Lets continue. Facebook as of an extension of their parents account. Cartoon like stickers and other features designed to apeel to little kids, first graders, little kids, kindergartners. Commercial free childhood and lots of child develop organizations warn facebook they 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 thats being gathered about these kids. Now, there are certain limits in the law we know. Childrens Online Privacy protection act. What guarantees can you give us that no data from messenger kids is or will be collected or shared with those that might violate that law . All right. Senator, so a number of things i think 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 face time when theyre working late or not around and want to communicate with their kids but they want to have complete control over that i think we can all agree when your kid is 6 or 7, even if they have access to a phone, you want to control everyone who they can contact. There wasnt an app. Out there that did that. So we built this service to do it. 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. Not connected to the broader facebook. Excuse me, as a lawyer i picked up on that word, that phrase in general. It seems to suggest in some circumstances it will be shared with third parties. No. It will not. Would you be open to the idea that someone having reached adult age having grown one messenger kids should be allowed to delete the data that you have collected . Senator, yes. As a as a matter of fact, when you become 13, which is our legal limit, our limit we dont allow people under the age of 13 to use facebook, you dont automatically go from having a messenger kids account to a facebook account. You have to start over and get a facebook account. So, so i think its a good idea to consider making sure that all that information is deleted and in general people are going to be starting over when they get their facebook or other accounts. I will close because i just have a few seconds. Illinois has a biometric Information Privacy act, our state does. Which is to regulate the commercial use of facial, voice, finger, iris scans and the like. Were now in debate on that. Facebook is trying to carve out exceptions to that i hope you will fill me in on how that is consistent with protecting privacy. Thank you. Thank you, senator durbin. Senator cornyn. Thank you, mr. Zuckerberg, for being here. I note that up until 2014, the mantra or motto of facebook was move fast and break things. Is that correct . I dont know when we changed it. But the mantra is currently move fast with stable infrastructure. Which is a much less sexy mantra. Sounds much more boring. But my question is during the time it was facebooks mantra or motto to move fast and break things, do you think some of the misjudgments perhaps mistakes that you have admitted to here were as a result of that culture or that attitude, particularly as regards to personal privacy information of your subscribers . Senator, i do think that we made mistakes because of that. But, the broadest mistakes that we made here are 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 that we operate. But i think the big mistake that we have made looking back on this is viewing our responsibility as just Building Tools rather than viewing our whole responsibility as making sure that those tools are used for good. And i appreciate that. Because, previously, or early in the past, we have been told that platforms like facebook, twitter, instagram, the like are neutral platforms and the people who own and run those for profit, and im not criticizing doing something for profit in this country, but they bore no responsibility for the 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 were responsible for the content. And i think that there is one of the big societal questions that i think were going to need to answer is the current framework that we have, is based on this reactive model that assumes that there arent ai tools that could proactively tell whether something was terrorist content or something bad. So it naturally relied on requiring people to flag for a company and the company needing to take reasonable action. In the future, we are going to have tools that are going to be able to identify more types of bad content and i think that there is there are moral and legal obligation questions that i think well have to wrestle with as a society about when we want to require companies to take action proactively on certain of those things and when that gets in the way. I appreciate that i have two minutes left to ask you questions. All right. So you 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 is going to be used, how facebook is going to operate. And but you concede that you doubt everybody reads, understands that legal louiselegalesethat terms of ser. Is that suggest that consent people give subject to that terms of service is not informed consent . In other words, they may not read it and even if they read it they may not understand it . I just think we have a broader responsibility than what the law requires. So,. Im talking i appreciate that what im asking about in terms of what your subscribers understand in terms of how their data is going to be used. Let me go to the terms of service under paragraph number 2. You say you own all of the content and information you post on facebook. Thats what you told us here today a number of times. So, if i choose to terminate my facebook account, can i bar facebook or any third parties from using the data that i had previously supplied for any purpose whatsoever . Yes, senator. If you delete your account, we should get rid of all of your information. You should. We do. Do you . How about third parties that you have contracted with to use some of that underlying information, perhaps to target advertising themselves. You cant do you claw back that information as well or does that remain in their custody . Senator, this is actually a very important question and im glad you brought this up. Because there is a very common misperception about facebook that we sell data to advertisers. 