trends from data which we understand trends from data which we can see and we used to improve our products for our users. we are focused on improving our products... i appreciate that. google's owner documents and interviews with companies showed google did just that which is very disturbing and anti—competitive. you also began to privilege its own sites, and investigative report showing 63% of web searches that start on google also end somewhere i'm google's own website and it shows an increasingly wild garden that keeps users on google sites. my time is running out, but missed a bit shy, thank you, the evidence seems clear to me, that google became the gateway to the internet it began to abuse its power, used to surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats and crush them for step it

has dampened innovation and grammatical increase the price of accessing users on internet virtually ensuring any business that wa nts to virtually ensuring any business that wants to be found on the web must pay google. with that i recognise the ranking member of the subcommittee for his first round of questioning was that i have been conquest with 32 years, it is coming to an end at the end of this year. but during that period of time, during the decade of the 905 and the thou5and5, i wa5 involved with the 5cience committee and chairman of thi5 5cience committee and chairman of this committee and trying to make the net univer5al, opened it up to everybody. one of the the5e5 we used wa5 that net5 5hould end becoming basically the was that net5 should end becoming basically the debate on issues, not only in our country but throughout the world. and in exchange for that,

this committee and the congress need internet providers with immunity, so if this had something defamatory, the isps could not be part of a lawsuit for defamation. after hearing mrjordan lawsuit for defamation. after hearing mr jordan give lawsuit for defamation. after hearing mrjordan give a long line censorship of conservative viewpoints, i am concerned that the people who manage the net and the four of you manage a big part of the net and are ending up using this as a political screen. conservatives are consumers also and the way the net wa5 are consumers also and the way the net was put together in the eyes of congress is that everybody 5hould net was put together in the eyes of congress is that everybody should be able to speak their mind. mr zuckerberg, mr gerrard and's a litany of censorship zeros in on

facebook. exactly what are your standards and filtering out political speech? some people out there may not agree with. thank you for the opportunity to address this. our goal is to offer offer a platform for all ideas. we want to give everyone in the world a voice to share their experiences and ideas, a lot of those are things that happen day in their lives. i think we have distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends free expression the most, we do have community standards around things that you can and cannot say, i think you would likely agree with most of them, banning categories of harm such as promoting terrorist propaganda, child exploitation, incitement of

violence, some more legalistic things like intellectual property violations. and they also ban things like hate speech that could lead to dehumanising people... like hate speech that could lead to dehumanising people. . m like hate speech that could lead to dehumanising people... ifi like hate speech that could lead to dehumanising people... if i may like hate speech that could lead to dehumanising people... ifi may ask you specifically, it was reported that donald trump junior got you specifically, it was reported that donald trumpjunior got taken down for a period of time because he put something up, the efficacy of a drug. i would put something up, the efficacy of a drug. iwould not put something up, the efficacy of a drug. i would not take put something up, the efficacy of a drug. iwould not take it put something up, the efficacy of a drug. i would not take it myself, but there is still a debate on whether it is effective either in treating or preventing covid—19. and i think this is a legitimate matter of discussion, so it would be up to a patient and a doctor to determine whether at the correct medication wa5 whether at the correct medication was that given the circumstances. i did that happen? first to be clear

what you may be preferring happened onto it is so it is how to speak to that, but our policies on this, we do prohibit content that will lead to imminent risk of harm and stating that there is a proven cure for covid—i9 when there is in fact at nine may encourage someone to take something that could have some adverse effect so we do take that down. we do not prohibit discussion around trials of drugs or people saying they think that might work or personal experiences with drugs, but if someone is going to say that something is proven when in fact it is not, that could lead people... wouldn't that be up to somebody, and the other side of the issue, this is not proven, and i know is a fact that for people with certain conditions, it is indicated they 5hould conditions, it is indicated they should not take it. but wouldn't that be up to somebody else to say,

0k, that be up to somebody else to say, ok, what somebody posted on this, it really isn't true and here is about the facts are? rather than having a twitter or facebook take it down. congressmen, in general i agree with you and we do not want to become the arbiters of truth. i think that would be a bad position for us to be in and not what we should be doing. but one specific claims, if someone is going to go out and say that the drug is proven to cuba covid—i9 when in fact it is not proven and that statement could lead people to take a drug that in some cases some of the data suggests it may be harmful to people, we think we should take that down, it could cause imminent risk of harm. thank you. thank you i now recognise the distinguished chair of the fulljudiciary

now recognise the distinguished chair of the full judiciary from new york. thank you. mr zuckerberg, i wonder thank you for providing us information during the investigation. howeverthe information during the investigation. however the documents you provided tell a very disturbing story. and that star is that facebook site instagram a5 a powerful threat that could siphon business away from facebook so rather than compete with it, facebook about it. this is exactly the type of competitive acquisition that the anti—trust laws web designed to prevent. you have written that facebook can likely always just buy any competitive product. in fact, on the day facebook bought instagram, would are described as a threat, you wrote one thing about start—ups i5 described as a threat, you wrote one thing about start—ups is you can often acquire them. mr zuckerberg, you are referring to companies like instagram in that, weren't you?|j you are referring to companies like instagram in that, weren't you? i do not have the exact document in front of me but i have always been clear

that we viewed instagram both as a competitive and a complement to our services. in the growing space around when smartphones became big, but in the time no one thought of them as a general social network and people did not think of them as competing with us in that space. i think the acquisition has been wildly successful, we were able to continue investing in it and growing it as continue investing in it and growing itasa continue investing in it and growing it as a stand—alone brand that reaches many more people a think either kevin the co—founder or eye that would be possible at any time. we are also incorporating some technology to making facebook‘s photo sharing products better. so, yes. in early 2012 when facebook contemplated acquiring instagram, you told new ceo that instagram

could be very disruptive to facebook and in the weeks leading up to the deal you describe instagram a5 a thread saying instagram can't meaningfully hurt us without becoming a huge business. what did you mean when you describe instagram asa you mean when you describe instagram a5 a threat, as disruptive, and when you said that instagram could meaningfully hurt facebook? did you meaningfully hurt facebook? did you mean that consumers might switch to instagram from facebook? thank you for the opportunity to address this. at the time there was a small but growing field... did you mean that consumers might switch? did you mean that? in the space of mobile photos and camera apps, which was growing, they were a competitor. fine, fine. in february of that year, february

2012, you told facebook's chief financial officer that you are interested in buying instagram for the purpose of the deal was to neutralise the potential competitor or or integrate their product with facebook wa5 w answered a combination of both, saying what we are buying is time, even if some new competitors springs up, those products will not get much traction since we already have the mechanics. what did you mean when you and said that the purpose of the deal was to neutralise a potential competitor? there are not my words, but, yes, i have been clear instagram was a competitor in the space of mobile photo sharing, there were lots of others at the time that competed with apps like the sco cam. it was a subset of the overall space of connecting that we exist in and by

having them join us, they went from being a competitor in the space of being a competitor in the space of being a competitor in the space of being a mobile camera to an app we could help grow and help get more people to be able to use and be on ourteam. ithink people to be able to use and be on our team. i think there has been wildly successful. merge and acquisitions that buy of potential competitive threats violate the anti—trust laws. in your own laws, you purchased instagram to neutralise a competitive threat. if this was an illegal merge at the time of the transaction, why shouldn't instagram now be broken up into a separate company? congressmen, i think the ftc had all of these documents and reviewed this and unanimously voted at a time not to challenge the acquisition. i think with hindsight it probably looks like obvious that instagram would have reached the scale it has today, but at the time it was for from obvious, lights up the competitors, including other wraps

that were successful at a time and had a great founders and entrepreneurs, i don't think those apps exist today. the acquisition has done wildly well, largely because not just of has done wildly well, largely because notjust of the has done wildly well, largely because not just of the founder's talent but we invested heavily in building the infrastructure and promoting it and working on security and lots of things around this i do think this is has been an amazing success story. thank you. you are making a point. in closing, mr chairman i want to end where i began fuzzed up facebook site instagram i5 a threat that could potentially siphon business away from facebook. rather than compete with it, they parted. this is exactly the start of anti—competitive acquisition that the anti—trust laws were designed to prevent. this should never have happened in the first place, it

5hould happened in the first place, it should never have been permitted to happen and cannot happen again. thank you, mrchairman happen and cannot happen again. thank you, mr chairman fuzzed up i would remind the witness that the ftc affairs do not alleviate the anti—trust challenges that the chairman described. i will recognise the gentleman from colorado and thank him for co—hosting one of the most important field areas critical in this investigation. thank you. i wa nt in this investigation. thank you. i want to offer my appreciation for the bypass and where you have approached the sub committee investigation. i want to say that capitalism is the greatest instrument for freedom this world has ever seen, it has given the united states the freedom and means to defeat the soviet union, but back fascism and put a man on the moon. this economic system has lifted millions out of poverty. it has made america the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. our witnesses have ta ken nation in the world. our witnesses have taken idea is born out of their

dharma room, garage, a warehouse and built the dreams into four at the biggest power players in the digital global economy. you have all enjoyed the freedom to succeed. i do not believe it is necessarily bad, bigger is often a force for good. however i want to address one particularly disturbing issue. mr pj, google dropped out of the running for pentagon contract to complete the joint enterprise defence infrastructure jedi contract valued at more than $10 billion fuzzed up google's stated reason for removing itself from the bidding process is the project did not align with google's carpet values and principles. this is the same us military that fights for our freedoms and stands as a force for good across the globe. these are the same soldiers, sailors and airmen that sacrifice their lives to ensure you have the freedom to build your

company and set your policies without fear of interference from the government unlike in communist china. ifind the government unlike in communist china. i find it interesting that months after making this decision to withdraw from the contract, marine generaljoseph withdraw from the contract, marine general joseph dunford, the withdraw from the contract, marine generaljoseph dunford, the chairman of the usjoint generaljoseph dunford, the chairman of the us joint chiefs of staff warned the senate armed forces committee that the chinese military wa5 committee that the chinese military was directly benefiting from google's work. it made me wonder, what value has google in communist red china have in common? i ask myself, is it the chinese communist party imprisons muslims in concentration camps? like it is shown on the chart behind me. could it be they fast the slaves to work in sweatshops? maybe they are lying on the designed to support suppress free speech in hong kong. did google agree with the ccp'5 decision to lie to the world about the covid—19 pandemic? then i thought about the dragonfly experiment. i wondered if

perhaps you agree with the chinese government as make use of technology to spy on its own people and enforce a draconian security laws. these values that allow google to work with a chinese military but not the us military help explain why google wouldn't think twice about blatantly stealing a competitor's product, right down to the watermark without any hint of attribution. mr pichai, during the hearing in my home state of colorado i found a story so contrary to free—market principles i thought it must have been straight from the chinese corporate —— chinese, this party corporate —— chinese, this party corporate espionage playbook. a company that relied on your search engine to build its brand and compete, google misappropriated lyrics from genius media group's website and published those lyrics on google's and platform. however

genius caught google in the act quite literally red—handed when genius suspected this corporate theft wa5 genius suspected this corporate theft was occurring the company incorporated a digital watermark and i5 lyrics that spell out red—handed, in morse code. google's lyric boxes contain the watermark showing that your company stole what it couldn't or didn't want to produce yourself. after google executives stated they we re after google executives stated they were investigating this problematic behaviour genius created another experiment to determine the scope of the misappropriation and it turned out hundred and 71 songs for the watermark wa5 apply, 43% showed clear evidence. your company which advertises itself as a doorway to freedom take advantage of this company, all but extinguishing genius' freedom to compete. google i5 genius' freedom to compete. google is supposed to connect people to information. your corporate values once stood for freedom, platform that let capitalism flourish and help bring countless people across the globe out of poverty. my

