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 of the

parent's account. to facebook as an extension of the pare nt's account. ca rtoonlike stickers and other features to appeal to little kids, first graders, kindergartners. on january 30,i graders, kindergartners. on january 30, icampaign graders, kindergartners. on january 30, i campaign for commercial free childhood and lots of other child development organisations warned facebook and pointed to a wealth of research demonstrating that a use of social media and us devices is detrimental. argue that young children are not handle at —— equipped to handle social media comes at 86. in addition, there is concerns about information being gathered about the kids. there are limits in the world. the children's online privacy protection act. what guarantees can you give us back any data from messenger kids will be shared with those that violate that law? a number of things i think are important here. the background on messenger kids is that we heard feedback from thousands of parents

that they want to be able to stay in touch with the kids and call them and use apps like a face time when they are working late or not around or want to communicate with the kids. they want to have complete control over that. i think we can all agree that when your kid is six or seven, even if they have access to the phone, you want to be able to control who the contact with. there wasn't enough to do that, so we built that service. the app collects a minimum amount of information that is necessary to operate the service, so is necessary to operate the service, so for example, the messages people sendin so for example, the messages people send in something that we collect in order to operate the service, but in general, that the data is not going to be shared with third parties. it is not connected to the barter facebook... is not connected to the barter facebook. .. as a lawyer, is not connected to the barter facebook... as a lawyer, i picked up on that word in general. it seems to suggest that 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 at all age having grown up having reached at all age having grown up with messenger kids, should be allowed to delete the data that

you collected? yes. as a matter of fact, when you become 13, which is our legal limits,... you don't automatically go from having a messenger kids accounts to having a facebook account. you do start over and geta facebook account. you do start over and get a facebook account. i think it is good idea. generally people are going to be starting over. it is good idea. generally people are going to be starting overli just have... are going to be starting overlj just have... there is a privacy act of illinois which is to regulate the commercial use of facial, finger and iris scans and the like. we are now ina debate iris scans and the like. we are now in a debate on that and i'm afraid facebook has come down... i hope you will fill me in on how that is consistent with protecting privacy. thank you for being here. up until

2014” the mantra or motto of the facebook was moved fast to break things. is that correct?|j facebook was moved fast to break things. is that correct? i don't know when we change it, but the mantra is currently moving fast with a stable infrastructure, which is a much less sexy mantra. greco sounds boring, but my question is during the time that it was —— agree—macro sounds boring, but my question is that during the time of that motto, do think that misjudgments, perhaps mistakes... that you've admitted to hear were a result to the calls are particularly with regards to personal privacy of the information of europe produces subscribers?” think we made mistakes because of that. the broadest mistakes we have made here are not taking the brunt of view of our response ability. the

cultural value is more tactical around whether or not engineers can't ship things in different ways that we operate. i think the big mistake that we have made looking back on this is giving our responsibility as just building tools rather than viewing are all responsibility is making sure that those tools are used for good.” appreciate that because previously, we we re appreciate that because previously, we were told with platforms like facebook and twitter come platforms and the people who own and run those of not criticising doing something for profit. they bore no response ability for the concept. do you agree now? that those platforms are not neutral platforms, but their summer spots will be for the pop

from? —— bear some responsibility for the content? i think we are. the current framework that we have is based on a reactive model that assumes that there weren't ai tools that could proactively tell whether something was terrorist content or something was terrorist content or something bad. it naturally relied on requiring people to fight for a company and the company did need to ta ke company and the company did need to take reasonable action. in the future, we will have tools that are going to be able to identify more types about content and i think that there are moral and legal obligation questions that i think we will have to wrestle with as a society about when we wanted to require companies to ta ke when we wanted to require companies to take action proactively uncertain of those things. and when i gets in the way of... i appreciate that. i've committed for. you interestingly, the terms of the

service is a legal document which discloses to your subscribers how their information is going to be used, how facebook is going to operate. you can see that you doubt everybody reads or understands that legalese, the terms of service. our eyes not to suggest that the consent that people give —— is that it's used just the content gift to the legal service is not informed, in the sense that they may not read it or if they do read it, and they don't understand is? we have a broader response ability to what the law requires. i appreciate that. i'm asking about in terms of what your subscribers understand and in terms of how their data is going to be used. let me go to the terms of services. under paragraph number two, you say that you own all of the content and information that you post on facebook. those which lister