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, im a ski shop and i want to sell skis to women, then we might have some sense because people shared skiingrelated content or said they were interested in that, they shared whether they are a woman and then we can show the ads to the right people without that data ever changing hands and going to the advertiser. Thats a very fundamental part of how our model works and something that is often misunderstood. I appreciate that you brought that up. Thank you senator cornyn. We had indicated earlier on that we would take a couple of breaks and give our witness an opportunity and i think we have been going now for just under two hours. So, i think we will. Do a few more. You want to keep going . Maybe 15 minutes . Will that work. We will keep going. Senator blumenthal is up next. And we will commence. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today, mr. Zuckerberg. You have told us today and have you told the world that facebook was deceived by Alexander Kogan when he sold user information to Cambridge Analytica, correct . Yes. I want to show you the terms of service that Alexander Kogan provided to facebook. And note for you that in fact facebook was on notice that he could sell that user information. Have you seen these 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 could be sold . Senator, our app. Review team would be responsible for that. Has anyone been fired on that app. Review team . Senator, not because of this. Doesnt that term of service conflict with the ftc order that facebook was under at that very time that this term of service was, in fact, provided to facebook and you will note that the ftc order specifically requires facebook to protect the privacy. Isnt 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 which, in fact, amounted to a violation of the ftc Consent Decree. Would you agree . No, senator. My understanding is that it is not that this was a violation of the Consent Decree. As i have said a number of times today, i think we need to take a broader view of our responsibility around privacy than just what is mandated in the current law. Well, here is my reservation, mr. Zuckerberg, and i apologize for interrupting you but my time is limited. We have seen the apology tours before. You have refused to acknowledge even an ethical obligation to have reported this violation of the ftc Consent Decree. And we have letters, we have had contacts with facebook employees. And im going to submit a letter for the record from sandy packalis, with your permission, that indicates not only a lack of resource but lack of attention to privacy. And so so my reservation about your testimony today is that i dont 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 vegas commitment vague coe going to produce action. So i want to ask you a couple of very specific questions and theyre based on legislation that i have authored. My data act, legislation that senator markey is introducing today, the consent act which im joining. Dont 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 do generally agree with what you are saying. And i laid that out earlier when i talked about. Would you agree to an opt in as opposed to an opt out . Senator, i think that that 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 of the information that you collect as a result of purchases from data brokers as well as tracking them . Senator, we have already download your information tool that allows people to see and to take out all of the information that facebook that they have put into facebook or that facebook knows about them. Yes i agree with that 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. 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 have just passed it will be signed into law tomorrow, the stop exploiting sex trafficking act was the result of our cooperation. I hope that we can cooperate on this kind of measure as well. [gavel] senator, i look forward to having my team work with you on this. Senator blumenthal. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome, thank you for being here. Mr. Zuckerberg, 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 a neutral public forum and 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 . Senator, lehr is how we think about this. I dont believe that there are certain content that clearly we do not allow. Right . Hate speech, terrorist content. Nudity, anything that makes feel feel unsafe in the community. From that perspective thats why we generally try to refer to what we do as a platform for all ideas. The time is constrained. Its just a simple question. The predicate for section 230 immunity under the cda is that you are a neutral public forum. Do you consider yourself a neutral Republican Forum or are you engaged in political speech which is your right under the First Amendment. Senator, our goal is not to engage in political speech. Im 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. Im just trying to lay out how broadly i think about this. Mr. Zuckerberg, i will say there are a great Many Americans who i think are deeply concerned that facebook and other Tech Companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship. There had been numerous instances with facebook in may of 2016, facebook had purposefully and routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news, including stories about cpac, including stories about mitt romney, including stories about the lois learner irs scandal. Including stories about glenn beck. In addition to that facebook has initially shut down the chick fillet Appreciation Day page, has blocked a post 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 after determining their content and brand were, quote unsafe to the community. To a Great American americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Do you agree with that assessment . Senator, let me say a few things about this. First, i understand where that concern is coming from because facebook in the Tech Industry is located in Silicon Valley which is extremely left leaning place. This is actually a concern that i have and try to root out of the company is making sure that we dont have any bias in the work that we do and i think this is a fair concern that people would wonder about. Let me ask this