mark:d't fit into the going to change practices in our policies, and yet there doesn't missions we have -- the seem to have been as much follow-up as we call for. at the end of the day, policies definitions we have. are not worth the paper they're as we technologically shift of having ai proactively look at written onto facebook. does not enforce them. content, i think that is going 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 to create massive questions for society about what obligations want to require companies to notified i hope of friends across the country, asking if i fulfill. had a new family, or if there i do think that is a question that we need to struggle with is was a fake facebook post from chris coons. a country, because i know other i went to the one that had a countries are and they are putting laws in place. different middle initial than mine, anders might picture with i think america needs to figure out and create a set of another senator's family, since principles that want record schools i went to, but a whole lot of russian friends. companies to operate under. >> i what what you to leave here keep that for the record. today and think there's a unified move to policing more [laughter] is my intention is and more speech, i think violence has no place on your platform. france that i went to school sex traffickers and, human with in hawaii and our state traffickers have no place on general, and i got great folks your platform but vigorous debates, adults need to engage who work in my office. in vigorous debates.

i brought this to their attention, i pushed it to i have less than two minutes facebook, and it was taken down left, so i want to shift gears, by making they. am concerned with what happens that was. about adults you are a dad, i want to talk about social media addiction. to those who don't have these resources. hate groups thrive in some areas you started to come and see they in facebook, even though your talk about how facebook is and. was founded as an optimistic company. policies has taken strong steps you and i have had conversations severed from here. against extremism and terrorists. ian not and the i don't what to put words in your mouth, but as you aged i think you will be less idealistic and optimistic than you work when you started facebook. as a dad, do you worry about senate, i have friends saying social media addiction as a problem for americans? they have trouble getting a positive response monday have is we can be brought to facebook's attention -- a page that clearly violated the basic principles. idealistic but have a broad view of our responsibility. my core question, isn't that parentsnt about teens, facebook's job to better protect users, and why do you shift the burden to users to flag inappropriate content to make were about how much you want sure it is taken down? your kids to use technology. mark: there are a number of at facebook specifically, i view our response but it of not just important points in their. building services people like, i think it is clear this is an but services that are good for area of content policy people and society as well. we stood a lot of effects of enforcement we need to do better on overtime. well-being of our tools and

butter technology. the history of how we got here, like any tool, there are good we started off in my dorm room with not a lot of resources and not having the ai technology to and bad uses of it. what we find a general is if you are using social media in order proactively identify a lot of stuff. to build relationships, you are -- sheer volume of content sharing content with friends and interacting -- that is the main way this works today is that people report things to us, associated with all of the long-term edgers of well-being that you would intuitively think and then we have our team review that. of. as a said before, by the end of long-term health and happiness and feeling less lonely -- but the year will have more than if you use the internet and social media primarily to 20,000 people working on security and content review because this is important. over time, we are going to shift consume content and not engaging wheresingly to a method with other people, it doesn't have those positive affect and could be negative. >> i want to ask you one more, more of this content is flagged up front by ai tools we develop. to social media companies hire we prioritized the most consulting firms to help them figure out to get more feedback important types of content that loops so that people don't want we can build ai tools for today, to leave the platform? we seto, that is not how like terror related content. i mentioned earlier our systems up our product teams. we deployed in taking down 99% who want products to be valuable of isis and al qaeda related to people, and if they are content we take down before a valuable, people choose to use person finds them to us. them. >> are you aware that social

if we fast-forward five or 10 media companies hire such consultants? mark: not sitting here today. years, i think we'll have more technology to that the more areas, and that the need to get response to senator there as soon as possible, which is what we are investing in it. >> we can't wait five years. blumenthal's pointed questions whetherefused to answer mark: i agree. >> mr. zuckerberg, banks for facebook should be required by law to obtain clear permission from users before selling or being here. sharing their personal you are doing to be done with information. questioning at 1:00 a.m., so i am going to ask one more time, yes or no, should facebook get congratulations. lot, but is coons a their permission from users before selling or sharing want to ask some questions from sensitive information about your the other side. the conceptual line between health,, finances your mirror tech companies and actual relationships, should you have content companies is hard. to get their permission? you have a hard challenge in is when you signed in 2011, relation will have a hard challenge. you are a private company's should you get permission, economic policies that may be blessed in first amendment should the consumer have to opt in? permission require

