that was discussed in your board meetings, what are the applications and interests that are being discussed without putting all teeth into this? we don't want to come back to the situation again. i believe you have all the talent, but do have the will to help us solve the problem? privacyta these are some of the biggest issues that the company has faced. feel a huge responsibility to get this right. >> do believe european regulation should be applied here in the u.s.? mark: regardless of whether we implement the exact same regulations, i would guess it would be somewhat different because we have somewhat different sensibilities in the u.s. as other countries.

we are committed to rolling out the controls and affirmative controlsnd the special are insensitive types of technology like this recognition that are required in gdp are. we are doing around the world. discussingis worth whether we should hasn't been similar in the u.s. but what i would like to say is that we are going to go forward and implement that regardless of what the regulatory outcome is in the u.s. my question will be something of a follow-up on was senator hatch was not about hiss let me agree with advice that we don't want to over regulate to the point where we are stifling innovation and investment. i understand with regard to

suggested rules or suggested legislation that there are list two schools of thought out there. one would be the isps, the internet service providers. for privacycating protections for consumers that apply to all online entities equally across the entire internet ecosystem. facebook is an as provided. many as providers may not support that effort because as providers have different business models than the isps and should not be considered alike services. so do you think we need consistent privacy protections for consumers across the entire that areecosystem based on the type of consumer information being collected, used or shared regardless of the

entity doing the collecting or using or sharing? >> this is an important question. i would differentiate between isps. i consider that to be the pipes of the internet. the platforms like facebook or the platforms on top of that, i think in general the expectations that people have of the pipes are somewhat different from the platforms so that might be areas when the news to be more regulation and one and less in the other but there may be other places where their new spin more regulation of the other type. pipes, oney, on the of the important issues that we face -- >> you me isps. >> yes. i know net neutrality has been a hobby debated topic. one of the reasons i have been out there saying that i think i willould be a case is

get my own story when i got started building at harvard. i only had one option for an isp to use. if i had to pay extra in order to make a semi-app could be potentially seen or used by other people, then we probably would not be here today. aboutr: we are talking privacy concerns. i think you and i agree that this will 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. facebook collect the call and text histories of his users that use android phones? an appwe had a medical -- called messenger.

this allows them to sink their text messages into the messaging app and to make it so that you could have won at where it has your facebook and messages in one place. we also have people the option -- >> you can opt in or out of that? --yes, you have to permit permit us that. of -- is thise practice done with minors? do you make exceptions for people aged 13-17. mark: i don't know, we can follow up. >> let's do that. there have been reports that facebook can track a user's internet browsing activity even after that user has logged off of the facebook platform. can you confirm whether or not this is true?

make sure i get is accurate, i will be better if i have my theme file a. i know that people use cookies on the internet and that you can probably correlate activity between sessions. we do that for a number of reasons including security and measuring ads to make sure the ad experiences are most effective ways people can opt out of what i want to make sure that i am precise in my and. >> what you also let us know how facebook discloses to his users that engaging in this type of tracking gives us that result? senator leahy: facebook has been served subpoenas for the special

counsel, is that correct? >> yes. have you been interviewed? >> i have not. >> others have? >> i want to be careful here i work with the special counsel is confidential and i want to make sure that in an open session i am not revealing something that is a potential area >l. >> i understand. that is why i make sure that you have had subpoenas. ,> i'm not aware of a subpoena i don't may be but i know we are working with them. six months ago, your general promised you were taking sex to servingfacebook from

unwitting co-conspirator to russian advance. unverified pages on facebook today. they werea lot like used to spread propaganda during the 2016 election. whether they are rushing crazed groups? -- areking about those you asking about those suddenly? >> yes. >> we and us a chance to our adds and changes policy that we would be there by the identity of every single advertiser. with thosemiliar pieces of content specifically. policy a decided this weaker, you would be able to verify them? >> we are going to verify the intensity of any advertiser who

is running a political or issue related at. what the act is proposing. we are following that. we will also do network pages. >> i will have my theme get back to. -- team get back to. adding thats worth we will do the same verification of identity and verification of edmonds were running large pages. even if they will 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 throughout the network. >> some may say this is about time. six month ago i asked your general counsel about facebook being a pretty rapport hate speech.

recently you blame facebook for incentive possible genocide and it has been genocide. this is the type of content i'm referring to. it calls for the death of a muslim journalist. that threat went straight through your detection system. it spread very quickly and then it's a attempt after attempt after attempt and involvement of civil society groups to get you to remove it. like could it not be removed -- removed within 24 hours sms? >> what is happening in myanmar is a terrible tragedy. >> we all agree on that but you -- blamedbook

facebook. how can you dedicate and we that makessources sure such hate speech is taking s?ousand 24 hours russian mar >> we are working on this. burmeseiring dozens of language translators. we need to ramp up our effort that dramatically. the second is we are working with some of society in myanmar to identify specific hit figures so that we can take down their accounts rather than specific pieces of content. we are getting a product him to do specific changes in myanmar and other countries that may have similar issues in the future to prevent this from happening. i sent a letter to apple asking what they're

going to do about chinese censorship. >> senator graham is up next. graham: are you familiar with andrew bosworth? mark zuckerberg: yes, i am. >> he says would connect more people, coordinated on our tools. we believed in connecting people thateply as that anything allows us to connect with people more often is defective, good. -- de facto, good. zuckerberg: he wrote that as an internal note. we have a lot of discussion internally. i disagreed with it at the time

that he wrote it. senator graham: you did a poor job of communicating displeasure with such thoughts. mark zuckerberg: we try to run our company in a way that people can express different opinions internally. thatis is an opinion disturbs me. if somebody the work for me said this, i would fire them. who is your biggest competitor? >> we have a lot of competitors. >> who is your biggest? >> can i give a bunch? there are three categories that i would focus on. techre the other platforms, google, microsoft, amazon. present -- provide the same service that you provide?