question. Are you aware of any ad or page that has been taken down from planned parenthood . Senator, im not, but let me just. Move on dot. Org. Im not specifically aware of those. How about any democratic candidate for office. Im not specifically aware. I mean, im not sure. In your testimony you say that you have 15 to 20,000 people working on security and content review. Do you know political orientation of those 15 engaged in content review . We do not ask people about political orientation when theyre joining the company. As ceo have you ever made hiring and firing positions based on political positions or what candidates they supported . No. Why was palmer lucky fired . That is a specific Personnel Matter that seems inappropriate. You just made a specific representation that you didnt make decisions based on political views. Is that accurate. Can i commit it was not because of a political view. Do you know if those 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 connect people. We have to make sure those connections are positive. It says we have to make sure people arent 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 its your responsibility to assess users whether they are good and positive connections or ones that those 15 to 20,000 people deemed unacceptable or deplorable . Senator, you are asking about me personally . Facebook. Senator, i think that there are a number of things that we would all agree with clearly that. Foreign interference in elections, terrorism, selfharm. Im talking about censorship. Well, i think that you would probably agree that we should remove terrorist propaganda from the service. So that i agree, i think is clearly bad. Activity that we want to get down and we are generally proud of how well we do with that. Now, what i can say and i do want to get this in before the end here is that i am very committed to making sure that facebook is a platform for all ideas. That is a very important founding principle of what we do. Were proud of the discourse and the different ideas that people can share on the service. And that is something that as long as im running the company im going to be committed to making sure is the case. Thank you. Thank you senator cruz. Do you want to break now . [laughter] or do you want to keep going. Sure. That was pretty good. [laughter] all right. We have senator whitehouse is up next. If you want to take a five minute break right now. Yeah. We have now been going a good two hours. Thank you. We will recess for five minutes and reconvene. Neil you have been watching a fascinating exchange with Mark Zuckerberg. The internet social media giant taking it from both sides here, democrats and republicans. Of course, ted cruz just now saying there is inherent bias going on at facebook in terms of who they choose to focus on and reprimand or pages delete. The back and forth continues though. Before the 22 minutes ago when the market had closed there had been no measurable effect on the companys stock. In fact, it had risen throughout the day sort of as a proxy on how investors thought zuckerberg was farrowing. Of course, what he left himself open to in this exchange, not once but at least three times that he would be open up to selfregulation along the european model. Now that european model and you will hear a lot about it because the europeans want to talk to Company Representatives including mr. Zuckerberg is this idea where they can force Privacy Restrictions on you to make sure there are sort of fail safe speed bumps put in that information does not does not mistakenly fall into the wrong hands repeated. The devil will be in the details spelled out. Many argue that the lot easier implemented than not. Some in the industry fear that if mr. Zuckerberg doesnt farewell in these the next day of hearings, that think coul they could be an to this same type of restriction government and otherwise that would not be greeted well, this is industry where the government here and pretty much everywhere has had a hands off policy letting these guys do their own thing. That could be changing. Mike emanuel has been following it all on capitol hill. What is the read you are getting there, mike, in terms of how he is fairing and how he is answering some critics on both sides that he hasnt done enough . Well, neil, from talking with some folks here, i have gotten a sense that they feel like zuckerberg is handling himself pretty well in terms of answering questions from both sides. People who have privacy concerns. Hermine who are concerned about whether facebook has the ability to regulate itself as expected, Mark Zuckerberg started this hearing with this apology. We didnt take broad enough view of our responsibility and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake and im sorry. I started facebook, i run it, and im responsible for what happens here. Zuckerberg, of course, is known for his very casual attire on a standard basis typic lay tshirt and blue jeans. Today in a suit and ty, tie, suggesting how serious this is for his business. A lot of lawmakers here are questioning whether more regulations are needed. Some republicans on capitol hill are not sure whether there is an appetite for new regulation in this an election year. A lot of them would like to allow the free market to regulate itself in terms of allowing the internet industry to go forward and grow and develop in the way that it should grow naturally. Bottom line, some republicans are asking some pointed questions of mr. Zuckerberg. Most of us understand that whether youre using facebook or google or some other online services, we are trading certain information about ourselves for free low cost services. But, for this model to persist, both sides of the bargain need to know the stakes that are involved. After this fiveminute break it may go into the evening as there are a number of senators who want to ask questions of Mark Zuckerberg. This is day one of two days of hearings here on capitol hill. Neil . Neil thank you very, very much. Again, they are going to resume very shortly. I have got howard cirttle here of course, media madness, media buzz lucky to have him here in the studio. Hard to gauge how these things go. Obviously open