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 developing a set of principals

that are going to guide that development? would you provide details to us s to what those principals are and how they will deep with this issue. mark: yes, senator, and how they will deep with this issue. mark: yes, senator, i can make sure our team follows up and gets you information on that. we have a whole a.i. team that is working on developing the technology. it's not just about philosophical principals, it's a echnological foundation to make principals, is your company developing a set of principals sure this goes in the directiontion we want. >> thank you. you, senator peters, we'll recess for five and come back in. zuckerburg a quick break here, thanks. >> so that is, of course, mark zuckerberg taking a grilling from the senators all day-long. taking a quick re five-minute break and come back and we'll go back to that testimony. exchanges, heidi, that we saw earlier today between the and zuckerberg. a long day and another ong day in part two of this,

but really some interesting things came up as we expected, top of the agenda was of data from cambridge analytica, and the interference of misinformation during the presidential election, mark zuckerberg self-regulation, but lawmakers are wondering how the trusted to do that. let's get straight to washington is all over ang this. interesting issues that came out of the testimony so far? emily: tough questions from some ill informed questions from lawmakers. overall i would say that mark uckerberg was pretty unflustered and fairly straightforward. ishink one of the highlights that he seems very willing to work with lawmakers on of some sort. it will be interesting to see

how his statements ultimately case used to make that for regulation. you could see him thinking very to answer certain questions. there were some moments of leavitt in the room. protestersdefinitely in there. wearing ple #deletefacebook. he says it hasn't had any on users. impact a few advertisers have paused their spending. about 2/3 of the way through this marathon hearing. t could go on for another couple of hours, a dozen or so ask senators still have to their questions. overall, zuckerberg is pretty good. far >> i was just going to ask that, emily. like he was very well some of just judging by the responses.

emily: very well prepared. he apologized straight up. apologized several times. e corrected at times when questions were potentially mischararacterized. he often said that he would talk team and get back with more information. contentious ore exchanges happened with senator graham where he was really to oning mark zuckerberg talk about who his competitors re and asked if facebook is a monopoly and zuckerburg says he doesn't believe that facebook is monopoly. some might find that hard to believe. exchange with senator ted cruz, he was trying to pin zuckerberg down where they're not a platform for political wanted to and he convey the idea that facebook is a neutral platform. suggested thathe facebook does have some sort of obligation and is

responsible for the content on in a way orm which is a departure of 14 years of facebook. many years, this company resents themselves as neutral territory, they're not responsible for the content that in specific except situations. zuckerberg went further saying while facebook shouldn't have a obligation to police the moral , they have a obligation which will make others squirm a little bit. >> emily, hang on there, i want to bring in now another voice conversation, david and author c.e.o. of the facebook effect, the company thatof the is connecting the world, so avid, i know you're in washington as well, apropos for

the hearing. o you think we're going to see a real changed facebook after these two days of testimony? david: we're definitely seeing a real change in facebook's that onship to government is going to be forever after different. saying, emily was just the fact that he conceded that facebook is responsible for the there, that's significant. he still was trying to avoid making it sound like he thinks media company. he was trying to walk a very delicate line. company, a a media lot of rules begin to apply to them that they would prefer not to them.pply it really has struck me how many and assurances that he has given. he will live up to most of them, ut some may come back to haunt him. >> like what? david: he offered to send a regulations that would

apply to facebook. one of the senators was saying should ws do you think apply to you, he said i'll get back to you with a list. a ist of new laws, quite romise from a c. e.o. who has heretofore preferred to remain unregulated. you would think, wow, this is a than i thoughtny it was. the testimony you have your view r affirm that the long-term survival of is under threat? david: i don't believe the ong-term survive of this company is under threat. 2.2 billion users, it's not anywhere anytime soon. stock market darlings with the highest profit of any exchange the stock

bar none and ever rising, that could be in jeopardy. stock has gonehe up as steadily as it does in the last few hours. a lot of things that he is talking about is going to cost a and could give bargaining leverage on what they pay. that could hurt facebook's in itability going forward my opinion. >> let's talk about the business model. sandburg told me last week the business model isn't change. it is an ad-based business model the allows people around world to use facebook for free, people who couldn't pay for it they wanted to. he said something that piqued phrased it,e way he there will always be a free facebook, does that ean they're contemplating a paid version of facebook?