today a number of times. —— that is what you have told us here and abroad times. if i choose to terminate my facebook account, and eibar facebook or any third parties from using the data that i have previously supplied for any purpose whatsoever? —— can i bar facebook? you should. and you do. how about third parties that you have contracted with to target advertising for themselves? do you call back that information, as well or does not remain in their custody. ? this is a very important question. i'm glad you brought this up. as a common misconception about this book. that we sell data to advertisers. we do not sell data to advertisers. we do not sell data to advertisers. you clearly rented. we

allow advertisers to tell us who a 1-2 allow advertisers to tell us who a 1—2 region and we do the placement. — event advertiser comes to us and says that we are a ski shop and we wa nt to says that we are a ski shop and we want to sell skis to women, we might have some sense because people share scheme related content or said they we re scheme related content or said they were interested in that. they shared, whether they are women, and we can show the ads to divide people. about the data ever changing hands and going to the advertiser. that's how our model works in something that is often misunderstood, so i appreciate that you brought that up. thank you senator corning. we indicated earlier on that too would take a couple of breaks and give our witness an opportunity and i think we have been going off orjust under two hours. i think... we can do a few more. you wanted to keep going? maybe 15 minutes. does that for? senator blumenthal is up next. thank

you for being here today. you have told us today and you have told the world that facebook was deceived by alexander kogan when he sold his information to ten x, correct? —— so the information to cambridge analytical. yes. i was reading information that was provided. in notes from you that in fact facebook was on notice that he could sell that user information. have you seen these terms of service before?” have not. who in facebook was responsible for seeing those terms of service that puts you on notice? that information could be sold? or opera review team would be

responsible for that. has anyone been fired on that application review team ? been fired on that application review team? not because of this. doesn't 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'll note that the ftc order specifically requires facebook to protect privacy. isn't there a conflict in there? 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. what happened here was, in effect, willful blindness. it was tedious and reckless, which, in

fa ct, tedious and reckless, which, in fact, amounted to a violation should ftc consent decree. would you agree? no. my understanding was not that this was a violation of the decree. i think we need to take a broader view of our responsibility around privacy decides what is mandated in the loss. here is my reservation tonight apologise 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 i'm going to submit a letter from the record from someone with your permission that indicates not only a lack of resources, but lack

of attention to privacy and so my reservation about your testimony todayis reservation about your testimony today is that i don't see how you can change your business model unless there are specific rules of the road, your business model is to monetize user information to maximise profit over privacy and up, unless there are specific rules and requirements enforced by an outside agency, i have no requirements enforced by an outside agency, i have no assurance requirements enforced by an outside agency, i have no assurance that these kinds of vague commitments are going to produce action, sol these kinds of vague commitments are going to produce action, so i wanted to ask you a couple of very specific questions and they are based on legislation in my data hacked, legislation in my data hacked, legislation that a senator is putting in today, the consent act, which i'm joining. don't you agree

that companies ought to be required to provide users with clear, plain information about how their data will be used and specific ability to consent to the use of that information? i do generally agree with what you are saying. i laid that out earlier when i talked about... would you agree to an opt in as opposed to an opt out?” about... would you agree to an opt in as opposed to an opt out? i think that that that certainly makes sense to discuss and i think the details around this matter a lot of... would you agree that users should be able to access all of their information? yes, of course. all the information that you collect as a result of purchases from data brokers as well as tracking data? we have already a download your information tool that

allows people to seek and to take out all of the information that facebook does about them or that they'd put into facebook. i agree with that. we already have that. i have a number of 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 the scourge of sex in the fight against the scourge of sex trafficking and the bill that we have just passed that will be signed into law tomorrow. the stop exploiting sex trafficking act was pa rt of exploiting sex trafficking act was part of our... i look forward to having my tumour with you on this. senator cruise. thank you very much. this facebook consider itself a