if i were upset with facebook, what is the equivalent product i can go sign up for? >> there is the second category i was hot about. -- going to talk about. >> car companies face a lot of competition. people stop buying a car. it is a very car. the average american uses a different apps that can connecticut with their friends and stay in touch with people. >> the same service you provide? >> we provide a number. >>'s twitter the same? >> it overlaps. >> you don't think you have a monopoly? >> it doesn't feel like that to me. >> it doesn't. instagram, you bought instagram. why did you buy instagram? >> because they were very

talented at developers were making good use of our platform. they understood our values. >> one way to regulate a company is the competition, through government regulation. it is the question we all want an answer to. what do we tell our constituents given what is happened here. ? what would you tell people in south carolina that have given all the things that we just discovered here, it is a good idea for us to rely upon you to regulate your own business practices? is not thatosition there should be no regulation. real question is what is the right regulation, not whether they should be. >> you think the europeans have it right? >> i think they get some things

right. >> would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry? >> absolutely. >> would you submit some proposed regulations? my teami will have follow-up with you so we can have this discussion with you across the different categories. >> when you sign up for facebook, you sign up for terms of service, are you familiar with that? >> yes. the products, features, apps, services and technologies we offer this book products are punished except for we -- when we express this. i have no idea what this means. and you look at terms of service, this is what you get. do you think the average consumer understands what they are signing up for? mark: i don't think the average person like the original document that i think it are

different ways we can communicate that and had a responsibility to do so. >> do you agree with me that you had better come up with different ways because this isn't working? his urn areas, that is so adding other areas, like the corporate of what we do, when you think about the most basic level, people come to facebook, instagram, whatsapp, messenger about 100 billion times a day to shape his of content or a message with a specific set of people and i think that basic optionality, people understand because we have controls in line every time. given the volume of the activity and the value that people tell us they're getting from that, i think that that control and line seems to be working fairly well. we can always do better and there are other services, there is more to it than just you go and push the photo. -- post a photo.

i think we can do better but for the core of the service, it is quite clear. think weckerberg, i all agree that what happened here was bad, you are knowledgeable as a bridge of trust and to a i find it was that if someone breaks into my apartment with a crowbar, if they take myself, it is just like if the manager given the keys where they didn't have any locks on the doors, it is still in.each -- a break i believe we need to have laws and rules that are sophisticated as the billing products that we have developed here and we haven't done that yet. one of the areas i focused on is the election. i appreciate the support that you and facebook and twitter have given to the honest ads app. clear, as weo be were 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 disclaimers that you can take early action as soon as june before this election so that people can view these ads including issue ads. is that correct? >> that is correct. i want to thank you for your leadership on this. area forn important the whole industry to move on. the two specific things we are doing is one is around transparency. they were going to be able to go and click on any advertiser, any page on facebook and see all of the ads they are running. that actually brings advertising online, on facebook to an even higher standard than what you have on tv or print media. there is no way you can see all of the tv ads that someone is running. now whether this campaign or third-party is sunny different messages to different types of people, i know that is a helmet

of transparency. the other pieces around verifying every single advertiser that will be when political or issue ads. senator warren, i have caught on google and other platforms to do the same. so, memo to the rest of you, we have to get this done or we will have a patchwork of ads. i hope you'll be working with us to pass this. " on the subject of cambridge, analytica. users7 million concentrated in certain states? are you able to figure out where they are from? mark: i don't have that information with me. we can follow up with your office. it was only thousands of votes in certain states. you also estimate that 126 million people have been shown from a facebook page

associated with the agency. have you determined whether those were the same facebook users whose data was shared with him was analytica? i able to make that determination? are investigating that now and we believe it is possible that there will be a connection there. >> that seems like a big deal as we look back at the last election. wylie has said that , this was improperly obtained from facebook and it could be stored in russia, do you agree that is a possibility? mark: i asking if cambridge analytica's data could be stored in russia? i don't have any specific knowledge that would suggest that. one of the steps we need to take is to go to a full audit of all of cameras analytica's systems to understand what they're doing, whether they still have

any data, to make sure we remove all of the data. if they don't, we will take legal action to make them do so. we have temporarily ceded that audit to all of allow the u.k. government to complete the government investigation press. this takes precedence over a company doing that. we are committed to doing this full audit. that way we can have more answers to this. >> you earlier stated publicly and here that you would support some privacy rules so that everyone was claimed by the same rules here. you said that you should have notified customers earlier. would you support a row that would require you to notify your users of a bridge within 72 hours? mark: that make sense to me. i think we should have our team follow up with yours to discuss the details around that more. whenthink part of this was

people don't even know that their data has been breached. that is a huge problem and i think we get to solutions faster when we get that information out there. thank you, we look forward to passing this bill. befored love to pass it the election and we're looking forward to better disclosure. >> when i saw you not too long after i entered the senate in 2011, i told you when i sent my business cards down that they came back with the message that it was the first they ever printed a facebook address on. they are days when i regretted that but what is really a lot of information that we need to get, they are days when i wonder if facebook friends is a little misstated. it doesn't seem a guy have those every single day. the platform you have created is really important and my son charlie was 13 is dedicated to

instagram. he would want to be sure that i mentioned him while i was here with you. i haven't printed that on my card yet. i will say that but we have that account as well, lots of ways to connect people. obviously is an important commodity. it is what makes your business work. i get that. however, i wonder about some of the collection efforts and maybe we can go through even yes and no and then we will get back to more expensive discussion of this. data throught user cross device tracking? we leave this to make sure that our -- their facebook instagram and other services can be sent between the devices. >> that is different is not necessarily to facebook.