season on him on both sides. Neil, the headline here these esteemed senators have not laid a glove on Mark Zuckerberg with the exception of last five minutes with ted cruz what he sees as censorship of conservatives. The questions have mostly been vague, deferential, poorly framed and its not that zuckerberg is such great witness. He sits there in monotone and keeps circling back to we have made mistakes, i regret it we will not make those mistakes again. Based on specifics he doesnt have much to offer. Wrap that ted cruz is trying to get one of the final questions is that do you have inherent bias in your organization. You tend to go after conservative thinking, not so liberal thinking and punish conservatives more than you would punish liberals. I dont even what the that particular particular call proof is of that when all is said and done. Zuckerberg was kind of cornered on that without being able to counter on other examples that wind indicate otherwise. Right. He acknowledged that being in the liberal Silicon Valley culture was a problem that he is conscience of. The first time he was really on the defensive. We have all built this up as zuckerberg gets grilled. That hasnt really happened so are if a. In fact, some of these senators seem so digitally clueless that they have allowed zuckerberg to take the role as tech professor kind of tutoring them on the ways of the wild and woolly ways. Neil its a big thing. You always wondered too when zuckerberg a week or so ago had talked about being open to regulation, howard, he opened up a pandoras box there. Because so many other tech titans with which i had chatted whoa, whatever they are going to do to you, pal, they are going to do to me. That changes a lot of things. There is a whole industry riding on his performance. Absolutely. A lot of money at stake. Only reason we are talking about possible government regulation because facebook has done a lousy job allowing these scandals. This has been going on for years. Zuckerberg and his team and facebook have ignored mounting evidence and warnings of past infiltration not just by the russians during the campaign which he was very slow to react to. Propaganda, exploitation, all these things he now says he is against. They have failed to act on them. And the reason is they didnt want to spend the money or they clung to this fiction that facebook is this neutral platform. Not a Media Company when, in fact, its one of the most powerful Media Companies on the planet. Unwe wouldy one. 2 billion users worldwide. Seemed to indicate prior to the appearens today he hadnt lost demonstrable number of subscribers yesterday. It could come out. I could see why thats happening. A lot easier said than dole done disconnecting from facebook. Having said that there is another school of thought. People dont want to go to the trouble of doing it they have resigned themselves maybe cynically. That this is all part of the technology. The convenience of having a service like this. Its just part of the convenience of it. The truth is we are all complicit in. This we all made this bargain that would give up a good degree of privacy to have the convenience of being connected on facebook and other platforms. This is different, first it was 50 million and 8787. I think its gotten the publics attention on capitol hill. In the end six months from now it would appreciable. Unless its considered uncool. Neil might be uncool my teenagers dont use it . Focus group. Neil do you get a sense right now that whats changing here is how the media covers facebook, which was a version of the new media and there is a bit of a grimacing involved here that a lot of people were getting their news through facebook and not through traditional sources either like your fine show do you know what i mean . Yeah. Neil that doesnt sit well. Facebook is clearly a major competitor to all the networks, all the newspapers, stealing traffic and advertising. Stealing in the legal sense, of course, that has perhaps changed. A couple years ago these Tech Companies would be loved. Now everyone seems to hate them for different reasons, political, digital, privacy. Neil you know Mark Zuckerberg the fake news was really started with you endorsing it or not catching it and so its morphed into whose news is more accurate. Facebook didnt create fake news but it is rocket fuel for people who want to disseminate fake news whether foreign countries. Cambridge an analytics. Its a difficult problem. One that he should have started working on years ago. Neil do you think he has gotten disproportionately fingered for stuff giant retailers, banks, each Government Agencies have fallen privy to, information getting out in the wrong hands . But because he is such a bigger than life figure and his company is big, big, big. Yes. He is getting the focus of the beating. He has become the face of the tech privacy crisis in part, in part because he is the face of the company. Most people dont know who the head of google or twitter is Everybody Knows zuckerberg the myth start not guilty dorm room with tshirts. Thats been good for his branding and now bad for his branding. Neil i were right to point the particular coming from particular senator ted cruz whether there is inherent bias going on at facebook. I want you to look at this. I understanding where that concern is coming from. Because facebook and the Tech Industry are located in Silicon Valley which is extremely left leaning place. And this is actually a concern that i have and that i try to root out of the company is making sure that we dont have any bias in the work that we do and i think it is a fair concern that people would wonder about. Let me ask this question. Are you aware of any add or page that has been taken down from planned parenthood . Senator, im not, but, let me just. How about move on. Org . Sorry . How about move on. Org . Im not specifically aware of those. How about any democratic candidate for office . Im not specifically aware. I mean, im not sure. Neil all right, you could see where ted cruz was going there. Disproportionate number of conservative sites or conservative leaning sites and individuals whose views were being shut down than on the liberal side of the