neutral public forum? we consider ourselves a platform for all ideas. let me ask the question again. this facebook consider itself to be a neutral public forum? revisited as of your company have given to representatives of your company have given conflicting answers. are you a neutral... allowing people to speak a second i don't ? hate speech, nudity, anything that makes people feel u nsafe nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community, we don't allow. from that perspective, that's why we generally try to refer to what we do as a platform for ideas. i know the time is constrained. it's 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 public for the more you engage in political

speech, which is right the few first amendment? our goal is not to engage in political speech. i'm not familiar with the specific legal language of the law that you speak to. i would language of the law that you speak to. iwould need language of the law that you speak to. i would need to follow—up on that. i'm trying to lay out how broadly i think about.” that. i'm trying to lay out how broadly i think about. i will say there are a great many american that facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship. there have been numerous instances with facebook in may of 2016, someone reported that facebook had routinely repressed stories from trending news, including stories about seo pack and the lowest lorne or irs and including stories about glenn beck. in addition to that, facebook has initially sat down beautiful a appreciation day page.

has blocked a post of a fox news reporter, has blocked about two doesn't have the pages and has re ce ntly doesn't have the pages and has recently blocked a time support a puzzling page with 1.2 million facebook followers, after determining their content and brand where quote unsafe to the community. to be great many of americans, that appears to be a pretty pattern of political bias. do you agree? let me say a few things about this. first, i understand where that concern is coming from because facebook and the tech industry are located in silicon valley, which is an extremely left leaning place. this is a concern that i have and that i try to root out of the company, making sure that we don't have any bias in the work that we do and i think it is a fair concern that people would... let me ask you this. are you aware of the penny had or page tugendhat from

planned parenthood ? penny had or page tugendhat from planned parenthood? tunica had been taken down from planned parenthood? how about a move on .org? how about any democratic candidate for office? i'm not specifically aware. i'm not sure. in your testimony, you say that you have 15—20,000 people working on security and content review. do you have the political orientation of those 20,000 people engaging content review? we do not generally ask people about their political orientation when they are joining the company. so a ceo, have your permit hiring or firing decisions based on political decisions based on political decisions and what candidate they supported? no. why was palmer lucky fired? it would be inappropriate to speak about that. i can commit that it was not because of a political view. do you know those 15 to 20,000

people engaged in content review how many if any had ever supported financially a republican candidate for office? i do not know that. your testimony says it is not enough that we testimony says it is not enough that we just connect people. we have to make sure those connections are positive. it's says we have to make sure people aren't using their voice to hurt people or spread misinformation. we have a responsibility notjust misinformation. we have a responsibility not just to build tools to make sure those tools are used for good. do you feel you get server used for good. do you feel you get server spots ability to assess users whether they are good and positive connections or one that those 15 to 20,000 people deem unacceptable or deplorable? you're asking me personally? i think there are a number of things we would all agree are the lead data. foreign interference in our elections, terrorism, self harm. but about censorship? i think you would agree

that we should remove terrorist propaganda from the service. that's, iagree, is propaganda from the service. that's, i agree, is bad activity. we're generally proud of how well we do without. i want to get this in before the engineer. today before the end here. i'm committed to make sure that facebook is a platform for all ages. that is an important founding principal of what we are proud... platform for all ideas. that is something i will be making sure is the case. thank you senator cruise. do you want a break now? or do you want to keep going? sure. that was pretty good. senator whitehouse is up next, but if you wa nted whitehouse is up next, but if you wanted to take a five—minute break right now, we have now been going a good two hours. we will recess for five minutes and reconvene. indeed, they have been going for

more than two hours now. a full one session, mark zuckerberg or appearing on capitol hill there before two senate committees. they're going to be two hearings over the next couple of days and those questions, some of them very tough, have been coming thick fast. let's recap on some of what we've heard so far. mark zuckerberg has been questioned at a congressional hearing in washington, where he was asked how up to 87 million facebook users' data was improperly shared with political consultancy cambridge analytica. it was a rare, joint hearing before two senate panels — the commerce and judiciary committees — that makes 43 senators in all. one senator, bill nelson, challenged mr zuckerberg on why facebook failed to notify its users that cambridge analytica had acquired their profiles. when you discovered the cambridge analytica had fraudulently obtained all this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million?