embracing, i worry about a world where when you go from violent to use the system and to put groups to hate speech in a hurry, and one of your responses information there and the uses of it. to the opening questions -- you i want to be clear, we do not may decide or face a great decide it needs to police a sell information. whole bunch of speech that i regardless of getting permission think america might be better to do that, that is not off not having policed by one something where are going to do. >> would you support company that has a really big and powerful platform. can you define hate speech? legislation. i have a bill, the consent act mark: i think of this as a hard that was put in the box, a law question. is one of the reasons we struggle with it. that says facebook and any other there is certain definitions company that gathers information about americans has to get their that we have around calling for permission before it can be violence. reused for other purposes. >> let's agree with that, which is support that legislation to make it a national standard? violence shouldn't be there. i worry about the psychological not just for facebook, but all the companies out there. aspects of speech. some of them bad actors. which is support that legislation? mark: in general i think that we see this on college capsules across the country, it is dangerous. 40% of americans under 35 told principle is exactly right and

pollsters that they think the we should have a discussion. >> which is support legislation first amendment is dangerous to back that general principle? because you might use your freedom to. say something to hurt somebody else's feelings. guess what, you passionately that opt in? held views about abortion issue on this panel today. can you imagine a world where which it support legislation? you might decide that pro-lifers europeans have passed that as a law. are prohibited from expressing their views on your platform? mark: i certainly would not want facebook is going to live with that law beginning on may 25. that to be the case. which is support that as a lot >> it might be unsettling for of the united states? mark: yes, i would. the details matter a lot. >> assuming we work out the in ass, you consider opt the standard for the united states? is that correct? mark: that is the records book, and 100 billion times a day when bush or content, they choose affirmatively. >> you support a law that enshrines a promise that we make to the american people that permission has to be obtained before the information is used, is that correct?

mark: yes, that make sense, and the details matter. i look forward to having our teamwork with you on flashing that out. >> the next subject, i want to make sure that we drill down here. you earlier make reference to the child online rcep section act of 1999, which i am the author of. that is the constitution for child privacy section online, and i am proud of that. there are no productions additionally for 13, 14, or 15-year-olds. they get this infectious to a 30-year-old re: 50-year-old gets. i have a separate piece of legislation to ensure that kids who are under 16 absolutely have a privacy bill of rights, and that permission has to be received from their parents,

before any of their information is reused for any other purpose other than that which was originally intended. onlineou support a child privacy bill of rights for kids under 16 to guarantee that information is not reused for any other purpose without explicit permission from the parents of the kids? as a general principle, i think protecting minors and their privacy. is extremely important we do a number of things on facebook to do that already. >> i am talking about a law. which is support a to ensure that kids under 16 happen this? privacy bill of rights i had this conversation with you in your office seven years ago about the specific subject apollo alto -- in palo alto. that is what the american people

want to know right now. what are the protection is that are going to be put into the box? especially for their children. i think that is an important principle. protect the lot children, that is my question, you believe we need a lot to do so, yes or no? mark: i am not sure if we need a law, but this is something that deserves a lot of discussion. children leaving his -- these children to the most predatory ads unless we have a law on the books. please give us your answer. mark: i look forward to having my team to follow up to flesh out the details.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i plow through old ground, it had to be away for a bit. onself and senator co were in zimbabwe days ago and we met with leaders who talk about their goal, and to have access to state run media. in many african countries and many countries around the world, there are small countries, and the only traditional media is state run. we asked them how to get the message out, and it is through social media. facebook provides a very valuable service, in many countries, for opposition leaders or others who simply don't have access, unless maybe just before an election -- to traditional media.

that is very valuable, and we recognize that. on the flip side, we have seen an example of where a state can use similar data or use this platform to go after people. you talk about what you are doing in that regard of hiring more traditional local which speakers. what else are you doing in that regard to ensure that the states or governments don't go after opposition figures or others? mark: there are three main things we are doing that will apply to other situations like that. enoughst is hiring people to do local language support. the definition of hate speech or things that can be racially coded to incite violence are fairly and which specific, and we can't do that with just english speakers, so we need to grow that.