ledger. Thats what cruz was getting at. That this was, despite what happened here in a case that could have benefited donald trump, the fact of the matter is overwhesmingly this is a site that bows to liberal causes. To zerlgs credit with a number of prominent conservatives and tried to figure out what to do about fact checking. He now uses outside media fact checkers. The problem is facebook is not transparent. When they kick somebody off like these latest bloggers huge following. They dont explain the reason. We dont know are they acting capriciously. Neil he is getting ready to speak again. Hate speech is not the beholder. He tended to go with the hate speech on the right which cruz is going not so on the left. Shouldnt be a double standard when you are a platform as large as facebook. Neil thank you, my friend. Howard kurtz, media buzz. We are going to be hearing chairman grassley going after him. Some oversight might be in order here. The senator has not said what kind of oversight. Objections put in from the aclu, the electronic privacy information center. The association for computing machinery, Public Policy console. And public knowledge. Senator whitehouse. Thank you, chairman. Before we mr. Chairman, i want to correct one thing i said earlier in response to a question from senator lee he, he had asked if why we didnt ban Cambridge Analytica at the time when we learned about them in 2015, and i answered that what my understanding was was that they were not on the platform, were not an app. Developer or advertiser. When i went back and met with my team afterwards, they let me know that Cambridge Analytica actually did start as an advertiser later in 2015. So, we could have, in theory, banned them then. We made a mistake by not doing. So but i just wanted to make sure that i updated that because i misspoke or got that wrong earlier. Now, senator whitehouse. Thank you, chairman. Welcome back, mr. Zuckerberg. On the subject of bans, i just wanted to explore a little bit what these bans mean. Obviously facebook has been done considerable reputational damage by its association with Alexander Kogan and with Cambridge Analytica which is one of the reasons you are having this enjoyable afternoon with us. Your testimony says that Alexander Kogans app. Has been banned. Has he also been banned. Yes, my understanding is he has. So if he were to open up another account under a name and you were able to find it out, that would be closed down . Senator, i believe we are preventing him from building any more app. S. Does he have a facebook account, still . Senator, i believe the answer to that is no but can i follow up with you afterwards. Okay. And with respect to Cambridge Analytica, your testimony is that first you required them to formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data. Where did that normal certification take place . That sounds kind of like a quay we have officia quasi offio certify. What did that entail . Senator, first, they sent us an email notice from their chief data officer telling us that they didnt have any of the data anymore. That they deleted it and werent using it later, we followed up with, i believe a full legal contract where they certified that they had deleted the data. In a legal contract . Yes. I believe so. Okay. And then you ultimately said that you have banned Cambridge Analytica. Who exactly is banned . What if they opened up princeton rhode island analytica. Different corporate form, same enterprise. Would that enterprise also be banned . Neither, that is certainly the intent. Cambridge analytica has a Parent Company. We banned the Parent Company and recently we also banned a firm called aiq, which i think also is associated with them. And if we find other firms that are associated with them, we will block them from the platform as well. Are individual principles, pals, principals of the firm also banned . Senator, my understanding is we are blocking them from doing business on the platform, but, i do not believe that we are blocking peoples personal accounts. Okay. Can any customer amend your terms of service or is the terms of service a leave it or take it proposition for the average customer . Senator, i think the terms of service are what they are. But the service is really defined by people. Because you get to choose what information you share. The whole service is about which friends you connect to. Which people you choose to connect to. My question would relate to senator graham held up that big fat document. Its easy to put a lot of things buried in a document then later turn out to be of consequence. And all i wanted to establish with you is that that document that senator graham held up, that is not a negotiable thing with individual customers. That is a take it or leave it proposition for your customers to sign up to or not use the service. Senator, thats right on the terms of service. Although we offer a lot of controls. So people can con figure the experience how they want. So, last question on a different subject, having to do with the authorization process that you are undertaking for entities that are putting up political content or socalled issue ad content. You have said that they all have to go through an authorization process before they do it. You said here, we will be verifying the identity. How do you look behind a Shell Corporation and find who is really behind it through your authorization process . Step back. Do you need to look behind Shell Corporations in order to find out who is really behind the content thats being posted and if you may need to look behind a Shell Corporation, how would you go about doing that . How will you get back to the true what lawyers would call Beneficial Owner of the site that is putting out the political material . Senator, are you referring to the verification of political and issue ads . Yes. Before that political ads, yes. So what were going to do is require a valid government identity and were going to verify the location. So were going to do that so that way if someone sitting in russia, for example, couldnt say that they are in america and therefore able to run an election ad. If they were running through a corporation domiciled in delaware, you wouldnt know that they were actually a russian owner. Senator, thats correct. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired and i appreciate the courtesy of the chair for the extra seconds. Thank you, mr. Zuckerberg. Senator lee . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, i wanted to follow up on a statement that you made shortly before the break just a few minutes ago. You said that there are some categories of speech. Some types of content that facebook would never want to have any part of. And takes active steps to avoid disseminating, including hate speech, nudity, racist speech, i assume you also meant terrorist acts, threats of physical violence. Things like that. Beyond that, would you agree that facebook ought not be putting its thumb on the scale with regard to the content of speech assuming it fits that of one of those categories thats prohibited . Senator, yes, there are generally two categories of content that were very worried about. One are things that could cause real world harm. So, terrorism, certainly fits into that. Selfharm fits into that. I would consider election interference to fit into that. And those are the types of things that we i dont really consider there to be much discussion around whether those are good or bad topics. Im not disputing that what im asking is once you get beyond those categories of things that are prohibited and should be, is it facebooks position that it should not be putting its thumb on the scale . It should not be favoring or disfavoring speech based on its content based on the viewpoint of that speech . Senator, in general, thats our position. What we one of the things that is really important though is that in order to create a service where everyone has a voice, we also need to make sure that people arent bullied or basically intimidated or the environment feels unsafe for them. When you say in general, thats the exception that you are referring to, the exception being that if someone feels bullied, even if its not a terrorist act. Nudity, terrorist threats, racist speech, or Something Like that, you might step in there. Beyond that, would you step in and put your thumb on the scale as far as the viewpoint of the content being posted . Senator, no. In general, our goal is to allow people to have as much expression as possible. Okay. So subject jot exceptions we have discussed, you would stay out of that. Let me ask you this, isnt there a significant free market incentive that a social Media Company, including yours has in order to safeguard the data of your users . Dont have you free market incentives . Yes. Dont your interests align with those of us here who want to see data safe guarded . Absolutely. Do you have the technological means available at your disposable to make sure that doesnt happen and protect say an app. Developer from transferring facebook data to a third party . Senator, a lot of that we do. And some of that happens outside of our systems and will require new measures. So, for example, what we saw here was people chose to share information with an app. Developer. That worked according to how the system was designed. That information was then transferred out of our system to servers that this developer Alexander Kogan had. Then that person chose to then go sole the data to Cambridge Analytica. That is going to require much more active intervention and auditing from us to prevent from going forward. Because once its out of our system, it is a lot harder for us to have a full understanding of whats happening. From what have you said today and from previous statements made by you and other officials at your company, data is at the center of your Business Model. Its how you make money. Your ability to run your business effectively, given that you dont charge your users is based on monetizing data. And so the real issue, it seems to me, really comes down to what you tell the public, what you tell users of facebook about what youre going to do with the data, but how you are going to use it. Can you give me a couple of examples, maybe two examples of ways in which data is collected by facebook in a way that people are not aware of . Two examples of types of data that facebook collects that mighte might be surprisingo facebook users . Well, senator, i would hope that what we do with data is not surprising to people. And has it been at times . Well, senator, i think in this case people certainly didnt expect this develop tore sell the data to Cambridge Analytica. In general, there are two types of data that facebook has. The vast majority and the first category is content that people chose to share on the service themselves. So thats all the photos that you share, the posts that you make, what you think of as the facebook service. Right . Everyone has control every single time that they go to share that they can delete that data any time they want. Full control the majority of the data. The second category is around specific data that we collect in order to make the advertising experiences better and more relevant and work for businesses. And those often revolve around measuring, okay, if we showed you an ad, and you clicked through and did you go somewhere else, we can measure that you actually that the ad worked. That helps make the experience more relevant and better for people who are getting more relevant ads and better for the businesses because they perform better. You also have control, completely, of that second type of data. You can turf off the ability for facebook to collect that your ads will get worse. So a lot of people dont want to do that. But you have complete control over what you do there as well. Senator schotts . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on the questions around the terms of service. Your terms of service are about 3200 words with 30 links. One of the links is to your data policy which is about 2700 words with 22 links. And i think the point has been wellmade that people really have no earthly idea what they are signing up for. And i understand that at the presenat thepresent time thatsy binding. Im wondering if you can explain to the billions of users in plain language what are they signing up for . Senator, thats a good and important question here. In general, you know, you sign up for the facebook. You get the ability to share the information that you want with people. Thats what the service is. Right . Its that you can connect with the people that you want and you can share content matters to you. Whether thats photos or links or posts and you get control over who you can share it with you and take it down if you want. And dont need to put anything up in the first place if you want. What about the part people are worried about, not the fun part . Well, whats that . The part that people are worried about is that the data is going to be improperly used. So people are trying to figure out are your did. M dms informing the ads . Are your browsing habits. Everybody understands when you click like on something or say you like a certain movie or have a particular political proclivity. I think thats fair game. Everybody understands that what we dont understand exactly because both as a matter of practice and as a matter of not being able to decipher terms of service and privacy policy. What exactly are you doing with the data and do you draw a distinction between Data Collected in the process of utilizing a platform and that which we clearly volunteer to the public to present ourselves to other facebook users . Senator, im not sure i fully understand this. In general, people come to facebook to share content with other people. We use that in order to also inform how we Rank Services like news feeds and ads to provide more relevant experiences. Let me try a couple of specific examples. If im emailing within whats app. , does that ever inform you advertisers . No, we dont see any of the content in whats app. . Its fully encrypted. Is there some algorithm that spits out information to your ad platform and lets say im emailing about black panther about whats app. Do i get a black panther banner at t . Facebook system does not see the content of messages being transferred over whats app. I know. Thats what im asking. Im asking about whether these systems talk to each other without a human being touching it . Senator, i think the answer to your specific question is if you mention someone about black panther in whats app. It would not inform any ads. I want to follow up on senator nelsons original question question of the ownership. We want our customers to have more rather than less control over the data. I cant imagine its true as a legal matter that i actually own my facebook data because youre the one monetizing it. Do you want to modify that to sort of express that as a statement of principle, aas sort of aspirational goal . It doesnt seem to me that we own our own data, otherwise, we would be getting a cut. Well, senator, in the sense that you choose to put it there can you take it down any time and you completely control the terms under which its used. When you put it on facebook, you are granting us a license to be able to show it to other people. Thats necessary in order for the service to operate. Right, so your definition of ownership is i sign up i voluntarily and i may delete my account if i wish. Thats basically it . Well, senator, i think that the control is much more granular than that. You can choose each photo that you want to put up or each message. And you can delete those. And you dont need to delete your whole account. Have you specific control. Can you share different posts with different people. In the time i have left, i want to propose something to you and take it for the record. I read an interesting article this week by professor jack balkan that proposes a concept of information fiduciary. People think of fiduciaries primarily in the economic sense but this is really about a trust relationship bike doctors and lawyers, stecTech Companies should hold entrust our personal data. Are you open to the information fiduciary enshrined in statute. Senator its certainly an interesting idea. And jack is very thoughtful in this space so i do think it deserves consideration. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Zuckerberg for being here today. I appreciate your testimony. The full scope of facebook users activity can print very personal picture, i think. And additionally you have those two billion users that are out there every month. And so we all know thats larger than the population of most countries. How many data categories do you store, does Facebook Store . On the categories that you collect . Senator, can you clarify what you mean by data categories . There are some past reports that have been out there that indicate that facebook collects about 96 data categories for those two billion active users. Thats 192 billion data points that are being generated, i think, at any time from consumers globally. So, how many do you does Facebook Store out of that . Do you store any . Senator, im not actually sure what that is referring to. On the points that you collect information, if we call those categories, how many do you store of information that you are collecting . Senator, the way i think about this is there were two broad categories. This probably doesnt line up with whatever the specific report that you are seeing is and i can make sure that we follow up with you afterwards to get you the information that you need on that. The two broad categories that i think about are content that a person has chosen to share and that they have complete control over. They get to control when they put it into the service. When they take it down. Who sees it. And then the other category are data that are connected to making the ads relevant. You have complete control over both. You can turn off the data related to ads. You can choose not to share any content or control exactly who sees it or take down the content in the former category. And does Facebook Store any of that . Yes. How much do you store of that . All of it . All of it . Everything we click on . Is that in storage somewhere . Senator, we store data about what people share on the service and information thats required to do ranking better to show you what you care about in news feed. Do you store text history, user content, activity, device location . Senator, some of that content with peoples permission we do store. Do you disclose any of that . Yes. Senator, in order to for people to share the information with facebook, i believe that almost everything that you just said would be want in. And the privacy settings, its my understanding that they limit the sharing of that data with other facebook users. Is that correct . Senator, yes. Every person gets to control who gets to see their content. And does that also limit the ability for facebook to collect and use it . Senator, yes, there are other there are controls that determine what facebook can do as well. So, for example, people have a control about face recognition. If people dont want us to be able to help identify when theyre in photos that their friends upload, they can turn that off. And then we wont store that kind of template for them. And there was some action taken by the ftc in 2011. And you wrote a Facebook Post at the time on a public page on the internet that it used to seem scary to people. But as long as they could make their page private, they felt safe. Sharing with their friends online, control was key. And you just mentioned control. Senator hatch asked you a question and you responded there about complete control. So, you and your company have used that term repeatedly and i believe you use it to reassure users; is that correct, that you do have control, complete control over this information . Well, senator, this is how the service works. I mean, the core thing that facebook is and all of our services, whats hasp, instagram, messenger. So, is this then a question of facebook is about feeling safe or are users actually safe . Is facebook being safe . Senator, i think facebook is safe. I use it and my family use it and all the people i lo and care about use it all the time. These controls are not just to make people feel safe. Its actually what people want in the product. The reality is think about how you use this yourself. You dont want to share you take a photo, you will not always send that to the same people. Sometimes you will text it to one person. Sometimes you might send it to a group. I bet you have a page, you will probably want to put some stuff out there publicly so you can communicate with your constituents. There are all these different groups of people that someone might want to connect with. And those controls are very important and practice for the operation of the service. Not just to build trust. Although i think providing people with control also does that but actually in order to make it so that people can fulfill their goals of the service. Senator coons. Thank you. Thank you senator grassley and thank you mr. Zuckerberg for joining us today. I think the whole reason we are having this hearing is because of a tension of two basic principles have you laid out. First you said about the data users post on facebook you control and own the data you put on facebook. You said some positive optimistic things about data ownership. Its also the reality that facebook is a for profit entity that generated 40 billion in ad revenue last year by targeting ads. In fact, facebook claims that advertising makes it easy to find the right people, capture their attention, and get results, and you recognize that an adsupported service is as you said today best aligned with your mission and values. But the reality is there is a lot of examples where ad targeting has led to results that i think we would all disagree with or dislike or would concern concern us. Have you already admitted that facebooks own ad tools allowed russians to target users, voters, based on racist or antimuslim or antiimmigrant views and that may have played a significant in an election in the united states. Just today Time Magazine posted a story saying wildlife traffickers are continue to use facebook tools to advertise illegal sales of protected animal parts and i am left questioning whether your ad targeting tools would allow other concerning practices like diet pill manufacturers targeting teenagers who are struggling with their weight or allowing a liquor distributer to target alcoholics or gambling organization to target those with gambling problems. I will give you one concrete example im sure you are familiar with propublica in 2016 highlighted that facebook lets advertisers exclude users by race in real estate advertising. There was a way that you could say that this particular ad i only want to be seen by white folks not by people of color. And that clearly violates fair housing laws and our basic sense of fairness in the united states. And have you promptly announced that was a bad idea. You were going to change the tools and that you would build a new system to spot and reject discriminatory ads that violate our commitment to fair housing. Yet, a year later a followup story by propublica said those changes had hadnt fully been made it was still possible to target advertising racially discriminatory. My concern is that this practice of making bold and engaging promises about changes and practices and then the reality of how facebook has operated in the real world are in persistent tension. Persistent tension. We have asked today about the Consent Decree that required facebook to better protect users privacy. Theres a whole series of examples where things have been brought to your attention. Her face said they would change their practices and policies and yet there doesnt seem to be as much followup as will be called for. Policies arent worth the paper they are written on a facebook doesnt enforce them. I will close without question rooted in an experience i had today as an avid facebook user. I woke up this morning and was notified by whole group of friends across the country asking if i had a new family or if there was a fake Facebook Post of chris coons. I went to the one they suggested. It had a different middle initial. My picture with senator Dan Sullivans family. These same schools i went to but a whole lot of russian friends. Dan sullivan has got a very attractive family. For the record, mr. Chairman. The friends who brought this to my attention included people i went to law school with in hawaii and our own attorney general in delaware. I have great folks who work in my office. I