when we learned in 2015 that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app and we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to believe them. we should have followed up and done a full audit then and that is not a mistake that we will make. yes, you did that and you apologised for it. but you didn't notify them. and it do you think that you have an ethical obligation to notify 87 million facebook users? senator, when we heard back from cambridge analytica that they told us that they weren't using the data and had deleted it,

we considered it a closed case. in retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. we shouldn't have taken their word for it and we have updated our policies and how we're going to operate the company to make sure that we don't make that mistake again. did anybody the ftc? no, senator, for the same reason. we had considered it a closed case. it kept going. not long after, senator dianne feinstein raised the issue of russia's alleged influencing of the us election, and asked zuckerberg what facebook had done to stop fake accounts spreading fake spreading fake news? just last week, we are 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, so we took the step last week, a pretty big step for us, of taking down sanctioned news organisations in russia as part of an operation to remove 270 fake accounts and pages, part of their broader network

in russia, that was actually not targeting international interference as much as... i'm sorry, let me correct that. it was primarily targeting spreading misinformation in russia itself as well as certain russian speaking neighbouring countries. how many accounts of this type have you taken down? in the ira specifically, the ones that we have pegged back to the ira, we can identify the a70 in the american elections and the 270 that we specifically went after in russia last week. there are many others that our systems catch, which are more difficult to attribute 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 my team follow—up with you on more information, if that would be helpful. senator lindsey graham questioned mark zuckerberg about the market dominance of facebook. let's have a listen to the exchange. who is your biggest competitor? we have a lot of competitors. who's

your biggest? the categories... do your biggest? the categories... do you want us one? am not sure i can give one, but i can get a bunch. there are three categories that i would focus on. one are the other tech platforms, so google, apple, amazon, microsoft. we overlap with them. today provide the same service you provide? in different ways. ifi buy a ford and it doesn't work well andi buy a ford and it doesn't work well and i don't like it, i can buy a chevy. if i'm upset with facebook, with the equivalent product i can go sign up with the equivalent product i can go s' with the equivalent product i can go sign up for? the second category that i was going to talk about... i'm not talking about categories. as the real competition you face? car companies face a lot of competition. if they make a defective car, it gets out in the world and people stop buying that car. they buy another one. is there an alternative to facebook in the private sector? yes. the average american uses a two

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 text apps to e—mails. people. ranging from text apps to e-mails. is it the same service that you provide? is twitter the same of what you do? you don't think you have a monopoly? it certainly doesn't feel like that to me. ok. so it doesn't? instagram, you bought instrument. they were very talented app developers who are making to good use of our platform and interested our values. it is a good businesses. my point is, one way to regulate a company is through competition, to government regulation. here is the question that all of us got that answer. what did we tell our constituents given what has happened here, why we should look to self regulate? was would you tell people in south carolina that, given all the things we carolina that, given all the things we just discovered here, it's a good

idea for us to rely upon youtube regulate your own business practises? —— regulate upon youtube regulate your own business practises? tetonic you to regulate your own business practises. he was a company, you welcome regulation?” think if it's the right regulation. do you think the europeans get it right? i think they get things right. that's true. would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry? absolutely. like mark zuckerberg, are david lee has been travelling together now. when he first sat down there, it look like his worst nightmare. how has he been doing?” look like his worst nightmare. how has he been doing? i think his confidence grew from that moment. when he first sat down, he looked

like a lost boy, i think, surrounded by photographers, lenses and his face. a metaphor for the by photographers, lenses and his face. a metaphorfor the privacy invasion his company may have helped contribute to. i think as time went on and he was taking on the questions, which were quite a basic for mark zuckerberg, he was able to a nswer for mark zuckerberg, he was able to answer that meant he grew in confidence with his answers. there we re confidence with his answers. there were a few sticky patches, though. i think his answers around competition won't be seen as entirely convincing and indeed, many people in the past have called for this book to be broken up because of this reason. i think i'm also, when he was being questioned about the fact that facebook allowed a personality app on the platform that eventually resulted in tens of millions of people's data allegedly being taken by tempo won, defected that this was shown and is allotted in the first place —— taken by cambridge analytica. the fact that this contract was shown was outlawed in the first place. on balance, i think

