoes, and Facebook uses the site as an advertiser… it's that site's cookies, read back by that site for that ad position, that results in the shoe ads. Even if you never talked about shoes, you'd see those ads.
    The senators seem to believe that the site is using the posts to decide what ads to show… the content to display… but it's not quite like that.

    They seem to be looking at either the smallest minutiae or a super-broad view that would be equivalent (to use shoes) to looking at the color of the stamp used to give the size, or the color of the boxes, and (on the broad side) the location of the stores than the sharing of the shoe sizes and people's names and locations that are important.

    Now I know that there needs to be privacy regulation… and we need to limit what can be done in certain circumstances with the data…
    And we also need a way to "follow the data" to be able to request/remove it later…

    But before any laws are passed, those that write the law – as well as those who pass it – need to understand the technology.

    It's much easier to pass a law than to remove it. It should be the other way around, but that's not how things work.

  16. So, one question…where is the grilling of the credit bureau, who had my information which I did NOT EVER ask them to have?

  17. Nbc don't have common sense to shut your mouth when actual main event is going on…!? Don't give your comments when playing some other video is playing.

  18. Summary: they have no idea what they are talking about. Old people with no idea of how internet works… Asking questions they don't even understand themselves

  19. πŸ”΄ Zucker is treating everyone in the Committees as Suckers because they have very Limited understanding of what drives FaceCrook to Continue to Steal information without their knowledge by moving their Data into DataCenters in other parts of the world to Evade Jurisdictional Borders like a Tax Evader does

    Companies like FaceCrook won't be able to survive without Stealing People's Information

    Asking for IDs to " verify " someone's identity is an Absolute Joke because they will never be granted access to Government Departments to verify the IDs submitted &
    if they Cannot verify that Data , It ONCE AGAIN Proves that they are Just Stealing your ID information for their Monetary Benefit
    and Schmuck-A-Berg is collecting Tons of Money for selling Everyone's Personal Data, No Matter What He claims and some of the Senators know it

  20. If FB is charged five billions it is nothing for them. Our information is already in wrong hands.
    FB manipulated our elections and will continue yi happen.

  21. So, if they want to impose a 72-hour notification limit for data breaches, should that not also apply to companies like Equifax? Zuckerberg didn't offload his shares and run when he found out there was a problem. He stuck around to fix the problem.

  22. Something about Mark Suckaturd just makes me dislike him. Maybe it's the way he is rewarded for bad behavior, or maybe it's just the way he smirks. I don't think he's all that smart or skilled at coding, or even skilled at designing a website, he's just successful for whatever reasons.

  23. He keeps banging on the we started in college and made mistakes. The company has managed to grow to such a large size because of those mistakes and as a result of those mistakes. These so called mistakes were deliberate business decisions that were made for quick expansion at the expense of user privacy. Even worse, other tech companies have been following the Facebook model, which is causing huge damage to the reputation of this industry. In other words, the tech industry is cutting corners on a massive scale, and Google is no different. We expect Google with their overloaded and heavily censored search engine and Facebook with their disgusting news feed to become extinct as soon as possible

  24. Facebook, please Expose the consulting companies that are terrorising and psychologically abusing their employees using all forms of mind control mainly using your products I.e Facebook and WhatsApp

  25. i deleted my account ones and i will do it again but first letting this knowing to my friends and i share this video with them

  26. and tomorrow i move to a difrent county so my new information they won't have it lol good luck facebook

  27. 2:51:58 what zuckerberg is saying here is not correctly true because you have still to report it than you get from facebook one option and that is blok the person with the txt that they asume is not really a offence i did a report a few days ago and i had only that option blok it period for facebook so they do schit about it and what facebook is doing is always changing there policy and there users options like in the beginning you could choose to add friends or noone now facebook took away option two why? guy's am telling you i'm done with the whole facebook stuff you can't trust them now neither in the future being said my view of point

  28. This post goes against our Community Standards

    Only you can see this post because it goes against our standards on hate speech.
    BS , I totally disagree . What has kept the black race down is stupidity . Being uneducated is the worse affliction any race can have ..

  29. Conservative Patriots & Oath keepers ~ 08/01/2018 ~ 09:48 mtn time ~ Salute!
    Ref: Do not believe what you hear from Fakebook or FBI headshed
    …….Don't you think it is quite coincidental that Fakebook stocks dumped 20% two weeks ago and now all of a sudden they found 290,000 Russians trying to hack our elections? He is no better than anyone hacking the system when HE censors Conservative posts and hates Trump.

  30. Hundreds of thousands of former fakebook users deleted fakebook and their plugin browser cookies and went to Mewe.

  31. I have a group / blog and youtube channel. I sent out a test Pro Trump write up, fakebook, to over 4.2 millions users. Only 27 were seen and they were all on my friends list. Don't tell me it's raining while you are urinating down my back. I also left and never looked back. Hitler Suckenbergermizer has done his best to influence the elections.

  32. 3:01:00 "How do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service?"
    awkward silence, Zuckerberg being generally *confused if the Senator is being serious or not*
    M.Zuck: "Senator, we run ads."
    Sen. Hatch: "I see."

    lmao I am still laughing up to this day πŸ˜‚

  33. Introduction in moderate full first name with mother maden name :rey velez , I suggest as a primary indication of enclose apellante ….."Mark proceed to aply for C.I.A. revenue."

  34. 2:55:42: Can they spell? "Sept 2016- Facebook says 3,000 Russian 'troll farm' ads ran duing election." Don't they mean DURING the election? I can't trust the news anymore, it's so fake it's stupid. Also, I'm distracted by the blond woman behind him. Why tf is she blinking so much? She might be a cyborg.

  35. Each of them should have had to give their questions to experts in the CS, IT, Engineering and Marketing fields before they asked them.

    Senator: "Why do they collect this information?"

    Expert: "So they can sell demographic information of the users for money."

    Senator: "Why do they need to collect this information about me?"

    Expert: "Its basically a rewards card from a store, they can see what you as part of your demographic purchase, then they use that information so that other companies can target you with specific ads online and you pay with your eyes looking at ad space on websites, that's how Facebook and Google are free, all their employees don't do this without pay out of the goodness of their heart, engineers/programmers need to eat too and servers need electricity."

    I'm at 3:46:00 and and I can already tell this exchange would have cut at least 30 min of questions out. It's funny that one of the oldest guys there, Sen Orrin Hatch at 2:59:00, who's 84 years old who would probably be expected to be the most out of Touch with technology basically asks the best, most pointed questions and then lays out a good grounds for further questioning. After that, everyone, most who look significantly younger and you would expect to be more in the know, ask things that are completely unrelated or very basic. The lady after him just basically seems to try to use a bunch of names from obscure headlines she read (a lot more research than it seems some of the other people did) while staring him down.

    This is sad.

  36. But should we have a law yes or no?

    Senator on principal yes.

    Okay but should we have one.

    Sentator on principal… Yes

  37. I really wish that these people would stop talking when the opening statements were being made….so annoying

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *