besides the professor's transfer, and now potentially others, do you know of any instances where user data was improperly transferred to third party in breach of facebook‘s terms? if so, how many times as that happened, and was facebook only made aware of that transfer by some third—party? asi as i mentioned, we are now conducting a full investigation into every single application that has access to a large amount of information before we locked down platform and to prevent developers accessing this information in 2014. we believe will be investigating miniapplications, tens of thousands of them, and if we find any suspicious activity, we will conduct a full audit of those applications to find if they are doing anything improper. if we find anything improper, we will ban them from facebook into either one affected. in terms of past activity, i don't

have all the information of all the band applications, but i can have my tea m band applications, but i can have my team find out and get back to. how many times have you seen improper data? yes, we have. i don't have the exact figure on how many times we have, but overall, the way we have enforce our platform policies in the pastis enforce our platform policies in the past is we have looked at patterns of how applications have used art apis and used information and looked at reports that might have been doing sketchy things. we will make a more proactive position out of this going forward into much more regular spot checks and reviews of applications, as well as increasing the amount of audits that three duke and again, i can make sure our team follows up with you on anything —— audits on applications.” follows up with you on anything —— audits on applications. i was going to assume that sitting here today, you have no idea, and if i'm wrong

on that, you are able to tell me, i think, you will be able to supply the stickers to us, at least as of this point. i will have my team follow—up with you on what information we have. but right now, you have no certainty how much of thatis you have no certainty how much of that is going on, right? 0k. facebook collects massive amounts of data from consumers, including the contents, networks, contact lists, device information, location and information from third parties. it's your data policy is only a few pages long and provides consumers with only a few examples of what is collected and how it might be used. the examples given emphasise benign uses the examples given emphasise benign uses such as connecting with friends, but your policy does not give any indication for more controversial issues of such data. my controversial issues of such data. my question, why doesn't facebook disclose to its users all the ways

the data might be used by facebook and other third parties and what is facebook‘s responsibility to inform users about the best information?” believe it is 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 something on facebook, whether it is a photo on facebook, whether it is a photo on facebook or a message and messenger 01’ facebook or a message and messenger or what's up, every single time, there is a controlled rate there about who you're going to be sharing it with, whether it is your friends, public or a specific group, and you can change that and control that in—line. to your broader point about the privacy policy, this gets into an issue that i think we and others in the tech industry have found challenging, which is that long privacy policies are very confusing and if you make it to landes and speu and if you make it to landes and spell out all the detail, then you are probably going to reduce the percentage of people who read it and

to make it accessible to them. one of the things that we have struggled with overtime is to make something thatis with overtime is to make something that is as simple as possible so people can understand it, as well as giving them control in a line in the product in the context of when they are trying to use them taking into account that we don't expect most people will wanted to go through and read a full legal document. senator nelson. yesterday, when we talked, i gave the relatively harmless example that i am communicating with my friends on facebook and indicate that i love a certain kind of chocolate and i'll of the sudden, i start receiving advertisements for chocolate. what if i don't want to receive those commercial advertisements? stoger chief

operating officer 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. i pay for it. are you actually considering having facebook users pay for you not to use that information? people have a control over how their information is used in advertisements today. if you wa nted in advertisements today. if you wanted to have an experience where your advertisements aren't targeted using all of the information we have available, you can turn off third—party information. what we found is that even though some people don't like advertisements, people don't like advertisements, people really don't like advertisements that aren't relevant. while there is some discomfort, for

sure, with using information in making advertisements, more releva nt, making advertisements, more relevant, the overwhelming feedback we get from our community is that people would rather have us show releva nt people would rather have us show relevant information there is then not. —— relevant advertisements. some people use it. it's not the majority of people on facebook. i think that is a good level of control to offer. in order to not run ads at all, we would need a different business model. and that is your business model, so i take it... andi is your business model, so i take it... and i use the harmless example of chocolate, but if it got into more personal things, communicating with friends, and i wanted to cut it off, i'm going to have to pay you in order not to send any using my personal information something that

i don't want. that's, in essence, is what i understood miss sandberg to say. is that correct? yes. although we do not offer the option for that right now. our mission is trying to connect everyone in the world. we all wanted to offer a free service that everyone can afford. that's the only way beacon reach billions of people. therefore, you consider my personally identifiable data, the companies data, not my data. is that this? know, senator. the first line of our terms and service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook. well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating, not only because it affected 87 million, but because it affected 87 million, but because it affected 87 million, but because it seems to be part of a pattern of relax data practises by

the company going back years. back in 2011, it was a settlement with the ftc and now we discover get another instance where the data was another instance where the data was a failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? when we learned in 2015 that can bridge analytical had bought the data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we didn't take action. we took down the application and we demanded that the book the app developer and cabbage analytical delete and to stop using any data that they had. to deny cambridge analytica. they told us they did this. in retrospect, it was a mistake to believe them. we should have followed up and done an audit done. that is not a mistake we will

make. yes, you did that and apologised for it. but you didn't notify them. do you think that you have an ethical obligation to notify 87 million facebook users? when we heard back from cambridge analytica and us they weren't using the data and us they weren't using the data and deleted it, we considered it a close case. in retrospect, that is clearly a mistake. we shouldn't have taken their word for it and we adopted our policies and how we are going to operate the company to make sure we are not going to make that mistake again. did anybody notify notify the ftc? know, for the same reason. we considered it a closed case. would you do that differently today, in retrospect to the senator's question? yes. this may be

your first appearance before progress, but it's not the first time facebook has faced questions about its policy. a magazine noted you have a 14 year history of positive or ill—advised decisions involving user privacy, not unlike the one that you made in your opening statement. after more than a decade of promises to do better, how was today's apology different and why should we trust facebook to make the necessary changes to ensure user privacy and give people a clear picture of your privacy policies? we a lot of mistakes in running the company. i think it is pretty much impossible, i believe, to start a company in your dorm room and grow it to be the scale you are at now without making some mistakes and because our service is about helping people connect and information, those mistakes have been different

in how... we try not to make this a mistake multiple times, but in general, a lot of the mistakes or around how people connect to each other just because of around how people connect to each otherjust because of the nature of the service. 0verall, otherjust because of the nature of the service. overall, i would say we're going through a broader philosophical shift in how we approach our response ability as a company. with the first ten or 12 yea rs company. with the first ten or 12 years in the company, i viewed our responsibility as primarily building tools that if we could put those tools that if we could put those tools in peoples hands, then that would empower people to do good things. but i think we have learned now, across a number of issues, not just data privacy, but fake news and foreign interference in elections is that we need to take a more practical in a broader sense. it is not enough to build the tools. we need to make sure they are used for good. that means we needed to now make a more active you in policing the ecosystem and in watching and looking out and making sure all the members of our community are using these tools in a way that will be healthy. and 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, but i am committed to getting this right and but i am committed to getting this rightandi but i am committed to getting this right and i believe that over the coming days, once we fully work all these solutions through, people will see real differences. i'm glad you all have gotten that message. as we discussed in my office yesterday, the line between legitimate political discourse and his speech can sometimes be hard to identify, especially when will on artificial intelligence and other technologies for the initial discovery. can you discuss what steps that facebook is currently takes when making these evaluations, the challenges you face, and any examples of where you may draw the line between what is and what is not hate speech? yes. i will speak to hate speech and then i will speak to hate speech and then i will talk about enforcing our content will talk about enforcing our co nte nt post will talk about enforcing our content post is more broadly.

actually, maybe, if you're 0k content post is more broadly. actually, maybe, if you're ok with it, i will go in the other order. from the beginning of the company in 2004, i started from the beginning of the company in 2004, istarted my from the beginning of the company in 2004, i started my dorm room, just me and my roommate. we didn't have ai technology that could look at the content people were sharing, so we basically had to enforce our content policies reactively. people could share but they wanted, and then if somebody in the community foundation to be offensive or against our policies, they would find it for us and we would look at it reactively. now, increasingly, we are developing ai tools that can identify certain classes of a bad activity proactively and flag it for our team on facebook. in the end of the year, we will have more than 20,000 people working on security and content review working across all of these things, so content gets flagged to ask him who have those people look at it then that the validity —— like to us, we will have people look at

it. hate speech is one of the ha rd est. it. hate speech is one of the hardest. determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. you need to understand, what is a slur and whether something is hateful, not just what is a slur and whether something is hateful, notjust in english, the majority of people on facebook lucid and languages that are different. to make you sit in languages that are different. compare —— use it in languages that are different. as we secure, and 90% of the isis and al-qaeda content on facebook, art ai tools find it. take back our ai tools find it. take back our ai tools find it. take back our ai tools find it. hate speech, i am optimistic that over 5—10 year period, we will have ai tools that can get into the kind

of nuances that can be more... and fly instances. where nothing yet. people find it to us, it is reactive. if people look at it and we have policies to make it is not subjective as possible, but until we get is more automated, there is a higher error rate than high—end happy with. —— van i am happy with. what is facebook is doing to prevent a foreign actors from interfering in us elections? this is one of my top priorities in 2018. is to get this right. 0ne priorities in 2018. is to get this right. one of my greatest regret in running the company is that 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 they were trying to hack into. we were slow to identify the

new ident petitions. —— operations. when did you identify new operations? around the time of the 2016 alexis. 2018 is an incredibly important year for alexis, not just with the united states of midterms, but around the world, there are important elections in india, in brazil, in mexico, in pakistan and in hungary that we want to make sure that we do everything we can to make sure we protect the integrity of the alexis. i have confidence we will get this right. since 2016, there have been plenty of elections. the french election, the german election. explain what is better about the record. we have deployed new ai tools that to do a betterjob of identifying fake accounts that may be trying to interfere elections we re may be trying to interfere elections were spent in this information. between those three elections, we we re between those three elections, we were able to proactively removed tens of thousands of accounts that

before they could contribute significant harm and the nature of these attacks is that there are people in russia whosejob it is these attacks is that there are people in russia whose job it is to try to exploit our systems and other internet systems and systems as well. this is an arms race. they're going to keep on getting better at this and we need to aid keep on getting better at it this, too, which is why one of the things i mentioned before is we are going to have more than 20,000 people, but of the year, working on security and content review the —— across the company. speak more on automated bots whose brightness information. would you doing to punish those exploit those platform to make your platform in that regard. you are not allowed to have a fake profile. your content allowed to have a fake profile. your co nte nt ha d allowed to have a fake profile. your content had to be authentic. we are developing tools to identify when people are craving fake accounts. in

order to remove all of that content. after the 2016 election, our priority was protecting the integrity of elections across the world. we have added effort to chase back to russia dir rate, internet research agency activity, that did this activity in 2016. just last week, we were able to determine that a number of russian media organisations that were sanctioned by the russian regulator were operated and controlled by this internet research agency. we took the step last week, a pretty big step for us, taking down sanctioned news organisations in russia as part ofan news organisations in russia as part of an operation to remove 270 fake accou nts of an operation to remove 270 fake accounts and pages, part of the broader network in russia, that was actually not targeting international into practise much as... let me correct that. that was primarily targeting spedding this information in russia itself as well as certain

russian speaking neighbouring countries. how many of these types of accounts have you taken down?m the ira specifically, the ones we have pegged back to the ira, we can identify the 470 in the american elections and the 270 we specifically went after in russia last week. there were many others better systems catch, which are more difficult to attribute specifically to russian intelligence, but the number would be in the tens of thousands of fake accounts that we removed and i'm happy to have making follow—up with you on more information if that would be helpful. would you please? i think is very important. if you knew, into thousand 15, that cambridge analytica was using the information of the professor, why didn't facebook abandon cambridge in 2015? —— why didn't facebook abandon cambridge in 2015? cameras analytical wasn't using our sis ——

cambridge wasn't using our information into thousand 15. as of the time that we learned about their activity in 2015, they went to an advertiser or running pages. we had nothing to ban. senator hatch. in my opinion, this is the most intense public scrutiny i have seen for a tech related hearing since the microsoft hearing that i shed at backin microsoft hearing that i shed at back in the late 1990s. the recent stories about cambridge analytica and data mining on social media raises serious concerns about consumer raises serious concerns about consumer privacy. naturally, i know you understand that. at the same time, distressed touch on the very foundation of the internet economy. —— visa stories touch. some have professed themselves

shocked, shocked, that companies like facebook and google share their user data with advertisers. did any of these individuals stopped to ask himself why facebook and google don't charge for access? nothing in life is free. everything involves trade—offs. if you want something without having to pay money for it, you're going to have to pay for it in some other way, it seems to me. that is what we're seeing here. these great websites that don't charge for access, they extract value in some other way. this nothing wrong with that as long as they are upfront about what they are doing. in my mind, the issue here is expensive. it is consumer choice. do users understand what they are agreeing to when they access a website or agree to terms of service? our websites upfront about how they extract value from users or do they hide the ball? do consumers

have the information they need to make an informed choice regarding whether or not to visit a particular website? whether or not to visit a particular website ? to whether or not to visit a particular website? to my mind, do so questions that we should ask where the focusing on. now, mrzuckerberg, i rememberyourfirst focusing on. now, mrzuckerberg, i remember your first visit to capitol hill in 2010. he spoke to the senator public and a task force which i shared. he said back then that facebook would always be free. is that still your objective? yes. there will always be a version of facebook that is free. it is our mission to try and help connect eve ryo ne mission to try and help connect everyone around the world and bring the world closer together. in order to do that, we believe we have to offer a service that everyone can afford and we are committed to doing that. if so, how do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service? we run advertisements. i see. that's great. whenever a controversy like this are vices, there's always a danger that congress's response will be to step

in and over regulator. that has been the experience i have had in my 42 years here. in your view, what sort of legislative changes would help to solve the problems that cambridge analytica story has revealed and what sorts of legislative changes would not help to solve this issue? i think there are a few categories of legislation that makes sense to consider. around privacy specifically, there are a few principles that i think it would be useful to discuss and potentially codify into law. 0ne useful to discuss and potentially codify into law. one is to have a simple and practical set of ways that you explain what you're doing with data. we talked a little bit earlier i rounded the complexity of laying out this along privacy policy. it's hard to say that people fully understand something when it is only written up a long legal document. the stuff that needs to be

implemented in a way where people can actually understand it, where consumers can can actually understand it, where consumers can understand it. but that can also capture all the nuances of how these services work ina way nuances of how these services work in a way that is not overly restrictive on providing the services. that is one. the second is around giving people complete control. this is the most important principle of facebook. every piece of co nte nt principle of facebook. every piece of content that you share on facebook, you own and you have com plete facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and how you share it. you can remove it at any time. that is why, every day, about 100 billion times a day, people come to one of our services and either post a photo or send a message to someone, because they know that they have pest—control and that who they say it is going to go to is going to be who sees the content. i think that the pats control is important and i think that should apply to every service. -- i think that should apply to every service. —— i think that that control is important. the third point is enabling innovation. some of these use cases are very

enabling innovation. some of these use cases are very sensitive, like face recognition, for example. i could like there is a balance that is extremely important to strike here where you obtained special content here where you obtained special co nte nt for here where you obtained special content for sensitive features like face recognition, but don't... 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 have different regimes for different new features like that. senator ca ntwell. new features like that. senator cantwell. thank you. welcome. do you know who palantir is?” cantwell. thank you. welcome. do you know who palantir is? i do. some people have referred to them as the sta nford people have referred to them as the stanford analytic. do you agree?” have not heard that. do you think palantir tots cambridge analytical's

reports are... ? i don't know. do you think palantir has a prescriptive data from facebook?” am not aware of that. 0k. do you think that during the 2016 campaign, as can bridge analytic was running support to the chum campaign under project alamo, whether any facebook people involved in that sharing of technique and information? so we provided support to the chum campaign, similarto what provided support to the chum campaign, similar to what we provide to any advertiser or campaign who asks for it. so is that a yes? can you repeat the specific question? i wa nt to you repeat the specific question? i want to make sure i get it. during the 2016 campaign, cambridge analytica worked with the chum campaign to refine attack this ——

refined... i don't know that our employees were involved with cambridge analytica. i know that we help the chum campaign the same way we always do. so they may have been involved together? may be that something we will find out.” involved together? may be that something we will find out. i can certainly have my team get back with any specifics that that i don't know sitting here today. have you heard of total information awareness? do know them talking about? no. total information awareness was in 2003, john ashcroft and other 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 are doing, and i look at what sap, which is another acquisition, andl sap, which is another acquisition, and i look at where you are from the

2011 consented to create and where you are today, i'm thinking, is this guy out boxing be foxes or is he going along with what is a major trend in an information age to try and harvest information for political forces? and so my question to you is, do you see that those applications, that of those companies, palantir and even whatsapp are going to fall into the same situation that you have just falle n same situation that you have just fallen into over the last several years? senator, i'm not sure specifically. 0verall, years? senator, i'm not sure specifically. overall, i do think that these issues around information access that these issues around information a ccess a re that these issues around information access are challenging. to be specifics about those applications, i'm not that familiar with what's palantir does. i'm not that familiar with what's pala ntir does. whatsapp collects very little information. i think it

is less likely to have the kind of issues because of the way the services are conducted, but i think these are broad issues across the tech industry. given the track re cord we re tech industry. given the track record were facebook is and why you are here today, i guess people would say that they didn't act boldly enough and the fact that people like john bolton basically was an investor in the new york times article earlier, i guess it was actually last month, that the bolton pa ct actually last month, that the bolton pact was of such a way of how america was becoming limp wristed and spineless and wanted messaging for national security issues. the fa ct for national security issues. the fact that there are a lots of people who are interested in this larger effort and what i think my constituents want to know is was this discussed at chair board meetings and what are the applications and interests that are

being discussed without putting real teeth into this? we don't want to come back to the situation again. i believe you will be talents, my question is whether you have all the will to us solve this problem? data privacy and foreign interference in elections as topics that we have discussed in the meeting. 0ne elections as topics that we have discussed in the meeting. one of the biggest issues the company has faced and we have a huge responsibility to get this right. i think everyone in the world deserves privacy protection and regardless of whether we implement the exact same regulation, i would guess it would be somewhat different because we have somewhat different sensibilities and the us as to other countries, we are committed to rolling out the controls and affirmative consent and the special

controls around sensitive types of technology like face recognition that are required, we are doing that around the world. i think it's certainly worth discussing whether we should have something similar in the us, but i would like to say todayis the us, but i would like to say today is we are going to go forward and implement that regardless of what the regulatory outcome is. thank you, mr chairman. mr zuckerberg, thank you for being with us. my question is going to be a sort of follow up on what senator hatch was talking about, and let me agree with basically his advice that we don't want to overwrite to make to the point where we are stifling innovation and investment —— over regulate. i understand with suggested rules and suggested legislation, there are at least two

schools of thought out there. one would be 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 on the other end. it's my understanding that edge providers such as facebook may not support that effort because edge providers have different business models than the isps and should not be considered like services. do you think we need consistent privacy protections for consumers across the entire internet ecosystem that are based on the type of consumer information being collected and used or shared regardless of the entity doing the collecting or using or sharing? senator, this is an important question. i would if

reentry —— differentiate between isps and the platforms like facebook or google or twitter, youtube, that are the apps or platforms on top of that. i think in general, the expectations that people have are somewhat different than the platforms. there might be areas where the need to be more regulation in one and less in the other but i think there are going to be other places where there need to be regulation of the type. specifically though, on the heights, one of the important issues that i think we face and have debated when you say pipes you mean... the isps. 0ne face and have debated when you say pipes you mean... the isps. one of the reasons why i have been out there saying that 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, andi

getting started building facebook at harvard, and i only had one option foran harvard, and i only had one option for an isp to use and if i had to pay extra in order to make it so my app could be potentially seen or used by other people, we probably would not be here today. but we're talking about privacy concerns and let just say, we talking about privacy concerns and letjust say, we will have to talking about privacy concerns and let just say, we will have to follow up let just say, we will 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 standpoint. let me just move on to another couple of items. is it true that as was recently publicised, facebook collects the call and text histories of its users that use android phones? senator, we have an app called messenger for sending messages to your facebook friends come and that apple offers people an option to sync the text m essa g es people an option to sync the text messages into the messaging app and to make it so that, basically, you

have one app where it is both your text and your facebook messages in one place. we also allow people the option... you can opt in or out of that was like yes, it is opt in. you have to affirmatively say you want is that true... is that practised in with minors at all or do you have an exception for people aged 13—17.” do not know. we can follow—up that. let's do that. there are reports that facebook in track users internet browsing activity even after that user has logged out of the facebook platform. can you confirm whether or not this is true? senator, i want to make sure i get this accurate so you will probably

be better to have my team follow—up. .. be better to have my team follow-up... you be better to have my team 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 ad experience has been most effective, which of course people can opt out of. but i want to make sure i'm precise in my answer... when you get back to me, sir, would you also let us know how facebook‘s disclosing to its users that it's engaging in this type of tracking? yes. thank you very much. thank you, senator. mr zuckerberg, i assume facebook's been served with subpoenas from the special counsel and his office. is that correct?

yes. have you or anyone at facebook been interviewed by the special counsel's office ? been interviewed by the special counsel's office? yes. have you been interviewed? i have not. i have not stopped that others have. i believe so, andi stopped that others have. i believe so, and i want to be careful here. 0ur so, and i want to be careful here. our work with the special counsel is confidential and i want to be sure in open session, i am not revealing something that is confidential. i actually am not aware of the subpoena. i believe that there may be but i know we are working with them. thank you. six months ago, your general counsel promised you we re your general counsel promised you were taking steps to prevent facebook from serving what i would call an unwitting co—conspirators rush in your insurance —— in a

russian interference. but these unverified device pages are on facebook today. they look a lot like the anonymous groups russian agents used to spread propaganda during the two d oze n used to spread propaganda during the two dozen 16 presidential election. are you able to confirm whether they are russian creative groups? yes or no. senator, are you asking about those specifically. senator, last week, we actually announced a major change to our ads and pages policy that we will be verifying the identity of every single advertiser... these specific ones, do you know whether they are?” advertiser... these specific ones, do you know whether they are? i am not familiar with those pieces of content specifically. but if you decided this policy a week ago, you would be able to verify them? we are working on them now. what we are doing as we are going to verify the identity of any advertiser running a political or issue related ad. this

is basically what the honest ads act is basically what the honest ads act is proposing. we are following that. we also going to do that for pages stop it but you cannot do those with these was what i am not familiar with those specifically. i'll have my team get back to you. i do think it's worth adding though that we are going to do the same verification of the identity and location of admittance to running large pages, so that way even if they are not going to be buying ads in our system, that will make it significantly harder for russian interference efforts or other inauthentic efforts to try to spread misinformation to the network. it's been going on for some time, and some might say it's about time. six months ago, i asked your general counsel about facebook's role in spreading hate speech for rohingya refugees. there has been genocide in

myanmar... this is a type of content lam myanmar... this is a type of content i am referring to. it calls for the death of a muslim journalist. now that threat went straight to your detection system, spread very quickly, and then it took attempt after attempt and the involvement of several society groups to be due to re move several society groups to be due to remove it. why could it not be removed within 24 hours? senator, what is happening in myanmar is a terrible tragedy and we need to be doing more... we all agree with that but you and investigators, you blame facebook for playing a role in the genocide. we agree it's terrible. how can you dedicate, and will you

dedicate the resources to make sure such hate speech is taken down within 24 hours? yes, we're working on this, and there are three specific things that we are doing. 0ne specific things that we are doing. one is we are hiring of more burmese language content reviewers because hate speech is very language specific. it's hard to do it without people who speak the local language and we need to wrap up our effort there dramatically. second, we are working with civil society in myanmar to identify specific eight figures so we can take down their accou nts figures so we can take down their accounts rather than specific pieces of co nte nt. accounts rather than specific pieces of content. and third, we are standing upa of content. and third, we are standing 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. when senator cruz and i sent a letter to apple asking what they're going to do about chinese censorship, my question... i want to know what you

will do about chinese censorship when they come to you. senator graham is up next. thank you. are you familiar with andrew bosworth? yes, senator. iam. he you familiar with andrew bosworth? yes, senator. i am. he said, we connect more people, maybe someone dies ina connect more people, maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. the ugly truth is we believe in connecting people so deeply, anything that allows us to connect more people more often is the fact of good. you agree with that? no, senator. i do not. as for context, he wrote that as an internal notes. we have a lot of discussion internally. i disagreed with that at the time that he wrote it. if you look at the comments on the internal discussion, the vast number of people did too.

...apoor the vast number of people did too. a poorjob as chief executive of expressing those thoughts? well, senator, we try to run our company ina way senator, we try to run our company in a way where people can express different opinions... well, this opinion... is somebody who works for me said this and i would fire them. who is your biggest competitor? we have a lot of competitors. i think that mike or do you wantjust one? i don't know if i can get one but, i can givea don't know if i can get one but, i can give a bunch? there are three categories i would focus on. one or the other tech platforms, google, apple, amazon, microsoft. we overlap with them in different ways. do they provide the same service you provide? in different ways... let me put it this way. if i buy a ford and it doesn't work well, i can buy a chevy. if i am upset with facebook,

what is the product i can sign up for? i'm talking about real competition you face. car companies face a lot of competition if they make a defective car. it gets out in the world would people stop buying that car, they buy another one. is there an alternative to facebook in there an alternative to facebook in the private sector? yes, senator. the average american uses a different apps to communicate with their friends different apps to communicate with theirfriends and different apps to communicate with their friends and stay in touch with people, ranging from texting apps to e—mails... people, ranging from texting apps to e-mails. .. a service you provide. is twitter the same thing as you do? they do similar things. you don't think they have and not only —— you don't think you have a monopoly?m does not appear that way to meet. you but instagram. why did you buy instagram? you but instagram. why did you buy instagram ? because they you but instagram. why did you buy instagram? because they were very talented developers making good use of our platform and understand our

values. a good business decision. my point is that one with writing a company here's the question all of us, what do we tell our constituents given what's happened here why we should let you self regulate was like what what would you tell people in south carolina... my position is not that there should be no regulation. it real question as the internet becomes more important in peoples lives is what is the right regulation, not whether there should be... will you and your company work with regulation? if it is the right... you think the europeans haveit right... you think the europeans have it right? i think they have some things right. that's true.

would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry? absolutely. would you submit the proposed regulations? yes, and i will have my team follow—up with you so that way, we can have this discussion across the different categories where i think this discussion needs to happen. looking forward to it. when you sign up for facebook, you sign up for terms of service. are you familiar with that? it says the terms governing your use of facebook and products, features, services... except for where we expressly state that separate terms and not these apply. i'm a lawyer, i have no idea what that means, but when you look at terms of service, this is what you get. do you think the average consumer understands what they're signing up for?” the average consumer understands what they're signing up for? i don't think that the average person likely reads that whole documents. but i think there are different ways we can communicate that and have a responsibility to do so. do you

agree with me that you better come up agree with me that you better come up with different ways because this ain't working? i think in certain areas but that is true and and i think in other areas like the core pa rt think in other areas like the core part of what we do... if you think about it at the most basic level, people come to facebook, but instagram, what's apt, messenger about 100 billion times 82 share a piece of content or a message with a specific set of people. and i think that basic functionality can people understand, because we have the controls in line every time and given the volume of the activity and the value that people tell us they're getting from that, i think that that that control in—line does seem to be working fairly well. we can seem to be working fairly well. we ca n always seem to be working fairly well. we can always do better and there are other services that are complex and more to it than just you go and you post a photo. i agree that in many places, we can do better, but i think for the core of the service, it actually is quite clear. thank

you, mrchairman. mr it actually is quite clear. thank you, mr chairman. mr zuckerberg it actually is quite clear. thank you, mr chairman. mrzuckerberg and i think we all agree that what happened here was bad. you acknowledge there was a breach of trust and the way i to my constituents is if someone breaks into my apartment with a crowbar and they take my stuff, it isjust like if the manager gave them the keys or if the manager gave them the keys or if they didn't have any locks on the door. it's still a breach and it's still a break in and i believe we need to have laws and rules that are sophisticated as the brilliant products that you've developed here. we just have not done that yet, and one of the areas that i'm focused on is the election. and i appreciate the support that you and facebook, and now twitter actually could have given to the honest ads act, a bill that you mentioned that i'm meeting with senator mccain and senator warner. ijust with senator mccain and senator warner. i just want with senator mccain and senator warner. ijust want to be clear as we work to pass this law, so that we have the same rules in place to disclose political ads and issue ads as we do for tv and radio, as well as we do for tv and radio, as well as disclaimers, that you're going to ta ke as disclaimers, that you're going to take early action as soon as june

before the election so that people can view these ads, including issue ads. is that correct? that is correct, senator, and ijust wanted toa correct, senator, and ijust wanted to a moment before going 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 are doing our work, one is around transparency, so now our work, one is around trans arenc so now ou're our work, one is around transparency, so now you're going to go and click on any advertiser or any page on facebook and to see all of the ads that they are running. that actually brings advertising online on facebook to an even higher standard than what you would have on tv or print media, because there is no where we can see all of the tv ads that someone is running amok for example, whereas you will be able to see now on facebook whether this campaign orthird see now on facebook whether this campaign or third party is saying different messages to different types of people. i think it's a really important element of transparency. the other really important pieces around verifying

every single advertiser who's going to be running political or issue ads stop what i appreciate that and senator warner and i have also called on google and the other platforms to do the same. memo to the rest of you. i hope you be working with us to pass this bill. we. with a few. now on the subject of cambridge analytica, were these people come 87 million people, users, concentrated in certain states ? users, concentrated in certain states? are you able to figure out where they come from? ido i do not have that information with me. we can follow—up with office. i do not have that information with me. we can follow-up with office. we know it was only thousands of bush in several states. you also said roughly 126 million people were shown content associated... have you determined whether any of those people were using facebook users

whose data was shared with cambridge analytica? are you able to make that determination? senator, we are investigating that now. we believe it is entirely possible that there will be a connection there. that seems like a big deal as we look back at that last section. former cambridge analytica employee christopher max tuerk said the data could be stored in russia —— christopher wylie. are you asking if cambridge analytica's data could be stored in russia ? cambridge analytica's data could be stored in russia? senator, i don't have any specific knowledge that would suggest that but one of the steps that we need to take now is go toa steps that we need to take now is go to a full audit of all of cambridge analytica's systems to understand what they're doing, whether they still have any data, to make sure they removed all the data and if they removed all the data and if they do not, we're going to detect any legal action do so. that audit,

we are allowing the uk government to com plete we are allowing the uk government to complete their investigation into it because any government investigation ta kes because any government investigation takes precedent over any company doing that... you earlier stated publicly and here that you would support some privacy rules so that everyone's playing by the same rules here. and you also said here that you should have notified customers earlier. would you support a rule that would require you to notify your uses of a breech within 72 hours? senator, that makes sense to me andi hours? senator, that makes sense to me and i think we should have our tea m me and i think we should have our team follow—up with yours to discuss in details around that more. thank you. ijust think part of this is people don't even know the data has been breached, and that's a huge problem. i also think we get to

solutions faster 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, mrchairman. mr this election. thank you. thank you, mr chairman. mr zuckerberg, nice this election. thank you. thank you, mr chairman. mrzuckerberg, nice to see you. when i saw you not to long after i entered the senate in 2011 to my told you what i sent my business cards that can be printed, they came back with the message that was the first business card that had ever printed a facebook address on. there are days when i've regretted that but more days when we get lots of information that we need to get. there are days when i wonder if facebook friends is a little misstated, doesn't seem like i have this every single day, but the platform you created is really important and my son charlie, who is 13 them is dedicated to instagram. he'd want to be sure i mention him while i was here with you. i haven't

updated on my card yet. i will say that. lots of ways to connect people. the information, obviously, isa people. the information, obviously, is a important commodity and it's what makes your business work. i get that. however, iwonderabout what makes your business work. i get that. however, i wonder about some of the collection efforts and maybe we can go through largelyjust even yes and no and maybe get back to more expensive discussions of this. did you collect user data through crust of ice tracking? —— crust of ice ...ido i do believe we linked accounts between different devices so there experiences can be links between the devices. ... not experiences can be links between the devices. not necessarily linked to facebook but linked to some

device they went on facebook on.” wa nt to device they went on facebook on.” want to make sure we get this right soi want to make sure we get this right so i will get you in touch with my tea m so i will get you in touch with my team afterwards. this doesn't seem that obligated to me. maybe you can explain to me why this is complicated. do you track devices, that an individual uses facebook has, that is connected to the device that they use for their facebook connection but not necessarily connected to facebook? i'm not sure the answer to that question. billy? yes. there may be some data that is necessary to provide some of the service that we do but i don't have that sitting here today, so that's something i want to follow—up on. the ftc last year flight crust of ice as one of their concerns generally the people are tracking devices that the users of something like facebook does know they are

being tracked —— cross—device tracking. how do you expose your collection methods? is that all in this document that i would see in a greek two before i —— i would see and agree to before i entered into facebook? there are two ways to do this. more importantly, we try to provide in—line controls that are in plain english that people can understand. they can either go to settings or we conjure them at the top of the app periodically, so that people understand all of the controls and settings that they have and can configure the experience the way that they want. so do people now give permission to track specific devices in their contract? and if they do, is that a relatively new addition to what you do? senator, i'm sorry... i don't have that. am i

able to opt out?, if to say it's able to opt out?, if to say it's able for you to track what i'm saying on facebook but i don't want you to track i'm texting to somebody else off facebook on an android phone? 0k. yes, senator. in general, facebook is not collecting data from other apps that you use. there may be some specific things about the device that you're using that facebook needs to understand in order to offer the service but if you are using google or you're using some texting app, unless you specifically opt in that you want to share the texting app information, facebook would not see that. has it a lwa ys facebook would not see that. has it always been that way or is that a recent addition to how you deal with those other ways that i 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 co nta ct what devices i may use that you may have contact with? do you bundled a permission or i might able to individually say what i am willing for you to watch and what you may have to watch? and i think we may have to watch? and i think we may have to watch? and i think we may have to take that for the record based on everyone else's time. thank you very much, mr chairman. mr zuckerberg, would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? sharing with us the name of the hotelyou stayed in last night? no. if you message anybody this week, would you share with us the names of the people you've message? senator,

noi the people you've message? senator, no i would probably not choose to do that publicly here. i think what maybe this is all about, your right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy and how much you give away in modern america in the name of "connecting people around the world. " the of "connecting people around the world." the question basically of what information facebook is collecting them and who they are sending it to and whether they ever asked me in advance my permission to do that. is that a fair thing for a user of facebook to expect? yes, senator. i think everyone should have control over other is used and as we've talked about in some of the other questions, i think that that is laid out in some of the documents but more importantly, you want to give people control of the product ifa give people control of the product if a cell. the most important way that this happens across our services is that everyday, people come to our services to choose to share photos or send messages and

every single time choose to share something, they have a controlled right there about who they want to share it with. at the level is extremely important. they know on their face the pitcher their circle of friends are, but they may not know that sometimes that information is going way beyond their friends. sometimes people make money off sharing information. correct? your referring to our developer platform and i think it's useful to give to information on how we set that up. i have three minutes left, so maybe you can do that for the record. i have a couple other questions i would like to ask. you have recently announced something thatis have recently announced something that is called messenger kids. facebook are created an app allowing kids between the ages of six and a 12 to send video and text messages to facebook as an extension