he has managed to handle it fairly well, even if he did look a bit of co mforta ble well, even if he did look a bit of comfortable throughout. they're taking a short break at the moment. it will resume again and there is a separate hearing tomorrow in the full glare of publicity for mark zuckerberg. what, tangibly, do these hearings achieve? that's a good question. there are many people here that this is a chance for politicians to be seen on television rating powerful executives of the world. i think for facebook, it does show that are taking some accountability for the operation of its company. this is of course the first time mark zuckerberg has appeared here to defend the company that he founded. in terms of actual progress, i do not think there is going to be a great deal from this session. stemming from this as a starting point, we minister to some real discussions about what regulation may look like when it comes to facebook. —— we may start

to see some real. regulation on political advertisements would not have too much impact on his business. if we move to a european model for facebook, that would be a big, big change for the company and frankly, almost a change of philosophy for us politics, which up until this point has not had much putted —— has had much more strict views. not so much change now but i think conversations stemming from here today and tomorrow could lead to big changes that will affect facebook. dave, we have heard a fair amount of skepticism about how marked —— how mark zuckerberg's commitments can hold weight. how can it actually change any way? it's

been called the apology tour a number of times so far in the hearing, and indeed at one point, a board showing some of mark zuckerberg's apologies through the yea rs was zuckerberg's apologies through the years was shown in the hearing, a fairly embarrassing moment, it has to be said, for mr zuckerberg. there was a standout moment where mr zuckerberg was asked whether the company had introduced a paid model for facebook instead of having advertising thrown at you. interesting, he did not deny that wasn't ever looking at. what many people were hearing is that there was a possibility they may one day consider an option where people could decide to pay to use facebook instead of having advertising. that would be a big, big table for this company and certainly a deviation from what it's normally stated its aim to beat. but i guess a sign of mr zuckerberg is thinking long—term about the hit the business model may ta ke about the hit the business model may take from some of the followed from

the cambridge analytica scandal. dave, we think they're getting under way again. we will give you a short break. let's go in and listen to what is going on inside that senate hearing. it is set to resume any moment now... senator feinstein asked permission to put letters into the record. without objection, it will be put in. the electric privacy information centre. senator whitehouse. thank you, chairman. thank you. mrchairman, whitehouse. thank you, chairman. thank you. mr chairman, i want to correct one thing that i said earlier in response to a question from senator lea hy. earlier in response to a question from senator leahy. he had asked if why we did not ban cameras and iloka

at the time when we learn about that in 2015, answered what my understanding was was that they were not on the platform, were not an app developer or advertiser —— why we did not think cambridge analytica. my did not think cambridge analytica. my team let me know that cambridge analytica did start as an advertiser in 2050, so we could have a theory bandied them then. we made a mistake in not doing so, but i wanted to make sure i corrected that because i made a mistake, got that wrong earlier. thank you, chairman. welcome back. on the subject of bands, iwant welcome back. on the subject of bands, i want to explore a little bit what these mean. facebook has done disreputable damage with its association with alexander cook and

cambridge analytica, which is one of the reasons you're having this wonderful afternoon with us. he testified that the app has been banned. as he also been banned? yes, my understanding is he has. so if you were my understanding is he has. so if you were to open up another account undera name and you were to open up another account under a name and you were able to find a document that would be taken, closed down? senator, i believe we are preventing him from doing any more apps. does he have a facebook account is still? i believe the a nswer to account is still? i believe the answer to that is no but i can follow—up with you afterwards. answer to that is no but i can follow-up with you afterwards. and with respect to cambridge analytica, your testimony first, you require them to formally certify they had deleted all improperly acquired eta. where did that formal certification ta ke where did that formal certification take place ? where did that formal certification take place? that sounds kind of like a quasi—official thing to form.