i want to make sure we get this right. i want to have my same follow-up with you on that afterwards. >> that doesn't seem that competition to me. you understand this better than i do but maybe you can find me why that is complicated. do track devices that an individual who uses facebook has that is connected to the device that they use for their facebook connection but not necessarily mark: id to facebook? am not sure of the answer to that question. there may be some data that is necessary to provide the service thatwe do but i don't have sitting here today. that is something i would want to follow up on. >> the ftc flag cross device tracking as one of their concerns. generally that people are tracking devices that the users

of something like facebook don't know they are being tracked, how your collective methods? >> there are two ways we do this. one way is we try to be exhaustive in the legal documents run the terms of service and privacy policies. >> they can you do go to settings or we can show them at the top of the app so that people understand all the controls and settings that they have and can figure their experience the weather they want. >> so do people give you permission to track specific devices in their contract? if they do, is that a relatively new addition to what you do?

mark: i don't have that information. >> in my able to opt out? say you can track what i'm saying on facebook but i don't you tracking what i do on an android. yes, senator, facebook is not collecting data from other apps that you use. there maybe some specific things about the device that you're using that facebook needs to understand in order to offer the service but if you're using google or you're using some texting app, unless you specifically opt in that you want to share the testing of information, facebook wednesday that. >> has it always been that way? was that a recent addition to waysou do with those other that i might communicate? >> my understanding is that that

is how the mobile operating systems are architected. >> so you don't have bundled permissions for how i can agree to what devices i may use that you may have contact with? did you bundle that permission for my willing to say what i don't ways watch and i think we may have to take it for the record based on everybody else's time. driven: quest measure zuckerberg, which becomes will share with us the name of the hotel used data must not mark -- you stayed in last night? mark: no. >> if you message anybody, would

you share with us the names of the people you message? mark: no, i would probably choose not to do that publicly, here. i think this is all about the 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. question of what information facebook is collecting, they're sending it to and whether they ever asked me in advance by permission to do that, is that a fair thing for a user of facebook to expect? >> yes, says her, i think it will should have control over how the information is used. we talked about in some of the other questions, i think that is laid out in some of the documents but more importantly, you want to get people control in the product itself. so the most important when this happens across our service is

that everyday people come to our services to share photos, send messages. every time they chatted -- choose to share something, they have a control right there about they want to share it with. but that level of control is is truly important. >> this on the number their friends are but they may not that sometimes, that information is going way beyond their friends and sometimes, people have made money off of sharing that information. correct? mark: you are referring to our development platform. it may be useful for me to give some background on how we set that up. you can do that for the record because i have a couple of other questions i would like to ask. announcedecently something that is called messenger kids. facebook rated an apple allowing kids between the ages of six and

12 to send video and text messages through facebook as an extension of their parents account. your cartoonlike figures and other features designed to appeal to little kids, first-graders, kindergartners. fornuary 30 campaign childhood and lots of other development organizations one facebook. they pointed to a what the research demonstrated that an excessive use of devices is harmful to kids and argue that young children sibley are not ready to handle social media accounts at age six. in addition to concerns about data that is being gathered about these kids, there are , whatn limits of the law guarantees can you give us that no data from messenger kids is or will be collected or shared with those that might violate that law? mark: a number of things are important here. the background on messenger kids

is we heard feedback from thousands of parents that they want to be able to stay in touch with her kids and call them, use apps like facetime when they're working late or not around and want to connecticut with her kids but they were definitely control over that. i think we can all agree that when your kid is six or seven, even if they had access to a phone, you want to control ever they can contact. there was an app that did that. he built this service to do that. the app collect a minimum amount of information. the messages that people send is something we collect in which operate the service. in general, that data is not going to be shared with third parties. it is not connected to the broader facebook experience. >> as a lawyer, i picked up that phrase in general. it seems to suggest that in some circumstances it will be shared with third parties. >> no, it will not. to the idea be open

that someone having reached at old age, having grown up with messenger kids should be allowed to delete the data that your collective? ?- collected question mark > >> when you become our legal limit, you don't automatically go from having a messenger kids are cap to a facebook account, you have to start over and get a facebook account. i think it is a good idea to consider making sure that all that information is deleted and that in general people be starting over when they get their facebook or other accounts. >> we have some biometric information privacy act or the state does which is to regulate the commercial use of facial, voice, finger and iris scans and the like. we are not in a debate on that and i'm afraid that facebook has come down to a position of trying to carve out exceptions to that. i hope you will fill me in on how that is consistent with protecting privacy.