david: my ears perked up on he deferred when somebody asked him if he was considering a paid service, it sounded like to it the way he answered that question which is for them, it was foreshadowed to something sheryl said to you last week. that work, david? david: i don't think it would work. it.n't think he wants to do would be very dangerous for the price would have to be high to justify it. >> you would have people falling platform, david. to hear ore do we need from zuckerburg. they're coming back from break, topics exhausted the from the senators, what more do zuckerberg?now from david: what time is he going to finish. has a whole other marathon

with the house. questions onhe big your mind or has he answered them? > i don't think he has sufficiently answered to me what is the most fundamental question why did all of this happen. he said he is sorry, that's good. said he is not going to do it again, that's great. rules talked about new and policies and designs, that's great. i don't think he has really the question of why facebook laid down on the job so in protecting ng our data and putting security into its platform. also some talk about whether anyone had been fired as a result of this. one ieve he said that no had been fired as a result of this latest controversy. one of the senators did bring up a very specific employee, andrew bosworth, a longtime executive facebook who wrote a very controversial memo that was leaked to the press. senator read part of that

zuckerberg, heark pushed back at the time on that memo, the senator said clearly not enough. would have fired that person if he would have said that on my watch. e didn't feel that he couldn't say it because he said it out loud. david, i'm curious, do you think here and do roll you find it interesting that have. any other company people would get fired as a result of this.es like mark zuckerberg is very loyal. a lot of these people have for an ith him incredibly long time including andrew bosworth. think people will leave facebook as a result of this scandal?ar david: it's a nonstand company, but it's a stand that in a like this that heads would roll, if only for ceremonial purposes. the nail on the head. he has such a loyal core of people. fired one of them,

especially someone who is central to the program as who trains all of the engineers, one of zuckerburg's colleagues, it would put a pall over the relations and he going to do that. i don't expect there to be firing. some other public things, even after the hearings to show, even if he is not he is taking dramatic steps. it will be really interesting from the outset since he has come out and spoken publicly on me.this is the buck stops here with me. my the c.e.o., in it's fault, i except responsibility. reassuring and does it suggest behind the keeps he is of these ting some responsibilities and strategic decision-making as much as he should be? david: if you're asking me, i right that he is doing that. unilateral absolute

power at that company. else has any power in reality. he wants to delegate, but in the the way hes it to go wants it to go. ultimately he is not going to delegate. feeling ch a strong about the facebook that he wants to ee exist in the future connect the entire planet. 'm impressed to the degree of which he is taking personal esponsibility but he will continue to take personal responsibility. >> is that good for governance? conventional any definition, no. this is not a conventional company. could raise serious questions in the minds of shareholders. i know some shareholders in whom it has raised serious questions. today the stock is going back seem to like it. >> david, if i can poke a little into that kwaend follow up from heidi, look, we know firmly has erg

control over facebook. no one is going to kick him out of facebook without himself so.g back on to the senate floor. would this problem be solved if facebook?g left david: no, it would be a completely different company. me, no one wants him to leave facebook. have how it can be working in a better respect. it would be way worse if he were gone. it would not work without him. david, thank you so much. david kirkpatrick, let's listen testimony. the >> i have been here for most of the session except for about 20 inutes i watched on television back in my office. i was googling earlier, on your and saw one of your facebook presences, on march 30, you posted a pic, further down

ou listed out the facts since the new platform was released in timeline. of a jumptart with 2007 and you to the cambridge analytica issue. a code of conduct if they broke any other rules or hope ents with you all, i they suffer the consequences. that timeline needs to be updated. needs to go back, i read a series of three articles published back in 2012. it talks about how proud the of exploiting was data on facebook in the 2012 campaign, in fact, somebody earlier if it made you mad about what cambridge nalytica did, and you rightfully answered yes. you should be equally mad when a ormer campaign director of the obama campaign proudly tweeted, facebook was surprised. to suck out the

whole social graph, but they idn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. so you clearly had some people employ that apparently knew it, at least that's what this person said on twitter and back and ness for way some of the other history grabber machines, i'm sure we an get this tweet back and get it in the right context. i think when you do your research, it's important to get view.hole i worked in data analytics practice for a good part of my career. to pretend that cambridge analytica was the exploit data o clearly hasn't worked in the data analytics field. when you go back and do your on cambridge analytica, i would appreciate if you start at the first known national campaign that exploited facebook data. they published an app that said would grab information about y friends, their birth dates, locations and likes. resumably if i downloaded that app published by the obama