first, they sent us an e—mail notice from the chief data officer telling us that they did not have any of the data any more, they deleted it and we re data any more, they deleted it and were not using it. later, we followed up with a full legal contract with a certified that they had deleted the data. in a legal contract? yes, i believe so. and that he ultimately said that you had banned the cambridge analytica. who exactly is banned? what if they opened up rhode island analytic? with that enterprise also be banned as yellow senator, that is . senator, that is certainly the intent. we have banned other groups and if we find other firms that are

associated with them, we will block them from the platform as well. are individual principles of the firm also banned? senator, my understanding is we are blocking them from doing business on the platform, but i do not believe we are blocking people's personal accounts. can any customer amend your terms of service or is the terms of service a or leave it proposition for the average customer? senator, ithink the 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 and the whole service is about which friends you connect to, which people you connect to. i guess my question would relate to... senator graham held at that big fat document... the

literature not to be of consequence andi literature not to be of consequence and i wanted to establish with you that the document that senator graham held up is not a negotiable thing with individual customers, thatis thing with individual customers, that is a take it or leave it proposition for your customers to sign up forwere proposition for your customers to sign up for were not use the service. yes, that is right on the terms of service, although we offer a lot of controls so people can configure the experience how they wa nt configure the experience how they want it. last question on a different subject, having to do with the off —— with the authorisation process you are taking for entities that are putting a political content or issue ad content. you said that they all have to go through an authorisation process before they do it. you said here we will be verifying the identity. how did you look behind a show corporation and find who's really behind it to your authorisation process? step back. do

you need to look behind shell corporations in order to find out who's really behind the content that's being posted, and if you may need to look behind a shell corporation, how we go about doing that? how we go back to the true, what lawyers would call beneficial owner, of the site that putting up the political material? senator, are you referring to the verification of political and issue as? yes, and before that, political ads. what we are going to do is require a valid government identity and we're going to verify the location to stop we're going to do that so that way someone sitting in russia, for example, could not say they are in america and therefore be able to run an election had to but if they were running through a corporation domiciled in delaware, you would know they were actually in a russian owner. that is correct. my time is up, and

i enjoy the chair getting the extra seconds. i wanted to follow-up on a statement you made before the break to go. he said there were categories of speech, some types of content that facebook would not want any pa rt of that facebook would not want any part of and it takes active steps to avoid disseminating, including hate speech, nudity, racist speech. i assume the 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 out of one of those categories is prohibited? senator, yes. there are generally two categories of content that we are very worried about. one are things that could cause real—world harm, so terrorism, self harm, i would

consider election interference to fit into that. and those of the types of things that we... i don't really consider that to be much discussion around whether those are good or bad topics.” discussion around whether those are good or bad topics. i am not disputing that. what i'm asking is what you get beyond is categories of what you get beyond is categories of what it should and should be prohibited, that facebook should not be favouring or disfavored speech based on its content, based on the viewpoint of that speech? senator, in general, that's our position. 0ne 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 are not bullied or basically intimidated or the environment feels unsafe for them. so when you say in general, that's the exception you are or from to, the exception you are or from to, the exception you are or from to, the exception being that if someone feels bullied and even if it's not a terrorist act, nudity, terrorist

threat to the racist speech or something like that, beyond that you would you step in, put your thumb on the scale as far as the content being posted? senator, no. in general, our goal is to allow people to have as much expression as possible. so subject to the exceptions we have discussed, you would stay out of that. let me ask you this. isn't there a significant free—market incentive that a social media company including yours has. don't you have free—market incentives? don't your free—market incentives? don't your free—market incentives align with those of us here who want to see data safeguarded? absolutely. do you have the technological means to make sure that does not happen and to protect 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. for example, what we saw here was people chose to share information with an app developer. that according to a iv system is designed. that information was transferred out of our system to developers this person had. that is going to require much more active intervention and auditing for must remind going forward because once it is out of our system, it is a lot harderfor is out of our system, it is a lot harder for us is out of our system, it is a lot harderfor us to have is out of our system, it is a lot harder for us to have a full understanding of what's happening. from what you said today and from previous statements made by you and other officials at your company, data is at the centre of your business model. it's how you make money, your ability to run your business effectively given that you

don't charge your users is based on monetizing data. and so the real dave —— issue, it seems to me, is what you tell the public, the users of facebook, about what you are going to do with the data. 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 might be surprising to facebook users? senator, i would surprising to facebook users? senator, iwould hope surprising to facebook users? senator, i would hope that what we do with data is not surprising that people. has it been at times? senator, i think in this case, people certainly did not expect this developer to sell the data to cambridge analytica. in general, there are two types of data that