the second is, in these countries there tends to be active civil societies with and help us identify the figures who are spreading hate. if we can work with them to make sure those figures don't have a place on our platform. the third is there are specific product changes that we can make that might best necessary in some countries but not others, including things around news literacy. encouraging people in different countries about wrapping up or things will might do around fact checking of content. specific product things we may implement in other places. that is something will have to do in a number of countries. nativee are limits in speakers you can hire or to have eyes on the page. artificial is going to take the book of this. how much are you investing and whatng on that tool to do

we can't have enough people to do? mark: i think you're absolutely right that over the long term, building the ai tools is going to be the scalable way to identify and out most of the harmful content. to do investing a lot that, as well as scaling up the number of people doing content reviews. ,ne of the things i mentioned this year or the last year we doubled the amount of people doing security content reviews. will have more than 20,000 people working on security and comfort review by the end of this year. andoing to be coupling continuing to grow the people doing reviews in these places with building ai tools, we are working as quickly as we can on that. some of this is hard, but i think will help us get on a better place to remove harmful content. >> is taught some about this, do

you believe that russian or chinese governments have harvested facebook data and have detailed data sets on facebook users? has your forensic analysis show new wells other than cambridge analytica has downloaded? mark: we have kicked off an investigation of every act that have access to large amounts of people's data before we locked on the platform in 2014. i imaginederway, and we will find some things, and we're committed to telling the people who were affected when we do. i don't think sitting here that we have specific knowledge of other efforts by those nationstates, but in general, we assume that a number of countries are trying to abuse our systems. you.ank zuckerberg, the

immigration and customs enforcement has proposed a new extreme vetting initiative which they have renamed visa lifecycle vetting. they have held an industry they they advertise to get input from tech companies on the best way -- and i am quoting ice, exploit publicly label information such as media blocks, conferences, academic websites, social media websites suggest twitter, facebook, and link them to extract pertinent information. doically, what they want to with these targets is to determine, and i am quoting ice 's on document. they want to develop processes that determine and evaluate applicants the probability of

becoming a positively contributing member of society, as well as their ability to contribute national interest to make the executive order. also to develop to assess whether an applicant intends to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering united states. thisestion to you, facebook time to cooperate in this initiative to target people for deportation or other ice enforcement? mark: i don't know you have had specific conversations around that. >> you were asked to provide or cooperate with ice so they could determine if somebody is going to commit a crime, for example, or become fruitful members of society. would you cooperate? law: we cooperate with enforcement in two cases, one is

if we are aware of an eminent that of harm. we will proactively reach out to. law enforcement as we believe it is our responsibility to do the other is if law enforcement reaches out to us with a valid legal subpoena or request for data. in those cases, if the request is overly broad and we don't believe it is a legal request, will push back aggressively. >> let's assume that is no law or rule that requires that themook operates to allow to get this information so they can make those kinds of assessments. and sounds to me though that you would decline. mark: that is correct. -- i knowe some way you determine what kind of content would be deemed harmful. you believe ice can do what they are talking about, namely through a combination of various

kinds of information, including information that they would hope predict who will commit crimes or present a national security problem? you think that is doable? mark: i am not familiar enough with what they are doing to offer an informed opinion on that. >> yet to make assessments as to what constitutes for hate speech, that is hard to do. you have to assess what election interference is. these are rather difficult to identify. what it try to predict whether somebody is going to commit a ofme fit into the category difficult to assess? me,: it sounds difficult to all of these things are difficult, i do not not having worked or think about it. >> yet that is what ice is proceeding to do.