cornyn: i know until 2014, the mantra or motto of facebook was moved fast and break things. is that correct? >> i don't know when we changed it but the mantra is currently move fast with stable infrastructure which is a much less sexy mantra. >> it sounds more born but it was facebook mantra to move fast and break things, to think some , mistakesjudgments that you have admitted to hear or as a result of that culture or that attitude particularly as regards to personal privacy, the information under describe -- subscribers? >> sensor, i think we made mistakes because of that the broadest mistakes we made here are not taking a broad enough deal of our

responsibility. the move fast cultural value is more tactical run with the engineers can ship things and if or when we operate. big mistake we made looking back on this is viewing our responsibility as just building tools rather than viewing our whole responsibility as making sure that those tools are used for good. >> i appreciate that. or earlier, in the past we have been told that platforms like facebook, twitter, instagram and the like are neutral platforms and that the people who own and run those for-profit, and i am not criticizing do something for profit in this country but they bore no responsibility for the content. facebook andthat other social media platforms are not neutral platforms but there

are some responsibility for the content? >> aggregate we are responsible for the content. one of the that societal questions that we are going to have to answer is, the current framework that we have is based on this fact of model that assumes that there weren't ai tools that could proactively tell whether something was terrorist content or something bad. so it naturally relied on requiring people to fly for a company and in the company taking reasonable action. in the future we will have tools that are going to be able to identify more types of back content and i think that there is -- there are moral and legal obligation questions that a think we will have to mess with as a society about when we want to require companies to take action proactively on certain things. that, i have two minutes left to ask you questions. ofinterestingly, the terms

service is a legal document which discloses to your subscribers how their information is going to be used, how facebook will operate and you concede -- you doubt everybody reads or understands those terms of service. so is that is just that the subjectthat people give to the terms of service is not informed consent? they may not read it? unit they read it they may not understand it? broadernk we have a responsibility than what the law requires. >> i am asking about what your subscribers understand in terms of how their data is going to be used. let me go to the terms of service under paragraph number

two, you say you own all of the content and information you post on facebook. that is what you told us here today a number of times. choose to terminate my facebook account, ken eibar facebook or any third parties from using the data i previously supplied for any purpose whatsoever? >> yes, senator. if you delete your account, we should get rid of all your information -- we do. what about third parties, do you some of that underlying information to target advertising? do clawback that information as well? >> this is an important question. there was a very common misperception about facebook that we sell data to advertisers and we do not sell data to advertisers. >> you clearly rent it.

>> what we are that where advertisers to tell us who they want to reach and then we do the placement. so if an advertiser comes to us and says i am a ski shop and i want to sell skis to women then, we may have some sense because people shared scheme related content was other interested in that. they shared whether they were a woman and we can show the ads to the right people. without that data ever hand and going to the advertiser. that is a fundamental part of how our model works and something that is often misunderstood. so i appreciate that you brought that up. >> we indicated earlier on that we would take a couple of breaks to get our witness an opportunity and other women going for just under two hours. i think -- mark: we will do a few more. we can do another 15 minutes. >> senator blumenthal is up next.

we will commence. blumenthal: they for being here today mr. zuckerberg. you have told us today and you told the world that facebook was whenved by alexander kogan he sold use information to cambridge analytica, correct? mark: yes. >> i want to show you the terms of service that he provided to facebook. and note for you that in fact, facebook was on notice that he could sell that user information, have you seen these terms of service before? >> i have not. >> in facebook was responsible for seeing those terms of service that put you on notice?

>> hour after the team would be responsible for that. center, nobody has been fired because of this. of servicethe term conflict with the ftc order? that facebook was under at that very time? that the terms of service was in fact, provided to facebook and ftc orderote that specifically requires facebook to protect privacy. is there a conflict there? that we should be aware that this app developer submitted a term that was in conflict with the rules of the platform. washat happened here willful blindness.

which he was an reckless amounted to a violation of the ftc consent decree. would you decrypt -- a great russian mark >> no. my understanding is that, not that this was a violation of the consent decree but i think we need to take a broader view of our responsibility. >> here's my reservation, i apologize for interrupting you. we have seen the apology tours before. you have refused to a knowledge ton an ethical obligation have reported this violation of the ftc consent decree. we have letters, we have contacts with facebook employees and i will submit a letter for the record from sandy with your permission.

an lack ofs not only resources the lack of attention to privacy. reservation about your testimony today is that i don't see how you can change your business model unless there are specific rules of the road, your business model is to monetize user information to maximize profit over privacy. unless there are specific rules and requirements enforced by an , i have noncy assurance that these kinds of vague commitments are going to produce action. i want to ask you a couple of very specific questions and they are based on legislation that i the my data act,

legislation that senator markey is introducing today. don't you agree that companies to provide required users with clear, plain information about how their data will be used and specific ability to consent to the use of that information. ? agree withgenerally what you're saying. i laid that out when i talked about -- >> would you agree to an opt in as opposed to an opt out. mark: that makes sense to discuss and i think the details around this matter a lot. usersld you agree that should be able to access all the information? >> yes, of course. >> all of the information that you collect as purchases from data brokers as well as tracking them?

>> we already have a download information tool that allows people to see and to take out all of the information that facebook -- that they have put into facebook. i agree with that, we only have that. christ i have a number of other specific requests that you agree to support as part of legislation, i think legislation is necessary, the rules of the road have to be the result of facebookonal action, has participated recently in the fight against the scourge of sex trafficking and the bill that we just passed, it will be signed the stoptomorrow, exploiting sex trafficking act was the result of our cooperation. i hope we can cooperate on this measure as well. >> i look forward to having my teamwork with you on this. thank you mr. chairman, mr.

zuckerberg, thank you for being here. does facebook consider itself a neutral public form? >> we consider ourselves to be a platform for all ideas. >> let me ask the question again, does facebook consider is up to be a new for public form? europe is it as have given -- are you a neutral public form allowing everyone to speak russian mark >> here's how we think about this. -- there iseve that some content that we don't allow, hate speech, terrorist nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community. from that perspective, that is why we generally try to refer to what we do as a platform for all ideas. question,ust a simple the predicate for section 230 immunity under the cda is that you're a neutral public form.