facebook has. the vast majority are them in the first category, content that people chose to share on the service themselves. that's all the photos that you share, the post that you make, what you think of is the facebook service. everyone has control every single time that they go to share that. they can delete that data anytime they want. full control, a majority of the data. the second category is around specific data we collect in order to make the advertising experience is better and more relevant and work for businesses. in this offer, if you show you and at and you click through and go somewhere else, we can measure that you actually, that the ad worked. that helps make the experience or relevant and better. you also have control, completely, of that second type of data. you can turn off the ability for facebook to collect that. your ads will get worse so a lot of people don't want

to do that, but you have complete control. thank you, mr chairman. i wa nt control. thank you, mr chairman. i want to follow—up on the questions around the terms of service. terms of service are around 3200 word. i think the point has been well made that people really have no earthly idea what signing up for, and i understand that at the present time, that's legally binding but i'm wondering if you could explain to the bills —— millions of users in plain language what they are setting up plain language what they are setting r? plain language what they are setting up for? senator, that's a good and important question here. in general, you sign up for facebook. you get the ability to share the information that you want with people. that's what the service is, right? you can connect with the people that you wa nt connect with the people that you want and share content that matters with you, whether that's photos or links or posts. you don't need to

put anything up in the first book if you don't want. what about what the people are worried about, not the fun part? well, what is that? the pa rt fun part? well, what is that? the part that people are worried about is that the data is going to be improperly used. people or try to figure out, or your private messages determining the apps? if you click a light on something or a particular movie, i think that's fair game. what we don't understand exactly, because both as a matter of practise and asa because both as a matter of practise and as a matter of not being able to decipher those terms of service and the privacy policy, is what exactly are you doing with the data and do you draw a distinction between data collected in the process of utilising the platform and that

which we clearly volunteer to the public to present ourselves to other facebook users? senator, 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 ranked services like news feed and adds, to provide a more relevant experience. than betray couple of it specific examples. if i am e—mailing within whatsapp, does that... we don't see any of the content in what's app. that is fully encrypted. but is there any algorithm that spits out any to your ad platform? let's say i am you leave —— i am e—mailing about black panther, do i get an e—mail about that? e—mailing about black panther, do i get an e-mail about that? facebook

does not see information gathered from whatsapp. that is not what i am asking... i think the answer to your specific question is if you mess in —— message someone about black panther, it would not be... a matter of principle, you're saying we our customers to have more rather than less. i cannot believe that it is true as a legal matter that i actually own my facebook data because you are the one monetizing that. do you want to modify that? it doesn't seem to me that we own our own data, otherwise we'll be a type. “ we own data, otherwise we'll be a type. —— we would be getting a cut. own data, otherwise we'll be a type. -- we would be getting a cut. you own it in the sense that you determine the sense in which it issues. when you use a facebook, you

are renting us a licence for us to show it to other people. your definition of ownership is i signed up definition of ownership is i signed up voluntarily and and i may delete the account if i wish. i think it is more granular than that. you can choose each photo, each message. and you can delete those, not your whole account. in the time i have left, eat i i read iread in i read in the shooting article this week that proposes the concept of information fiduciary. people think of fiduciary in the economic sense but this is really about a trust relationship, like doctors and lawyers. tech companies should hold in trust are personal data. are you open to the idea of information fiduciary enshrined in statute?”

think it is certainly in idea of an object is certainly thoughtful —— and jack is certainly thoughtful. thank you, mr chairman. thank you, mr zuckerberg, for being here today. i appreciate your testimony. the full scope of facebook user's activity can print a very personal picture, i think, activity can print a very personal picture, ithink, and activity can print a very personal picture, i think, and additionally you have those 2 billion users that are out there every month. and so we all know that that's larger than the population of most countries. so how many data categories do you store? this facebook store —— on the categories that you collect? can you clarify what you mean by category? the articles out there previously

that facebook collects about 96 ada categories for those 2 billion active users. i from consumers globally, simon rea this —— so how many does facebook store of information you are collecting? senator, the way i think about this is there are two broad categories. this probably doesn't line up the report that you were seeing is and i can make sure that we follow—up with you afterwards to get you the information you need on that. the two broad categories i i think about our content that a person has chosen to share and that