you ask about discriminatory advertising. 2017, facebook announced it would no longer -- allow certain types of ads. categories prohibited by federal law housing, but after 2017, was discovered that you could in whether or not these ads can be placed on facebook. have you followed through on your february 2017 promise to address the problem and is there a way for the public to verify that you have, or are they expected to trust that you have done this? mark: those are all important questions. oureneral it is against policy to have any asked are discriminatory. they could place

ads even after you said you would no longer allow these ads. what assurance do we have from you that this is going to stop? mark: two things. one is we removed the ability to exclude ethnic groups and other sensitive categories from at targeting. that isn't a feature that is available anymore. for some of these cases where it may make sense to target practically a group -- the -- we reviewoday ads and screen them up front. ist of the enforcement today that our committee fights issues for us when it comes up. if the committee finds the issue which hasan our team, thousands of people working on it, should take it down. we will make some mistakes, but

wanted to make them as soon as possible. overtime discharge is to develop or ai tools that can practically identify those types of content and do the filtering up front. >> thank you. story.kerberg, quite a to the global but he missed you guys are. only in america, which it agreed with that? you couldn't do this in china, what you did. mark: there are some strong chinese internet companies. >> you are supposed to answer yes to this question. [laughter] this is a softball. the answer is yes, so thank you. [laughter] testimony, you talked about being involved in elections.

i thought your testimony was interesting. all over the world -- facebook has 2 billion users and over 40 billion in revenue -- i think you and google have 75% of the digital advertising in the u.s. one of the key issues here, is facebook too powerful? are you too powerful? think what people talk about our skill, they think about 2 billion in our community. the vast majority of those 2 billion people are outside of the u.s.. i think that is something that to your point, americans should be proud of. when and a chinese internet companies, that is a real strategic and competitive threat. interrupt --nt to

but when you look at the history of this country and you look at the history of these hearings. you are a smart guy and you read a lot of history. when companies become a powerful and can relate a lot of wealth and power, what typically happens from this body -- there is an instinct to either regulate or breakup. look at the history of this nation. you have any thoughts on those two policy approaches? mark: i am not the type of person thinks that regulation is bad. i think the internet is becoming increasingly important in people's lives and we need to have a full conversation about what is the right regulation, not whether it should be or should be. >> i think it is a good point and i appreciate you mentioning that.

one of my worries on regulation come up with a company of your size, gorsuch we might be interested in being regulated. as you know, regulations can also cement the dominant power. to what i mean by that -- you have lobbyists and a lot of lobbyists in town are involved in this hearing. a lot of powerful interests. you look at dodd-frank, that was aimed at the big banks and regulations ended up empowering big banks in keeping the small banks down. givenink that is a risk your influence that if we regulate, we are actually going to regulate you into a position of cemented authority, when one of my biggest concerns about what you guys are doing is that the next facebook, which we all want. that you are becoming so dominant that we are not able to have that next facebook? what are your views on that? mark: i agreed with the point

that when you think through regulation across all industries, you have to be careful it does not cement into the current companies that are winning. >> would you try to do that? is that the normal inclination of a company to say i will hire the best guys in town and cement in advantage? mark: that certainly wouldn't be our approach. i think part of the challenge in relation in general is that when you add more rules that companies to follow, that is something do and it might be harder for a smaller company starting to comply with. i would look at the conversation, what is the right outcome. challenges that we face around content and other and a number of areas. >> i'm sorry to interrupt, one you're estion in what

talking in terms of content, regulation and what exactly, exactly facebook is. you mention you're a tech there , a platform, but are some that are saying you're publisher, biggest 140 million americans get their news from facebook. you mention to the senator, you said you are responsible for content. so which are you, are you a tech world's or are you the largest publisher, because i think that goes to a really what form uestion on of regulation or government take., if any, you would mark: senator, this is a really big question. i view us as a tech company because the primary thing we do product. technology and >> you are responsible for your content which makes you kind of a publisher, correct? i agree that we're responsible for the content, we don't produce the concept. we're a media f

company or a publisher, my understanding of what the heart f what they're really getting at, do we feel responsibility for the content on our platform. to that is clearly yes. i don't think that's incompatible with fundamentally being a technology company where the main thing that we do is have engineers and build product. sullivan, u senator senator udall. chairman.you, mr. thank you mr. zuckerberg for today.ere eidealistically about your company and you want to be a strong force by the and the world. you are hijacked by cambridge for political purposes, are you angry about that? mark: absolutely. and i are determined assume you want changes in the law, that's what you talked about today? most senator, the