do you consider yourself a difficult for them or are you engaged in clinical speech which is your right on the first amendment? our goal is silly not to engage in political speech, i not that familiar with the specific legal language of the law that you speak to. so we need to follow-up with you on that. how should try to layout how broadly i think about this. >> i would say that there are a great many americans with think are deeply concerned at facebook and other tech companies. they think they're engaged in a pattern of bias and political censorship. inre been numerous instances facebook in may of 2016, gizmodo reported that facebook routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news, included stores about cpac and mitt romney and the lois lerner irs scandal. in addition to that, facebook has addition -- shut down the

chick-fil-a appreciation day it blocked a post of a fox news reporter, it has blocked over two dozen catholic pages and most recently blocked trump supporters dimon and soaks page with 1.2 million facebook followers after determining their content and brand were unsafe to the community. to a great many americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. do you agree with that assessment? >> let me say a few things about this. first, i understand where the concern is coming from because facebook in the tech industry are located in silicon valley which is an externally left-leaning place. this is actually a concern that i have and that i try to route 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 wonder about that. are you aware of any

advocates that has been taken down from planned parenthood? mark: i am not. >> what about moveon.org? >> i'm not aware of those. >> would let any democratic candidate for office? >> i'm not specifically aware. i'm not sure. testimony, you say uf 15 or 20,000 people working on security and content review. do note the political orientation of those 15 or 20 people?- 15 or 20,000 >> no, we do not generally asked them about their political orientation when they join the company. >> have you ever made you are hiring or firing decisions based on who they supported? fired?as palmer lucky >> that was specific. i can commit that it was not

because of a political view. do note the 16 to 20,000 people review how many if any have ever supported a republican candidate for office? >> i do not know that. it is notstimony says enough that we just connect people, we have to make sure that those connections are positive. it says we have to make sure that people aren't using their voice to her people or spread misinformation. tohave a responsibility not just a build tools but to make sure those tools are used for good. do you feel that it is responsibility to assess whether they are good and positive connections or whether those are the ones that people deem acceptable or deplorable? >> are you asking me personally? >> i think that there are a number of things that we would all agree are clearly bad. ourign interference in elections, terrorism, self harm,

, i figure probably agree that we should remove terrorist propaganda from the service. so that, i agree is clearly bad activity that we want to get down and we're generally plowed of how we do at that. now what i can say and i do want to get this in before the end very committed to making sure that facebook is a platform for all ideas. that is a very important founding principle of what we do , we are proud of the discourse on the different ideas that people can share on the service and that is something that is long as i'm running the company, i will be committed to making sure is the case. >> thank you senator cruz. >> do want a break now? >> sure, that was pretty good. we have senator whitehouse on next but if you want a five minute break, we have been going a good two hours. >> we will recess for five

minutes and reconvene. >> mark zuckerberg taking a five minute break here as witness at the joint senate committee hearing. the latest exchange was with senator ted cruz. a little test year than the previous exchanges. >> that is ted cruz. you knew he wasn't going to ask technical questions. >> mark zuckerberg responded quite quickly. he will still take a five-minute break. what a wider ranging level of questioning that we saw from various different senators. a lot of them tried to push on what mark zuckerberg is doing as far as further regulation. what can we get mark zuckerberg to agree to? let's bring in outside voices. obviously this was pretty wide, mark zuckerberg seemingly very confident despite looking a little bit nervous coming into this, what you meant over all of

his performance and some of the pushing that we have seen from senators regarding cracking down future regulations going forward? >> i would say's performance has been quite good. i think he has shown himself to be revealed -- rosalie unflappable. i don't think he did a good job of rebutting ted cruz in that last exchange. ted cruz allowed him to make a scene -- make it seem like he didn't know that the liberal left before being censored as where the right ones were. i'm sure zuckerberg didn't know about most of the people you listed as well. zuckerberg probably should have pointed that out to him. facebooky think that has bent over backwards so much to appear not to be opposed to right-wing propaganda on facebook that it has made it more likely that the russian thing happened. that was at the point of a huge wired story. makeng so hard to themselves seem anti-right-wing

has been a weakness of facebook. we can go through each one of the senators and how angry they are. >> let's bring in kevin cirilli is. this is what mark zuckerberg chris kaman and those other photographers around him, huddling around him, it made him quite nervous it would appear. give me a sense of how crowded that room is? twice it was very crowded. we heard a lot about mark zuckerberg's harvard dorm room. a stay away from the political theater and get into the policy. graham, thesey republic from south carolina when he left here told me that there was a key difference between what mark zuckerberg cast aside regarding european regulation and what the americans might be able to do to implement them.

mark zuckerberg testifying that he is not sure european regulatory regime model of the applicable here in the united states. senator graham told me that he is looking at a jell-o like regulatory structure. it is his position that he believes myself is saying that there may not be any regulations that he liked. committing under on as well as in written testimony. the type of regulation team ibm to get behind. if you're outside of washington watching this, your try to figure out where the real toy structure might be headed, look no further than your. -- this is inside of washington. mark zuckerberg said it is worth discussing. he is very cautious about responding. you're absolutely right. this is the tightening up of that very act, we will discuss

what happens in the united states. >> it was very critical for mark zuckerberg not to cut off any conversation. anything that anyone proposed was something that he would consider and get back to. >> i want to bring in sarah frier who is in d.c.. i'm previous -- curious what you make of the quality of questions from the senators. i think they're pretty good, sometimes they seem off base but i am curious how close they are to what you would say -- want to be asking mark zuckerberg. >> they are very on point for a lot of this. contrast to is in the bills on russia. it seems they have done their homework for this hearing. we want facebook to protect us from hate speech but like there ised cruz said, something the company has to