question to you, mr pichai, did you think google could get away with following china wa5 think google could get away with following china was not corporate espionage playbook if you didn't have a monopolistic advantage in the market? congressmen, iwant to have a monopolistic advantage in the market? congressmen, i want to be able to address the important concerns he raised. first of all we are proud to support the us government. we recently signed a big project with the department of defence where we are bringing our world —class defence where we are bringing our world—class cyber security approach to help protect their networks from cyber security attacks. we have projects under way with the navy, the department of affairs, we can explain more. we have a limited presence in china and don't offer any avast search, apps, gmail, youtube, etc in china and with respect to music we license content, from other companies, and so this is a dispute between genius and the other companies in terms of their out the source of this, and we would

be happy to engage and explain what we do here for them. thank you gentlemen. i recognise the gentleman from georgia, mrjohnson, forfive minutes. thank you, mr chairman. mr cook, with over 100 million iphone users in the united states alone and with apple's ownership of the app still giving apple the ability to control which apps are allowed to be marketed to apple users, you build immense power of marketed to apple users, you build immense powerofa marketed to apple users, you build immense power of a small businesses to grow and prosper. apple is the sole decision maker a5 to grow and prosper. apple is the sole decision maker as to whether an app sole decision maker as to whether an app is made available to app users through apple's app store, is that correct? sir, the app store is a

feature of the iphone, much like the camera is and the chip is... my point is and i'm sorry to interrupt but i want to get to the point, the point is that apple is the sole decision maker a5 point is that apple is the sole decision maker as to whether an app i5 decision maker as to whether an app is made available to app users through the apple store, is that correct? if it is a native app, yes. thank you. and throughout our investigation we have heard concerns that the rules governing the app store review process are not available to app developers. the rules are made up as you go. they are interpreted and enforced and are subject to change, whenever apple sees fit to change, and developers have no choice but to go along with the changes, or they must leave the app the changes, or they must leave the app store. that is an enormous amount of power. also, the rules get changed to benefit apple, at the

expense of app developers, and the app expense of app developers, and the app store is said to also discriminate between app developers with similar apps. on the apple platform and also as to smaller app developers versus large app developers. so, mr cook, does apple not treat all app developers equally? sir, we treat every developer the same. we have open and transparent rules. it is a rigorous process. because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on, but those rules apply evenly to everyone, and as you can tell by going from... some developers are favoured over others, though, isn't that correct? that is not correct. and as you can tell from going... i'll give you an

example. baidu has de smidt app store and please play to help it navigate the app store bureaucracy, i5 navigate the app store bureaucracy, is that true? i don't know about that, sir. well, you don't have other app developers who have that same access to apple personnel, do you? we do a lot of things with developers, including looking at their data test apps regardless of whether they are small or large. let me ask you this question. apple has negotiated exceptions to its typical 30% commission for some apps, like amazon prime. i5 30% commission for some apps, like amazon prime. is that a reduced commission such as the one that amazon prime gets available to other app amazon prime gets available to other app developers? it is available to anyone meeting the conditions, yes.

let me ask you this. apple requires all app developers to use apple's payment processing system, if those developers want to sell their goods or services to apple users, through apple's app store, isn't that correct? that is correct, because... and by processing payments for apps, that you allow into the app store, you collect their customer data and use that data to inform apple a5 you collect their customer data and use that data to inform apple as to whether apple should, whether or not it would be profitable for apple to launch a competing app, isn't that correct? 84% of launch a competing app, isn't that correct? 8496 of the apps are charged nothing. the remaining 16% either pay 15, or 30, depending nothing. the remaining 16% either pay 15, or30, depending upon nothing. the remaining 16% either pay 15, or 30, depending upon the specifics. if it is in the second year of its subscription as an example and only pays 15%. year of its subscription as an example and only pays 1596. what is to stop apple from increasing its

commission to 50%? to stop apple from increasing its commission to 5096? sir, we have never increased commissions in the store, since the first day it operated in 2008. there is nothing to stop you from doing so is there? sir, i disagree strongly with that. there was a competition for developers just like there is competition for customers, and so, the competition for developers, writing apps for android, windows, xbox or playstation so we have this on petition at the developer side and the customer side, which is essentially, it is so competitive i would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smartphone business. has apple ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public about their frustrations with the app store '5 sir, we do not retaliate or bully