important thing that i care about right now is making sure in the one interferes various 2018 elections around the world. we have an extremely important midterm. we have major elections around world coming up. tools tolding new a.i. take down fake news, to growing 20,000 people,am identify every advertiser doing to make sure that interference that the russians much ble to do in 2016 is harder for anyone to pull off in the future. >> i think you said earlier that honest ads act, and so i assume that means you law in orderin the to effectuate exactly what you talked about? we support or, yes, the honest ads act. >> are you going to come back up advocate toa strong see that that law is passed? >> senator, the biggest thing do is think we can

implement it. question, a yes or no i hate to interrupt you, are you going to come back and be a strong advocate. this.e angry about you think there ought to be change, a law put in place. are you going to come back and to get a law in place like that? team is nator, our certainly is going to work on this. >> i'm talking about you, not your team. you be an advocate for that law? that's what i want to see. you're upset about this. we're upset about this. i would like a yes or no answer on that one. posting and r, i'm speaking out publicly about how important this is. to washington, d.c. too often. i'm going to direct my team to and the biggest thing that i feel we can do is we're doing.which >> the biggest thing you can do is be a strong advocate yourself personally here in washington, just let me make that clear. many of us have seen the kinds

images hope earlier by senator leahy, you saw those images that he held up. guarantee that any of those images that can be with uted or associated the russian company internet purgedh agency have been from your platform? mark: senator, no, i can't that.tee this is an ongoing arms race. as long as there are people russia whose job it is to try to interfere with elections around the world, this ongoing to be an conflict. what i can commit is that we're significantly because this is a top priority to make sure people aren't spreading misinformation or electionsinterfere in on facebook, but i don't think it would be a realistic xpectation to assume that as long as there are people employed in russia for whom this is their job that we're going to that or amount of we're going to be 100% successful at preventing that. beyond disclosure of online ads, what specific steps insure that g to

foreign money is not financing issue ads on facebook in violation of u.s. someone submits a disclosure that says paid for 501c3 or p.a.c., if that group has no real person in the insure it is we not foreign interference? mark: senator, our verification program involves two pieces. verifying the identity of the person who is buying the ads, that they have a valid identity. the second is verifying their location. russia, 're sitting in for example, and you say that then we'll e u.s., be able to make it a lot harder o do that but what we actually do is mail a code to the address that you say you're at. if you can't access to that you won't be able to run ads. > facebook is creating an

independent group to study the abuse of social media in elections, you have talked about that. ill you commit that all findings of this group are made public no matter what they say its business or model? yes or no answer? mark: senator, that's the of this group is that facebook does not get to control these folks publish. these are independent academics prior ebook has no publishing control, they'll be studies that they're doing and publish the results. >> and you're fine with them being public. and what's the timing on getting those out? mark: senator, we're kicking now.he research our goal is to focus on both roviding ideas for preventing interference in 2018 and beyond and also for holding us accountable to making sure that that we put in place are successful in doing that. o i would hope that we will start to see the first results later this year. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

you, senator udall, senator moran is up next. i would say again for the of those that are here that after a couple more questioners, we'll probably give break.ness another short we're getting about 2/3 through hereist of members who are to ask questions. senator moran. > thank you for your testimony and thank you for your presence here today. year, the of this f.t.c. confirmed that it was investigating it facebook to its privacy ther practices violated the f.t.c. act or the consent order that entered into with the agency in 2011. congress committee, subcommittee that has jury jurisdiction over the federal trade commission. concept order t requires that facebook quote clearly and prominently display obtain users affirmative consent before haring their information with,

quote, any third party. my question is, how does the 87 millionroximately facebook friends having their ata shared with a third party due to the consent of only not 00 consenting users violate that agreement? mark: well, senator, like i earlier, our view is that we believe that we are in consent e with the order, but i think that we have a broader responsibility to privacy even 's beyond that. in this specific case, the way platform worked or that you could sign into an app and bring some of your information and some of your friends' is how we explained it would work. to that d settings effect. we explained and they consented way. working that the system basically worked as it was designed. the issue is that we designed that wasn't a way good and now we starting in 2014 ave changed the design of the