solve and needs to have them go at them in a vague manner, that is just not something that will be enough for the public, facebook has a much power that they're going to need in bit more detail. it was a great moment when the senator -- the one who had the whole stack of facebook policies printed out, it was like an inch and a half thick. he said can any user understand this. he was asked if he would reveal the name of the hotel room he stayed at, information that facebook knows if you log in. was a very interesting back-and-forth in many cases. >> mark really thought about it. >> it was actually chocked there and he said that it is actually longer than the u.s. constitution, more than 4000 words. i want to pick up on this point saidus, senator blumenthal

what about the prospect of an opt in? you don't automatically has a facebook user revived your data. you have to say whether or not you are willing to provide it. >> at think he would below to agree to that. that would reduce the amount of targetable data that can be used to sell ads. i can't live there would ever go that way willingly. i think zuckerberg has been surprisingly agreeable and showing himself willing to consider a lot of things that we never heard him willing to consider before. it was stunning what he said he would keep said he agreed he would propose a bunch of regulations that would apply to facebook, that was interesting. i thought senator blumenthal, he had innocently interesting interchange as well. >> in terms of the kind of that facebook, mark zuckerberg might come up with in

regards to regulation, is there anything circulating around silicon valley that they could live with? that they could continue giving ground on? havecebook is working to some transparency with its advertising, kind of at the level of what was is required from tv so that we can click on an ad and see who paid for it. i think that doesn't quite get at the heart of who paid for because anyone can make a facebook page and any name. it might not actually give you much clarity on the money trail. certainly, the step is the one that facebook is want to take. if they take that step, it would be happy to sign onto regulation that would require other companies to take that step. so it makes sense for them, they are under pressure right now. they need to self regulate and then decide that whatever works for joe: we heard the exchange before the break.

tenant reminder -- can you remind us about the palmer lucky , founder of the oculus rift ceo. sarah: he was the founder of up,us who facebook popped but he was not involved in the day-to-day. when it came out he was funding ahead of-hillary memes the election, that did not fly. he was kept on at the company but his role was reduced. a few months later he was let go. julia: you are looking at life pictures to remind viewers that mark zuckerberg is taking a break and centers are doing questioning. you can see senator cruz, just before the break. kevin, i would to bring you back here. how bipartisan is the push to

tie this down and tied up internet companies as far as regulation is concerned? alook at the performance as result of this session, facebook is up and twitter is up more than 7% as well. just pick out some of the comments made here, in the past many colleagues on both sides of the all-out have been willing to do for the tech company's assets to regulate themselves. but this may be changing, and he repeated that once again. has it changed, do we get that from this hearing today? kevin: it has somewhat changed and i would have it back to what senator graham told the reporters before he ducked out of the hearing. he raised the concern that facebook is a monopoly. that is hefty language for take tech companies coming from

lawmakers. republicans have spoken to consistently -- a republican from louisiana and a member of the committee, that mark zuckerberg testified before. they don't necessarily like too much government regulation or have a problem with the size and scope of some of these companies. but they do have concerns over monopoly. when you start hearing the word monopoly and regulation, that is a key signal that this is going to continue for quite some time. very quickly, i would also note that mark zuckerberg is going to be asked to return to washington in several months. it is not going to be a one-off commitment. he will likely return before the midterms as well. scarlet: interesting point. we can seek mark zuckerberg has returned to the chamber and will

resume his q and a session with senators. taken his seat and the photographers have returned as well as we await the senators to get ready to question them as well. the gavel has been struck. let's return to the senators. feinstein asked permission to put letters in statements on record. willithout objection, they be put in from the aclu. the electronic privacy information center, the computing privacy council and public knowledge. senator whitehouse. you, german. chairman. mark: i want to correct one thing i said earlier.

didn't ban if why we can which analytica at the time when we learned about it in 2015 and i answered that what my understanding was they were not on the platform and were not an app developer or advertiser. when i went back and met with my team afterwards, they let me know can bridge and cut its start as an advertiser they are in 2015, so we could have in then, ibanned them misspoke and got that wrong earlier. >> thank you, german. chairman. welcome back, mr. zuckerberg. i want to explore what these bans mean. facebook is done considerable damage with its relationship professor corbin and

cambridge analytica, and that is one of the reasons you're having this enjoyable afternoon with us. alexandermony said kogan's app has been banned, has he also been banned? mark: my understanding is yes. open an was able to account with another name come up with that the able to be closed down? have prevented him from building anymore apps? >> does he still have an account? believe the answer is no, but i can follow up with you afterwards. >> your testimony is that first you required cambridge analytica to certify they deleted all properly acquired data. where did that certification take place? that sounds like a quasi-

official thing to certify. what did that intel? entail? mark: they sent a notice telling us they didn't have the data anymore and it 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? mark: yes, i believe so. >> and you said you ultimately banned cambridge analytica. who exactly is banned? whatif they opened up island analytica and the different corporate form and send enterprise? with that enterprise also be banned? mark: that is the intent. analytica has a parent company, and we banned the parent company and recently we also banned a firm, a iq, which

is also associated with them. if we find other firms associated with them will block them from the platform as well. >> our individual principles 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. customer amend your terms of service? where's the terms of service a it for or leave the average customer? the terms of service are what they are, but they are defined by people. you get to choose what information you share, in the whole service is about what france you connect to. >> my question would connect to

the big fat document that senator graham pulled out, and it later turned out to be of consequence. all i want to do to establish with you is that document that was held up, that is not a negotiable thing individual customers, that is a take it or leave it proposition for customers to sign up to or not use the service. mark: that is right on the terms of service, although we offer a lot of controls, so people can configure the experience how they want. >> last question on a different ubject, on the authorization process you are taking for entities putting up political content or issue ad content. you said they have to go through an authorization process before they do it. you said will be were verifying the identity. shell you look behind a

corporation and find out who is behind it through your authorization process? shelled to look behind corporations in order to find thewho is really behind content that is being posted? and if you may look behind a shell corporation, how would you go about doing that? to the trueet beneficial owner of the site that is putting out political material? mark: you are referring to the verification of political issue ads? >> yes. mark: we are going to require valid government identity, and verify the location. sitting in someone russia for example couldn't say they are in america, and therefore able to run election ads. >> but if they are running through a corporation domiciled in delaware, what a know they are a russian order?