4,200, i would delete the haters and save. i click just on that app, i access ve approved the of birth dates, locations and likes of some 4,900 people their concept. so as you do the chronology, it would be very helpful so we can partisan rhetoric that is going on like this is a issue.ican only it's a broad-based issue that needs to be fixed. actors enter into the political spectrum need to be held accountable. i trust that you all are going to work on that. the one thing -- so for that, i want to get to the facts. can answer way you any of the questions, i'm not going to burden you with that. that chronology would be very helpful. i would encourage people to go to facebook. i'm a proud member of facebook, a post of my sister on actors enter into the ing

political spectrumday, 'm connected with four or five of the staff, go to the privacy tab, if you don't want to share this ing, don't share it, is a free service. go on there and say i don't want o allow third party search engines to get to my facebook page. only my re and say friends look at it. it's a free app. you need to do more. helpful.it would be i didn't read your disclaimer page or terms of use. i didn't see anywhere that i an attorney and negotiate the terms, so it was a terms of use. i went on there and used the settings to be as safe as i could be with a presence on facebook. talked about , we all of these proposed legislation. good ideas. hen you were developing this app in your dorm, how many people did you have in your affairs division? exactly. so if government takes a handy fix handed approach to this problem, then we know very well that the next facebook, the to thing that you're going

wake up and worry about how you as the to be relevant behemoth you are today is probably not going to happen. probably a place for regulatory guidance. there is a huge place for twitter, awfult, of the other social media platforms to get together to also standards and believe that that person who may have looked the other way when he whole social graph was extracted for the obama campaign, if they're still working for you, they probably at least there should be a business code of conduct that says you don't play favorites. to create a fireplace for people to share their ideas. for being here. >> thank you senator tillis. harris. >> thank you for being here. i have been here on and off for hours that you have been testifying. have tell you i'm concerned about how much facebook values transparency, if we

agree that a critical component f a relationship of trust and transparency is we speak truth and we get to the truth. during the course of this hearing, these last four hours, you have been asked several for which youions don't have answers. have ose questions included whether facebook can track users browsing activity the user has logged off facebook, whether facebook track your activities across devices even when you aren't facebook.o whose looks biggest, competition. whether facebook may store up to 96 categories of users' knew ation, whether you kogan's terms of service, and whether they could sell and transfer data. another point as it relates to cambridge analytica and a is that you, e

meaning facebook, and i'm going o assume you personally as c.e.o. became aware in december kogan and t dr. cambridge at lit ka misappropriated data from 87 facebook users. hat's 27 months ago that you became as facebook and you personally became aware. was made notcision to notify the users. question is, did anyone at at book have a conversation the time that you became aware a this breach and have conversation where in the contact was made not to the users? mark: senator, i don't know if there were any conversations at facebook overall because i in a lot of them. >> on that subject. what other ot sure

people discussed. we heard e in 2015, he report that this developer, kogan had told -- >> were you part of a decision your users?m mark: i don't remember a conversation like that. he reason why -- >> are you aware of anyone in leadership at facebook who was a conversation where a decision was made not to inform believe no r do you such conversation ever take place? >> i'm not sure whether there was a conversation about that. i can tell you the thought process of the time of the 2015 when wehat in heard about this, we banned the demanded that e they delete all of the data and stop using it and the same with analytica. >> i'm talking about notification of the users and relates to the issue of

transparency and the trust informing the user about what you know in their personal information has been misused and when youconcerned that personally became aware of this, or senior leadership do an inquiry to find out who at information this and did they not have a iscussion about whether or not the users should be informed back in december of 2015? senator, in retrospect, i think we clearly view it as a inform that we didn't people and we did that based on false information that we thought that the case was closed and that the data had been deleted. >> so there was a decision made the at basis not to inform users, is that correct? mark: that's my understanding, yes. in retrospect, i think that was a mistake and knowing what now now, where he should have