system so that way it just massively restricts the amount that a developer can get. 300,000 people that they were treated in a way that was appropriate, they consented, but not suggesting that the friends consented? senator, i believe that we rolled out this developer platform and that we explained it worked and that they did consent to it. go akes sense, i think, to through the way the platform works. we announced the facebook developer platform. he idea was that you wanted to make more experiences social, right. example, you might want to have a calendar that can have it or iends birthdays on you might want your address book to have your friends pictures in can show your t friends addresses on it. in order to do that, we needed a tool that allowed

people to sign into an app and bring some of their information friends' f their information to those apps. we made it very clear this is and when people signed up for facebook, they signed up for that as well. cases lot of good use came from that. there were games that were built. with were integrations companies that i think we're familiar with like netflix and spotify. what became clear, that also enabled some abuse. hat's why in 2014, we took the step of changing the platform so now when people sign into an of you do not bring some your friends' information with you. you're only bringing your own information and connect with who have also authorized that app directly. > let me turn to your bug bounty program. our subcommittee has had earings in regard to bug bounty. your press release indicated that was one of the six changes that facebook initially offered abusesk down on platform was to reward outside parties find vulnerabilities.

one concern i have regarding utility of this approach is that vulnerability disclosure programs are normally geared unauthorized ying access to data, not pointing out arrangement that likely could harm someone but by complex abide consent agreements. how do you see the bug bounty announced t you've addressing the issue of that? sorry, could you clarify what specifically -- >> how do you see that the bug and y program that you are have announced will deal with information not permissible as compared to just access to data? not actuallyr, i'm sure i understand this enough to speak to that specific point. my team follow up with you on the details of that. bounty programs are

an important part of the hardening aenal for lot of systems. i think we should expect that we're going to invest a lot in our systems ourselves and that we're going to audit and investigate a lot of the ecosystem, but even with that, having the ability to enlist other third parties company to be able to help us out by giving hem an incentive to point out when they see issues is likely going to help us improve the security of the platform overall we did this. zuckerburg., mr. >> hello, mr. zuckerburg. most of my life has been focused on low income community, working lass communities and making sure they have a fair shake. this country has a bad history discriminatory practices of low income americans and to the more color recently discriminatory practices in the mortgage business. technology as a

expand to expand access, opportunities, but unfortunately platforms,so seen how technology platforms like facebook can actually be used to discrimination and give people more sophisticated tools with which discriminate. advertisers could use thnic affinity, a user's race to market categories to potential discriminate overall against facebook users in the housing, employment, and credit echoing a dark history in this country and also in violation of federal law. committed to ook fixing this that the advertisers access to this data fixing it. they found that the system facebook built was allowing housing ads

forward pplying to go without applying the new restrictions put on. opted to a new system with cambridge analytica that self-certify that they were not engaging in these practices and complying with law uses united stating the self-certification, a way to with, me and to comply rather, facebook's anti-discrimination policy. unfortunately, in a recent awsuit as of february 2018 alleges that discriminatory ads were still being created on impacting low income communities and communities of color. that you thacket allowed cambridge analytica to self-certify in a way you have regret over, is self-certification the best and way to safeguard against misuse of your platform and protect the data of users let it be manipulated in

such a discriminatory fashion? senator, this is a very important question. general, i think over time, we're moving towards more more a.i. eview with tools to help flag problematic content. in the near term, we have a lot content on the platform and we -- it's hard to review every thing up front. we do a quick screen, but i that i think in this specific case, i'm not where we are and i think it makes sense to really that these ing sure areas get more reviews. >> i know you understand that growing distrust, i know a lot of civil rights organizations have met with you sense of book's issues. to address these distrust stems from the fact i have had conversations with leaders of facebook about the