people. strongly against our company culture. the journal recognises the gentleman from florida, mr gates. mr zuckerberg and his american destiny made the claim that facebook is an american company with american values. many of the rest of you take a different view, that is to say that your companies don't embrace american values. it is great to see that none of you do. mr pichai i'm worried about google's market power and had it concentrates that power and had it concentrates that power and ultimately how it reads it. project maiden was a collaboration between google and the department of defence that google pulled out of citing ethical concerns, and he made the decision to pull out of that joint venture following receipt of a letter from thousands of employees, saying that google should not be in the business of war. the question mr pichai is did you have any input from your employees when making the decision to abandon that project with the united states military?

progress and, thank you for your concern. a5 progress and, thank you for your concern. as i said, we are committed to supporting the military and us government and have undertaken several projects. we take employee input but it is one input. we make decisions based on a variety of factors. a5 decisions based on a variety of factors. as a company we were new in the cloud space at that time. thank you, that is a sufficient answer, that he did take their feedback into account. in fact, some of the burglars have recently set you a letter where they've asked you to exit other partnership as a consequence of ethical concerns and have asked you to stop doing business with american law enforcement, saying that police, broadly, pearl white supremacy, and that google should not be engaged in any services to police and as you well know, you provide some of the most basic services to police like e—mail but you also provide services that help keep our crops are safe when they are doing theirjob, and

so my question is you in front of congress and the american people, will take the pledge that google will take the pledge that google will not adopt bigoted anti—police policy that is requested in the most recent letter? congressmen, we have a long track record of working with law enforcement when it is supported by due process, and the law, and we push back against request, are transparent about the requests we get if they have a history of following the law, and grow protein with no enforcement. following the law, and grow protein with no enforcementlj following the law, and grow protein with no enforcement. i understand the history. i'm asking about the future, to the first mid—wicket today can be rest assured that under your leadership google will not adopt these negative anti—police policy is? congressmen, have committed to working with law enforcement in a way that is consistent with law and due process in the us. i greatly appreciate that. i know that will be comforting to the police utilise your services.

you mentioned earlier in your discussion about china, that your engagement in china was limited. but yet google has an ai china centre, the chinese academy of science has published a paper, saying that enhanced targeting capabilities of the chinesej 20 fighter aircraft, you collaborate with chinese universities that take millions upon millions of dollars from the chinese military. as a matter of fact one of the problems, fifi lee, will undergo an employee was cited in chinese state media saying china is like a sleeping giant. when she wakes, she will tremble the world. the former secretary of defence, mr shanahan, said that the lines had been blurred in china between commercial and military application and as mr bap cited, general penfold says that the company is directly aiding the chinese military and peter o'toole, who serves a mr zuckerberg as max

bird at facebook said that the group activities in china are treasonous. he accused of treason. so why would an american company with american values serve —— so directly able chinese military but have ethical concerns about working alongside the us military on project maven, and project matter when there's a specific way to ensure that our troops are safe on the battlefield, and if you have no problem making thej and if you have no problem making the j 20 and if you have no problem making thej 20 chinese fighter more effective and is targeting why wouldn't you want to make america as effective? congressmen, with respect, we are not working with the chinese military. that is absolutely false. i had a chance to meet general dunford personally. we have clarified what we do in china. it is very limited in nature. the ai work in china is a handful of people

working on open source projects. i am happy to share and engage with the office to explain our work in china. any chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says that an american company is directly aiding china, we have an ai centre, when you're working with universities, talking about china tremble in the world, your employees, it calls into question the commitment to country and our values. i see my time has expired. i hope i have an additional grant. now the gentleman from maryland. mr zuckerberg, as you know the proliferation of fake facebook accou nts proliferation of fake facebook accounts was a key tool in the strategy of russian interference in the american election in 2016, american law enforcement, the senate and house have all found that vladimir putin engaged in a sweeping and systematic campaign to undermine american