they have complete control over, they have complete control over, they get to control where they put it into the service, when the ticket document who sees it, and other category are data are connected to making the ads relevant. you have com plete making the ads relevant. you have complete control over both. you can turn off the data related to ads... you can control content, who sees its... and did this facebook store any of that? yes. how much do you store of that? all of it? everything we store of that? all of it? everything we clicked on from his in storage somewhere? senator, we store data about what people share on the service and information that's required to do ranking better to show you what you care about in the news feed. do you store text history, user content and activity, device location? senator, some of

that content with people's permission, we do store. do you disclose any of that? yes. senator, in orderfor people disclose any of that? yes. senator, in order for people to share the information with facebook, i believe that almost everything you said would be opt in. and the privacy settings, it is my understanding 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 the contents. and that 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. for example, people have a control about face resignation. if

people don't want us to be able to tell when they are in other friends photos, they can turn that off. and there was an action taken by the ftc in 2011, and he 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 he responded there about complete control, so you and your company have used that term repeatedly come andi have used that term repeatedly come and i believe you use it's to reassure users. is and i believe you use it's to reassure users. is that correct? you do have control and complete control over the information? senator, this is how the service works. the core thing that facebook is, and all of

our service is, whatsapp, instagram, messenger. is this than a question ofa messenger. is this than a question of a spoke is about feeling safe or our users actually safe? is facebook being safe? senator i think facebook is safe. i use it and my family use it and all my people i love and care about using all the time. these controls are not just to about using all the time. these controls are notjust to make people feel safe and it's actually what people in the product. the reality is, just think about how you use this yourself. you take a photo, you are not going to want to send that to the same people. sometimes you wa nt to to the same people. sometimes you want to send it to one person, sometimes he might send it to a group. i bet you have a page. you wa nt to group. i bet you have a page. you want to put stuff out there publicly said you could send it to your constituents. this controls are very important in practise for the operation of the service, notjust to build trust, although i think

they do do that. it's also to make sure people can fulfil their goals with the service. thank you, chairman grassley. thank you, mr zuckerberg forjoining us today. i think the reason we are having this hearing today... you own and control the data you put on facebook. he said some very positive things about data ownership, but it's also the reality that facebook is a for—profit reality that facebook is a for— profit entity that 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 it the right people come out after their attention and get the right results. ——, did after their attention. there are a lot of examples were ad targeting has led to results we think we all would

disagree with and that concern us. you vardy admitted facebook's on added tools allow russians to target users,, voters, and that that may have had in significant role in the election. you said today that... i am left questioning whether your ad targeting tools would allow other concerning practises like diet pill manufacturers targeting teenagers we re manufacturers targeting teenagers were struggling with their weight or allowing a liquor distributor to target alcoholics or a gambling organisation to target those with gambling problems. iwould organisation to target those with gambling problems. i would give you one concrete example. i'm sure you're familiar with pro public a backin you're familiar with pro public a back in 2016, facebook allows advertisers to exclude people by race in the real estate advertising. you could say, this particular ad, i

only want to be seen by white folks. you probably announced that was a bad idea, you're going to change the rules and the tools, and change the system. and yet a year later, a follow—up story said that those changes have not fully been made and it was still possible to target housing advertisement. my concern is that this practise of making bold and engaging promises about changes and engaging promises about changes and practises, and the reality of how facebook has operated in the real world are in persistent tension. does rory going to lead the first of those. if you want to watch the continuing coverage of all that, you can switch over to the bbc news facebook page, where else. i will be back with outside source at the same time watching. the us, the uk and france consider

military action against syria. at the un, there's deadlock over an inquiry into the suspected syrian chemical attack. the security council has been unable to act solely because russia has abused the power of veto to protect syria from international scrutiny. western powers have been shaken by images of apparent chlorine gas victims in syria. we'll be asking what action is now available to them. also tonight: yulia skripal, poisoned by a nerve agent in salisbury, is discharged from hospital. facebook‘s head mark zuckerberg, faces the press and the politicians in congress. it's pretty much impossible, i believe, to start a company in your dorm room and then grow it to be to the scale we're at now without making some mistakes.