diversity in the tech sector as well, people who are algorithms and policing for this data and these to be a, are they going part of a more diverse group that is looking at this? hire, as you g to said, 5,000 new positions for mong other things reviewing content. a know in your industry, it's real serious problem in your industry that lacks diversity in a dramatic fashion. true with s just facebook, it's true with the tech area as well. for me to mportant communicate that larger sense of civil and what a lot of rights organizations are concerned with and we should be towards more, a more collaborative approach. i'm wondering if you would be pen to opening your platform for civil rights organizations to really audit a lot of these companies dealing in areas of and housing to really audit what is actually happening more transparency in

working with your platform? mark: senator, i think it's a should follow e up on the details with that. to say there was an investigation, very disturbing fact that there have been law enforcement organizations that use platform to surveil african-american organizations like black lives matter. support for essed castillo's killing facebook.ast live on many are worried that that data can be used to surveil groups black lives matter, like folks who are trying to organize issues of stantive discrimination in this country. is this something that you're addressing and insuring that the freedoms that civil rights activists and are not targeted or

hey're not undermined, or people using your platform to to irly surveil and strike undermine the activities that those groups are doing? yes, senator, that's very important, we're committed to that. law n general, unless enforcement has a very clear subpoena or ability or reason to get access to information, we're going to push back on that across the board. >> my time has expired. there is a lawsuit against facebook about discrimination. moved for the lawsuit to be dismissed because no harm was shown. could you please submit into the you believe that people of color were not economic for various opportunities or being harmed, why you please clarify dismissed the lawsuit for the record? >> senator heller is up next.

>> mr. chairman, thank you, appreciate the time. i'm over here. thank you for taking time. it's been a long day and i think you're at the final stretch here. i'm glad that you are here. yesterday facebook sent out a userscation to 87 million that information was given to cambridge analytica without their consent. was one of the 87 staff, all six of my from nevada, received this noisks. me how many nevadans were among the 87 million that received this notification? senator, i don't have this broken out by state right but i can have my team follow up with you to get you the information. that would be the answer. going r hearing this, through this hearing and nevadans no longer want to have a facebook account, if that's if a facebook user deletes their account, do you their data?

mark: yes. >> my kids have been on facebook and instagram for years. user's do you keep a data? a user's o you keep data data, after they've left? if they choose to delete their keep t, how long do you their data? mark: i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. as ow we try to delete it quickly as is reasonable. we have a lot of complex systems work take a while to through all that. i think we try to move as quickly as possible. my team low up or have to follow up to get you the data on that. >> have you ever said that you sell an ad based on personal information, simply wouldn't sell this data because of the usage of it goes far? ark: senator, could you clarify that? >> have you ever drawn the line an elling data to

advertiser? mark: yes, senator, we don't sell data at all. he way the ad system works, advertisers can come to us and ay i have a message that i'm trying to reach a certain type of people that might be they sted in something, might live in a place and we help them get that message in front of people. this is one of the widely mischararacterized about our we sell data and it's actually one of the most important parts of how facebook data.we don't sell advertisers do not get access to people's individual data. >> have you ever collected the content of phone calls or essages through any facebook application or service? mark: senator, i don't believe the ve ever collected content of phone calls. messenger app called that allows people to message most of their facebook friends. on the android operating system allow people to use that

as their client for both facebook messages and text, so we do allow people to import their texts into that. >> let me ask you about government surveillance. years, facebook said their clie facebook messages and text, so we that there should be strict limits on government ion the can access on americas. i agreed with you that because privacy is important to nevadans, you argue hat facebook users wouldn't trust you if they thought you ere giving their private information to the intelligence community. yet you use and sell the same to make money. in the case of cambridge analytica, you don't each know sell it.used after you can you tell us why this isn't hypocritical? once well, senator, again, we don't sell any data to anyone. we don't sell it to advertisers developers. what we do allow is for people to sign into apps and bring it used to be the data of some of their friends, but now it isn't with them.