handled a lot of things differently. >> i appreciate that point. do you know when that was made not to inform the users? >> i don't. november, the senate intelligence committee held a hearing on social media part of that as a hearing. i submitted 50 written questions facebook and other companies that we esponses received were unfortunately evasive and some were frankly nonresponsive. i'm going to ask the question again here. how much revenue did facebook earn from the user engagement foreign lted from propaganda? dok: well, senator, what we know, the i.r.a., the internet research agency, the russian ran about $100,000 worth of ads. we've say that identified all of the foreign actors who are involved here, so all of say that that's the money. but that is what we have identified. >> my time is up. submit more questions for

the record, thank you. you, senator harris. senator kennedy. >> mr. zuckerberg, i come in peace. [laughter] >> i don't want to have to vote regulate facebook, but by of that ll, a lots depends on you. i'm a little disappoint indeed this hearing today. i just don't feel like we're connecting. o let me try to lay it out for you from my point of view. a really smart guy and i think you have built extraordinary american lot ny and you have done a of good. some of the things you have been magical.o are

utopia we d digital have discovered has mine fields. there are some impurities in the facebook punch bowl. they got to be fixed. fix them.k you can now, here is what is going to happen. a whole going to be bunch of bills introduced to regulate facebook. they pass you whether or not. spend $10 back home, million on lobbyists and fight go back home and help us solve this problem and, too, one is a privacy problem, one is a propaganda problem. privacy rt with the problem first. let's start with your user agreement. here is what everybody has been today and i l you say this gently. user agreement sucks.

[laughter] >> you spot me 75i.q. points. if i can figure it out, you can figure it out. purpose of that user agreement is to cover facebook's rear end. not inform your users about their rights. and i know w that that. thatoing to suggest to you rewrite it home and and tell your $1,200 lawyers, no disrespect, they're good, but want it written in non-swahili, so the average american can understand it. that would be a start. as a facebook , user, are you willing to give me over my data? mark: senator, as someone who i believe that you should have complete control over your data. to go are you willing

back and work on giving me a erase my data?o mark: senator, you can already that's ny of the data there -- >> are you going to work on expanding that? senator, i think we already do what you're referring to, but certainly we're always trying to make these controls easier. >> are you willing to expand my to know who you're sharing my data with? >> senator, we already give you you're usings that and you sign into those yourself affirmative consent, as i said before -- >> the user agreement, are you to expand my right to from sharing my data? mark: senator, again, i believe have that ready control, so i think people have that full control in the system today.

if we're not communicating this clearly, then that's a big thing that we should work on because i the principals that you're articulating are the ones that to codify in and try in the product we build. >> are you willing to give me the right to take my data on and move it to another social platform? ark: senator, you can already do that. we have download your information tool where you can go, get a file of all of the there and do whatever you want with it. >> then i assume you're willing the right to say i'm going to go on your platform and ou're going to be able to tell a lot about me as a result, but share with you to anybody? mark: yes, senator, i believe you already have that ability today. sign on and choose to not share things and just follow some friends or some pages and content if that's what they want to do. ok. i want to be sure -- i'm about out of time, boy, it goes fast, doesn't it. let me ask you one final

question in my 12 seconds. can somebody call you up and say john kennedy's file? not. absolutely >> not would you do it, but could you do it? mark: in. . >> do you have the right to put a name on my data and share it? mark: i do not believe we have the right to do that. >> at you have the ability? mark: technically, someone could do that but that would be a massive breach. >> senator baldwin is up next. baldwin: thank you for being here and in during a long day, mr. zuckerberg.

i want to start with what i hope can be a quick round of questions just so i make sure i understand your previous testimony. specifically with regard to the process by which cambridge analytica was able to purchase collected data and a personality quiz. mark: yes. senator baldwin: and could gain access to people that took the quiz but their network. is that correct? mark: the terms of the platform their time could share information and some basic information about their friends as well. and we have since changed that. senator baldwin: 87 million

you earlierrs -- testified about the two types of ways you game data. one is what is voluntarily shared by facebook members and users. , in orderher is to improve your advertising whatever that means, the data facebook collects in order to customize or focus on that. was alexander kogan able to get both sets of data. mark: it was just a subset of what was entered by the person. a subset of the 95 categories of data that you keep. ,ark: the app developer says this is the type of data i am asking for.