mark: that is correct. i my time has expired and appreciate the courtesy. >> i wanted to follow-up on the statement you made shortly before the break a few minutes ago. you said there are categories of speech and types of content that facebook would never want to have any part of, and active steps to avoid disseminating, including hate speech, nudity, racist speech, i'm sure you also meant terrorist acts and threats of violence and threats. beyond that would you agree facebook ought not to be putting its thumb on the skilled with regard to the content of speech? assuming if it's into one of the categories that is prohibited. there are generally two categories of content we are worried about. when are things that could cause

real-world harm. terrorism fits into that, self harm fits into that. i would consider election interference to fit into that. --se are the types of things i don't consider to be much discussion if those are good or bad topics. >> i am not disputing that come up what i am asking is if you go beyond those categories that are be, is it, and should facebook's position in should not be put against him on the scale? should not favor or disfavor speech based on content and viewpoint of that speech? mark: in general, that is our position. one of the things that is important though is that in order to great a service where everyone has a voice, we also need to make sure people aren't bullied or intimidated or the environment is unsafe for them. >> and that is the exception you are referring to, the exception being someone feels bullied,

even if it is not a terrorist act,nudity, or a racist you may step in. but beyond that, would you step in regards the content being posted? our goal is to allow people to have as much expression as possible. exceptions wethat discussed, you would stay out of it. isn't there a significant premarket incentive that a social media company, including in order to safeguard the data of users? that you have premarket incentives? but your interest aligned with those of us here who want to see data safeguarded? mark: absolutely. have the technological means available at your disposal to make sure that doesn't happen

and to protect an app developer from transferring facebook data to a third party? mark: a lot of that we do. some of that happens outside of our systems and requires new measures. is example, what we saw here people chose to share information with an app developer. that worked to how the system is designed. that information was then transferred out of our system to servers that this developer, aleksandr kogan had. that person chose to sell the data. the cambridge analytica. that is going to require much more active intervention and auditing from us to prevent going forward. once it is out of our system is a lot harder for us to have a full understanding of what is happening. >> from what you said today and previous statements made by you and other officials at your beta is at the center -- data is at the center of your

model. your ability to run your business effectively, although you do not charge users, is based on monetizing data. seems to come down to what you tell the public and users of facebook about what you are going to do with the data. about how you are going to use it. can you give me a couple of examples, to examples of ways in which data is collected by facebook in a way that people are unaware of? two examples of types of data that facebook collects that might be surprising to facebook users. mark: i would hope that what we do with data is not surprising to people. >> hasn't been at times? mark: in this case people certainly didn't expect this developer to sell data the cambridge analytica.

in general, there are two techs of data that facebook has. the vast majority in the first category is content that people chose to share on the service themselves. that is all the photos to share, the post you make. you think is the facebook service. everyone has control every smalltime fisher that, they can delete that data anytime they want. full control of the majority of data. the second category is around specific data we collect in order to make the advertising experiences better and more relevant and work for businesses. is often revolved around measuring. and youow you an ad, click through and go somewhere else, we can measure you actually -- that at work. that makes the experience relevant and better for businesses because they perform better. also have control completed 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 complete you have complete control of what you do there as well. on thent to follow up questions around the terms of service. your terms of service is 3200 words with 30 links. one is to your data policy, linksis 100 words with 22 come and the point has been well make that people have no earthly idea what they are signing up for. at the presentat time that is legally binding, but can you explain to the billions of users in plain language, what are they signing up for? that is a good and important question here. in general, you sign up to facebook, you get the ability to share the information you want with people. that is what the service is. you connect with the people you want and share whatever content matters to you, whether than as

photos or links or posts. and you get control over who you shared with. me again take it down and you don't need to put it up on the first place if you want. >> what about the parts people are worried about, not the fun part? mark: what is that? >> the part that people are worried about is that data is going to be improperly used some people are try to figure out if informing ads and browsing habits being collected? if you like a certain movie or have a particular political proclivity, i think that is fair game. but we don't understand exactly, both as a matter of practice and not being able to decipher those terms of service and privacy policy -- what exactly are you doing with the data and you draw distinction between data

collected in the process of thatzing the platform -- we clearly volunteer for the public to present ourselves to other facebook users? senator, i am much or i fully understand this. in general people come to facebook to share content with other people. we use that to also inform how we wrecked services like newsfeeds and adds to provide more relevant expenses. >> that may try specific examples. if i am emailing within what's app, does that inform advertisers? no, it is fully encrypted. am writing ai message about black panther, do i get a black panther banner ad? mark: facebook does not see the

content big transferred over what's app. talk asking if the systems to each other without a human being touching it. mark: i think the specific answer is it would not inform any ads. >> i want to follow-up on senator nelson's original question on data. greatest addressing who want customers to have more than rather than less control, but i can't imagine it is true as a legal matter that i actually own by facebook data, because you are the one monetizing it. you want to modify that to an aspirational goal, but it doesn't seem to me that we own our own data, otherwise would get a cut. in the senseit that you choose to but it there. we can take it down any time and you control the terms of which

it is viewed. when you put it on facebook you are granting a license to show it to other people. that is necessary in order for the service to operate. your definition's ownership is, i signed up and i voluntarily -- i may delete my account if i wish, and that basically is it. mark: i think the control is more granular than that. you can choose each photo you want to put up in each message, and you can delete those. you don't need to delete your whole account, yet specific controls and venture different post with different people. >> i want to propose some thing to you and take it for the record. i read an interesting article from a professor at thyale, and -- this isonsible about a trust relationship like doctors and lawyers. tech companies should hold interest our personal data.