that i think makes sense. that's basic data portability, you own the data, you should be from one app to another if you would like. more you believe you're responsible with the millions of theicans personal data than federal government would be? senator, your point about surveillance, i think there is a very important here, which o draw is that when organizations do surveillance, people don't have that, but on facebook, everything that you share there, you have control over. can say i don't want this information to be there, you ave full access to understand every piece of information that facebook might know about you nd you can get rid of all of it. i don't know of any other -- any surveillance organization in the operates that way which i think that that comparison isn't really apt here. today, do you re think you're a victim? >> mark: no. > do you think facebook as a

company is a victim? mark: senator, no. we have a responsibility to rotect everyone in our community from anyone in our ecosystem who is going to potentially harm them. done enough ven't historically and we need to step up and do more. > do you consider the 87 million users, do you consider them victims? mark: senator, i think you asked -- they did not want their to be sold to cambridge analytica by a eveloper and that happened and it happened on our watch so even though we didn't do it, i think we have a responsibility to be able to prevent that and be abl it happened on our watch to take action sooner and we're sure we do o make that going forward which is why the steps that i announced are now, the two most important things that we're doing is locking down the latform to make sure that developers can't get access to that much data, this can't happen again going forward which is largely the case since 2014 and going backwards, we need to investigate every

app that might have had access to a large amount of sure no data to make one else was misusing it. f we find they are, we're getting into their systems, do a full audit and make sure they delete it. >> senator peters into the break and senator tillis coming out of break. senator peters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, thank you for here today. you talked about your very humble beginnings in starting room, but your dorm i appreciated that story. facebook has changed an awful over a relatively short period of time. launched its timeline feature, users found heir friends post chronologically. it has turned to a timeline driven by some very algorithms.d it has left many people as a am i of that asking why seeing this feed and why am i right now.

now in light of the cambridge users ca issue, facebook are asking i think some new questions right now, can i and who hat i'm seeing has access to this information about me. safe to say, very simply, that facebook is losing trust of a an awful lot of americans as a result of this incident. this is n example of something i have been hearing a lot from folks who have been me and talking about really the kind of xperience they have had where they're having a conversation with friends, not on the talk, and then they see ads popping up quickly on their facebook. i have constituents fearing that for the is mining audio purpose of ad targeting which leads to the lack of trust that seeing. there is technical issues and logistical issues for it to time, i hear it all the

including from my own staff. yes or no, does facebook use obtained from mobile devices to enrich personal its users? about mark: no. well, senator, let be clear on this. you're talking about this conspiracy theory that gets to ed around that we listen what's going on on your microphone and use that for ads. >> right. do that. don't to be clear we do allow people devices ideos on their and share those and of course, videos also have audio, so we taking the re video, record that and use that to make the service better by your videos hat have audio. that i think is pretty clear. want to do make sure i was exhaustive there. >> i appreciate that. hopefully that will dispel a lot f what i have been hearing, thank you for saying that. certainly today in the era of data, we are finding that data drives everything including

consumer behaviors and so consumer information is probably the most valuable information ou can get in the data ecosystem. and certainly folks as you have mentioned in your testimony they people like the fact can have targeted ads that they're interested in as opposed ads thatbombarded with they don't have a lot of interest in. consumer information is mportant in order for you to taylor that. people are beginning to wonder, is there an expense to that. to perhaps s exposing them to being manipulated or through deception, you talked about artificial intelligence, you brought that up many times ceremony.ur i know you have employed some to deal with terrorism, things you have talked about in this hearing. that artificial intelligence is not without its risk. ou have to be very transparent with how the algorithms are constructed. how do you see artificial intelligence, more specifically dealing with the ecosystem by helping getting consumer but also keeping

consumer privacy safe. the corenator, i think question you're asking about is a really ency important one, that people are just starting to seriously study, that's ramping up a lot. that's a central question of how systems over i. the next decade and beyond. right now a lot of our a.i. ways s make decisions in that people don't really understand. think that in 10 or 20 years in the future that we all build, we want to end up with systems that people don't understand how they're making decisions. doing the research now to make systems can have those principals as we're developing them is certainly an important thing. >> you bring up the principals. as you're well aware, a.i. ystems, especially in very complex environments when you have machine learning, it's sometimes very difficult to nderstand as you mentioned

exactly how those decisions were arrived at. there are examples of how a isions are made in discriminatory basis and they can compound if you're not very that occurs. how company, you mention principals, is your company de