including public information like your name, the pages you follow, other interests. has to developer disclose that upfront and you agree to it. an answer to a: couple other senator's questions, you talked about facebook starting this -- storing this data. and you talk about it being in the system. inonder if outset of the way which alexander kogan was able you,cess this eta, whether facebook, could be vulnerable to a data breach or hack. there are many kinds of .ecurity threats including people trying to break it our security system. senator baldwin: you believe that you have been hacked, would you have the duty to inform those impacted? mark: yes.

knowor baldwin: do you whether alexander kogan sold any of the data he collected with anyone other than cambridge analytica? mark: yes, we do. he sold it to a couple of other firms. senator baldwin: can you identify them. mark: one called yunoya. there may have been a couple others as well. senator baldwin: i appreciate that. how much do you know or have you tried to find out how cambridge analytica used the data, how they had it before you believe they deleted it? mark: since we just heard they did not delete it, we kicked off an internal investigation.

the investigation is still underway. we can come back to you with the results once we have that. senator baldwin: i will switch to my home state of wisconsin. according to press reports, my home state of wisconsin was a major target of russian bought ads the 2016 election. number of very polarizing issues. they similarly targeted division anding dissent in the wake of a police shooting in milwaukee's sherman park neighborhood. i find some encouragement in the steps you have outlined today to provide greater transparency regarding political ads.

are you confident you have excluded entities based on -- outside the united states. mark: we will follow up on that. senator baldwin: on that topic, ofyou require disclosure that sponsor. senator, you can go to any page and see the ads that page has run. if someone is running a political campaign and they are targeting one district with one ad and another district with another, historically, it's been hard to track that down and now it will be very easy. you will look at the ads they have run to see what they are

saying to different folks. this is an area where i think out transparency would root multiple foreign interference. senator johnson: thank you for coming here today. do you know how many of your users actually read the terms of service and the privacy policy? actually read it. mark: i do not. senator johnson: would you imagine it is a small percentage? mark: who read the whole thing? i am edging most people do not read the whole thing. but everybody has the opportunity to and consents to it. senator johnson: it is true of every application that people press agree the vast majority, correct? mark: it is really hard for me to make a full assessment.

thisor johnson: with all publicity, have you documented in a kind of facts from facebook users? in people falloff utilizing facebook because of these concerns? mark: there has not. senator johnson: do you have any witness of that? mark: there was a movement where friends were encouraging friends to delete their account and it got shared a bunch. senator johnson: facebook users don't seem to be overly concerned about all these revelations. although congress is. senator, i think people are concerned about it and these are incredibly important issues that people want us to address. people told us that very clearly. senator johnson: they still want to use the platform because they enjoy sharing photos and the conductivity with family members

. and that overrides concerns of privacy. you talk about the user owns the data. it allows the user to monetize themselves. your coo mentioned possibly, if you can't use their data, to gos we charge people on to facebook. have you thought about a model where the user data was monetized by the user? senator, i'm not sure exactly how it would work to be monetized by the person directly. in general, we believe the ads model aligns with our social mission of trying to connect everyone. senator johnson: but you are aware of people making that kind of proposal? mark: yes. a number of people suggest that we should offer a version where

people can not have ads and they pay a monthly subscription. it we consider ideas like that. they are reasonable ideas to think through. overall, the ads experience is going to be the best one. people like not having to pay for a service. a lot of people can't afford to pay for a service. you answeredon: senator graham when he asked if you thought you were a monopoly that you did not think so. you are a big player in the space. it might be an area for competition, if somebody else wants to create a social platform that allows a user to monetize their own data? mark: senator, yes. there are lots of new social apps all the time. the average american uses a different communication and social apps. there is choice and innovation and activity in this space. senator johnson: you talk about the difference between advertisers and application developers.