i open to the idea of information fiduciary statute? mark: i think it is an interesting idea and jack is thoughtful in this space, so it does deserve consideration. >> thank you. thank you mr. zuckerberg for being here today and i appreciate your testimony. the. of facebook users activity can print a personal picture. you have 2 billion users out there every month. we all know that is larger than the population of most countries. how many data categories do you store on the categories to collect? mark: can you clarify what you mean by data categories? >> there are reports that indicate that facebook collects

fort 96 data categories those 2 billion active users, that is 192 billion data points generated at any time from consumers globally. this facebook store out of that? you store any? mark: i am actually not sure what that is referring to. >> on the points that you collect information. categories, how many are you store? information you are collecting. mark: the way i think about this, is there are two broad categories. line upbably doesn't with the specific report you are safe, and i will make sure we follow up with you afterwards to

get you the information you need. the two broad categories i think about our content that a person has chosen to share, and have complete control over. the control when they put it into the service and when it taken down into seasoned. the other category is data that is connected to making the ads more relevant. yet complete control over both, you can turn off the data and not share any content and control exactly who sees it. >> this facebook store any of that? mark: yes. >> how much do store of that? everything we click on, is that stored somewhere? store data about what people share on the service, and information that is required to do ranking better, to show what you care about in a use feed -- news feed. do store text history, user

content activity, device location? mark: some of that content with people's permission, we do store. >> do you disclose any of that? mark: yes. people to share that information with facebook, i believe everything you said would be opt in. >> and their privacy settings, it is my understanding is the limit the sharing of that data with other facebook users. is that correct? every person gets to control who gets to see their content. >> does that limit the ability for facebook to collect and use it? there are controls that determine what facebook can do as well. for example, control about face

recognition, or people don't want us to be able to help identify when they are in photos. and wen turn that off, won't store that template for them. >> and there was action taken by the ftc in 2011. you a facebook post at the time on a public page on the internet that it seems very to people, but as i guess they can make the pages private, they felt safe check with their friends online. control was key. you mentioned control. senator hatch asked you a question, and you responded about complete control. you and your company have used that term repeatedly, and i believe you use it to reassure users, is that correct? they have complete control over this information? mark: this is how the service

works. the core thing that facebook is, and all of our services. is this a question of facebook is about feeling safe, or our users actually safe? is facebook being safe? safe,i think facebook is i use it and my family uses it, and the family and people i care about uses it all the time. just tontrols are not make people feel safe, it is what people want in the product. the reality is, think about how you use it yourself. goingke a photo, are not to send at the same people, sometimes you want, to texted to one person symptoms might send it to a group. you probably want to put some stuff out there publicly so you can communicate with constituents. their different groups of people people want to connect with, and those controls are very

important and practiced for the operation of the service, not just about trust, other provided people with control also does that. in order to make it so people can fulfill their goals of the service. >> thank you. i think the whole reason we are having his this hearing is because of the attention between two principles relate out. first to set the data that people post on facebook that you control and on the data on facebook. he said some optimistic things about privacy and data ownership. but it is also the reality that facebook is a for-profit entity that generated $40 billion in ad revenue last year by targeting ads. facebook claims that advertising makes it easy to find the right people, capture that attention, and get results, and you recognize an ad supported service is best aligned with your mission and values. but the reality is there are lots of examples were at targeting has led to results

that i think we would all disagree with, our dislike or concern us. your admitted that facebook's own act was allowed russians to onget users, voters, based their views, and that may have played a significant role in election in the u.s. posted a story that traffickers are using facebook tools to advertise a legal saves expected animal parts. and left questioning whether your ad targeting tools with allow other concerning practices, like diet pill manufacturers targeting teenagers struggling with their weight, or allowing a liquor distributor to target alcoholics, or an gambling organization. target those with gambling problems give you one, could 2016, facebookn lets advertisers exclude users by race in real estate advertising.

there was a weight could say that this particular ad, i only want to be seen by white folks, but by people of color. that violates fair housing laws and sense of fairness in the united states. and probably enough that was a bad idea and will change the tools that built and you will reject discriminatory acts. story later, if follow-up said that those changes had been fully made. it was still possible to target housing advertisements you wait that was racially discriminatory. my concern is this practice of making bold and engaging promises about changes and practices, and the reality of how facebook has operated in the real world are inconsistent. askedl senators have about the 2011 decreed that required facebook to better protect users privacy. there are a series of examples where the have been things but to your attention where facebook has apologized and said we're

going to change practices in our policies, and yet there doesn't seem to have been as much follow-up as we call for. at the end of the day, policies are not worth the paper they're written onto facebook. does not enforce them. i will close with a question that is rooted in the experience i had today as an avid facebook users. i woke up this morning and was notified i hope of friends across the country, asking if i had a new family, or if there was a fake facebook post from chris coons. i went to the one that had a different middle initial than mine, anders might picture with another senator's family, since schools i went to, but a whole lot of russian friends. keep that for the record. [laughter] is my intention is france that i went to school with in hawaii and our state general, and i got great folks who work in my office.