the advertisers have no access to data whatsoever. but application developers do. do they actually access eta -- data? mark: thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this. that data. designed the platform that way is because we thought it would be very useful to make it so that people could wring their data to other services. some people inside the company argued against that of the time because they said we should make it so we're the only ones that developed this stuff. senator johnson: a user agreeing does theyou to share, developer have access to that prior to users using it? we use the term scraped data.

who scraped the data? that's a good question. there is a developer platform, and they ask a person to access information. we also have certain features and third -- certain things that are public. he put your name and profile picture and that is public information that people put out there. people who aren't registered developers of facebook try to load a lot of pages in order to get access to a bunch of people public information and aggregated. we fight back against that because we don't want anyone to aggregate information even if people made it public and chose to share it with everyone. >> thank you mr. chair. thank you, mr. zuckerberg, for being here today. .o a couple of broader issues

i am concerned facebook's profitability rests on to potentially problematic foundations. we have heard other senators talk about this a little today. maximizing the amount of time people spend on your product and collect people data -- people can't data. people's data. one risk is the decrease in user engagement, including time spent on our products. that concerns a because of the research suggesting we have been too much time on social media and can help peoples -- hurt people's mental health. decline in the effectiveness of our ad targeting or the degree to which users opt out of certain types of ad targeting. there was clearly tension.

the mission is to bring the world closer together and you said you will never prioritize advertisers over that mission. and i believe that you believe that. but at the end of the day, your business model does prioritize advertisers over the mission. facebook is a for-profit company. and you have a legal duty to do what is best for your shareholders. given all of that, why should we think that facebook on its own will ever truly be able to make the changes that we needed to make to protect americans well-being and privacy? mark: senator, you raise a number of important points and so let me respond in a couple of different ways. it is important to think about what we are doing is building this community over the long term.

do to increase revenue in the short-term, but at the expense of trust or building engagement over time. it is going to be best for our business. it aligns very closely. when people are interacting with .ther people happiness, not feeling lonely. it ends up being better for the business. and so i think that's an important point. senator hassan: i understand the point you're trying to make here. here is what i'm concerned about. we have heard this point from you over the last decade plus. since he founded facebook, and i understand you founded it with your roommate.

it now you are sitting here the head of a bazillion dollar we've heard you apologize numerous times and promised to change. i firmly believe in free enterprise. if companies are unable to do what is necessary, public officials have historically, in every industry, stepped up to protect consumers. the honest as act. for integrityt and i am happy about that. you said that you would be open -- would you commit to working with congress to develop ways of protecting the constituent privacy and well-being even if it means that that results in some law that would require you to adjust business model?

we will commit to that. that is an important conversation to have. important,t is so the expectation of companies are growing. right framework for this? question is ifr the framework should include financial penalties when large isviders like facebook breached and right now, there is whethertle incentive, it is facebook or equifax, to be aggressive in protecting customer privacy. taking the harm that comes with

that, and the considerable inconvenience. there is no financial incentive right now, it seems to me, for these companies to aggressively in the consumer stead and protect the privacy. i look forward to working with you on that. i would disagree that we have no financial incentive or incentive overall to do this. this episode has clearly hurt us and has made it harder for us to achieve a social mission that we care about. we have to do a lot of work. i thank you -- senator hassan: i thank you. my time is up. .> thank you, chairman grassley thank you, mr. zuckerberg. delete, froms can

their own account, at any time. once the individual deletes the page, it is gone forever? mark: yes. we will delete it from our , but we can't guarantee they don't have it somewhere else. senator hassan: if somebody leaves facebook and rejoins and asks facebook, can you re-create my past, your answer would be? mark: if they delete their accounts, the answer is no.

deactivation which allows you to shut down or suspend your account but not delete the information. a lot of people want, for some period of time, students with exams coming up that want to not they havebook because exams. accountalso delete your which is wiping everything and if you do that, you can't get it back. senator hassan: it is gone from your archives? mark: yes. senator hassan: is it ever really gone? mark: from our systems? senator hassan: from the cloud or wherever it is. it always seems to reappear in investigations. other emails and other things of that nature. what about information from the past? information has been in the cambridge analytica case. you can't go back and redo that. that fromto assume

this point forward, is that the correct assumption? i think we can go back in some cases. we will be investigating every app before we locked down the platform in 2014. if we are going to go do a full audit of their systems, and if we find out anyone is improperly using data, we will take action to make sure they delete the data and will inform everyone who may have had their data misused. >> another suggestion i would moreis that you have heard than a few complaints and i join the chorus and the lapse of time between when you discovered it. do you regret that decision that you wish you had been more transparent at the time? over themagine if

course of the investigation, you find more breaches. re-informingd be your facebook customers? mark: that is correct. if we find any improper use, we will inform everyone affected. up -- >>assan: you set you said you also want to control the ecosystem. gottlieb, andcott from west virginia. if we don't have connectivity, facebook could really help us with that. calledioner gottlieb upon social media and internet service providers. they mentioned facebook when they talked about it, to try to disrupt the sale of illegal drugs and particularly powerful opioid fentanyl which has been advertised and sold online.

i know you have policies against this. i want to know, can i get a commitment from you today that facebook will commit to having a representative with commissioner gottlieb to finalize this meeting? mark: it sounds like an important initiative and we will send someone. on your point about conductivity, we have a group that facebook hoping to spread internet conductivity. -- connectivity. senator hassan: good news. -- >> good news. if somebody advertises on facebook and somebody purchases something, does facebook get a percentage or any kind of fee associated? mark: no. the way the system works, advertisers bid how much it is ad orto them to show an

when an action happens. we don't get a percent of the sale. let's say you are an app developer and your goal is to get more people to install your app. you can bid and say i will pay three dollars anytime someone installs this app. we calculate which ads are going to be relevant for people and we have an incentive to show people ads that are going to be relevant because we only get paid when it delivers a business result. >> so you could be paid for the sale. actionet paid when the of the advertiser wants to happen happens. corker: mr. zuckerberg, it has been a long afternoon and i appreciate you being here. i am going to echo what a lot of my colleagues said today.

i appreciate you being here. i appreciate the apologies. stop apologizing and make a change. i appreciate the fact that you talked about the principles for facebook. and that users have complete control of the data. i'm hoping you can help me with this. years, weast seven haven't seen much change in ensuring that the privacy is there and that individual users have control over their data. let me ask you this. in 2009, you made two changes to the privacy policy. to that, most users could identify friends or friends of friends as part of their privacy. correct? they can identify only friends or friends of friends.

we have the option for people to share with friends, friends of friends, a custom audience, or publicly, for a long time. i believe it was before 2009. >> you could choose friends or friends of friends to protect that data? mark: those are two of the options, yes. >> they were concerned that if , theody chose only friends individual user can continue to restrict sharing of data. in fact, selecting friends only did not protect users from being shared with the third-party applications. and the third-party could access

that information? i don't remember the exact context. that was theek head of the federal trade commission's bureau of consumer protection, where he worked, i'm including on the ftc enforcement case. basically identifies in this article that that was the case. did facebook misrepresent and that is why there were eight counts of deceptive acts. the 2011 decree. facebook -- making further privacy claims and facebook at consumer approval before it change the way it shares data and required

facebook to give users clear and conspicuous notice, to obtain a affirmative express consent. mark: that sounds right to me. >> you were on notice that there were concerns about the sharing of information and user data. did you make those changes? and what did you do to make sure that they had notice of that information and the potentially third parties would be accessing that? what do you specifically do in response to that. one of the most important parts was establishing a robust .rive is the program

it can't be a privacy policy because it had to be something specific. it did not occur. isn't that true? not only the type of data information being shared. it is time to come and lead the .ountry i am hoping you are

senator: thank you mr. zuckerberg for your patience and testimony. the end is near, three or four people. that is good news, to get out of this hearing. to clarify one of the comments about deleting accounts from facebook, in the user agreement it says when you delete ip content it is deleted and an amount -- a manner similar to in aing recycled content computer. but it may be kept for a certain period of time. how long is that? know,ckerberg: i do not but the idea is to get the information out as soon as possible. ipator: it talks about content, is that the same as user data that can sit with backup copies? mr. zuckerberg: i think that is probably right. i am not