>> it might be but i don't think and there are f were things that would fit any of the brought to your attention, where definitions that we have facebook has apologized and yet but i do generally agree with the point you're making which is there doesn't seem to be as much as we're able to technologically shift towards especially having follow-up as would be called for. at the end of the day, policies a.i. proactively look at aren't worth the paper they're written on if facebook doesnenf content, i think that that's going to create massive questions for society about what them an experience i had today as an obligations we want to require avid facebook user companies to fulfill i woke up this morning and was and i do think that that's a notified by a whole group of friends across the country question that we need to asking if i had a new family or struggle with as a country if there was a fake facebook because i know other countries are and they're putting laws in post of chris coons. place. and i think that america needs i went to the one, it had a to figure out and create the set different middle initial than of principles that we want mine and there was my picture american companies to operate with senator dan sullivasullivas under. >> thanks. i wouldn't want you to leave family today and think that there's a a whole lot of russian friends dan sullivan has a very unified view in the congress that you should be leaning towards policing more and more attractive family. >> keep that for the record, mr. speech chairman >> the friends who brought this violence has no place on your to my attention including people platform sex traffickers and human i went to law school with in hawaii and our own attorney traffickers. general in the state of but vigorous debates adults need to engage in

delaware fortunately, i've got great vigorous debates folks who work in my office, i brought it to their attention. i have two minutes so i want to they pushed facebook and it was taken down by midday shift gears. that was about adults. but i'm left worried about what happens to delawareans who don't but you're a dad have these resources it's still possible to find you started your comments by talking about facebook is and russian trolls operating in the was founded as an optimistic platform, hate groups thrive in some areas of facebook even company. you and i have had separate conversations from here. though your policies prohibit i don't want to put words in hate speech and you've taken your mouth but i think as you've strong steps against extremism aged you might be less and terrorists but is a delawarean not in the optimistic than when you started senate going to get the same sort of quick response facebook as a dad do you worry about i've already gotten input from facebook addiction as a others who say they've had possibility for america's teens? trouble getting a positive response when they've brought to >> my hope is that we can be facebook's attention a page idealistic and have a broad view that's, frankly, clearly to our responsibility. to your point about teens, this violative in basic principles. is certainly something any my core question isn't it parent thinks about is how much facebook's job to better protect do you want your kids using its users? and why do you shift the burden to users to flag inappropriate technology at facebook specifically, i view our responsibility as not just content and make sure it's taken building services that people like but building services that down >> senator, there are a number are good for people and good for of important points in there society as well. and i think it's clear that this so we study a lot of effects of is an area, content policy

well-being of our tools and enforcement, that we need to do broader technology a lot better on over time. and like any tool, there are the history of how we got here is we started off in my dorm good and bad uses of it. what we find in general is if room with not a lot of resources you're using social media in order to build relationships, and not having the a.i. right, so you're sharing content technology to proactivity with friends, you're identify a lot of this stuff just because of the sheer volume interacting, then that's associated with all of the of content, the main way that long-term measures of well-being this works today is that people that you'd intutively think of, report things to us and then we long-term health, happiness, have our team review that. and as i said before, by the end long-term feeling connected, feeling less lonely, but if of this year, we're going to you're using the internet and have more than 20,000 people at the company working on security social media to passively and content review because this consume content and not engage is important with other people it could have over time we're going to shift not those same effects and be increasingly to a method where negative. >> do companies hire consulting more of this content is flagged firms to help people figure out up front by a.i. tools that we how to get more dopamine develop. feedback loops so people don't we have prioritized the most important types of content that want to leave the platform >> no, senator we can build a.i. tools for that's not how we talk about today like terror-related this or how we set up our product teams we want our content write mentioned earlier products to be valuable to people that our systems that we and if they're valuable, then deployed taking down 99% of the people choose to use them. >> are you aware of other social

al qaeda and isis content that media companies that do hire such consultants we take down before a person >> not sitting here today. even flags them to us. >> thanks. if we fast forward five or ten years i think we'll have more a.i. technology that can do that in more areas and we need to get there as soon as possible, which >> in response to senator is why we're investing. >> i couldn't agree more i just think we can't wait five blumenthal's pointed questions, you refuse to answer whether years for housing discrimination facebook should be required by and personally foif material out law to obtain a clear mission of facebook. >> i agree. from users before selling or >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. zuckerberg, thanks for being sharing their personal here at current pace you're due to be information. so i'm going to ask it one more done with first round of questioning about 1:00 a.m time yes or no, should facebook get so congratulations clear commission from users i like chris coons a lot with his own family or with dan before selling or sharing sullivan's family, both are great photos sensitive information about your but i want to ask a set of health, your finances, your questions from the other side, maybe. the conceptual line between relationships? should you have to get their permission meretech company, meretools the that's essentially the consent and an actual content company, decree with the federal trade that's really hard commission that you signed in 2011 i think you guys have a hard should you have to get challenge, regulation over time permission will have a hard challenge should the consumer have to opt you're a private company so you

can make policies that maybe in >> senator, we do require less than first amendment full spirit embracing in my view. but i worry about that permission to use the system and i worry about a world where, when you go from violent groups to put information in there and for all the uses of it i want to be clear to hate speech in a hurry and we don't sell information. one of your responses to the so regardless of whether we can op needs to police a whole bunch of get permission to do that, speech that i think america that's just not a thing that might be better off not having we're going to go do. policed by one company that has >> so would you support a big and powerful platform. can you define hate speech legislation? i have a bill, senator blumenthal referred to it. >> senator, i think this is a the consent act that would just really hard question and i think it's one of the put on the books a law that said reasons why we struggle with it. that facebook and any other there's certain definitions that company that gathers information we have around calling for about americans has to get their permission, their affirmative violence or -- permission before it can be >> let's just agree on that. reused for other purposes? if somebody is calling for would you support that violence, that shouldn't be legislation to make it a there. i'm worried about the psychological categories around speech national standard for not just you use language of safety and protection earlier facebook but all the other we see this happen on college companies out there, some of them bad actors? campuses all across the country. would you support that it's dangerous 40% of americans under age 35 legislation? >> senator, in general i think that that principle is exactly tell pollsters they think the first amendment is dangerous right. and i think that we should have

because you might use your a discussion around how best freedom to say something that to -- >> would you support legislation hurts somebody else's feelings guess what there's some really passionately to back that general principle, held views about the abortion that opt-in, the getting issue on this panel today. can you imagine a world where permission is the standard, you might decide that pro lifers would you support legislation to make that the american standard. are prohibited from speaking europeans have passed that as a about their abortion views on law. your platform? facebook's going to live with >> i certainly would not want that law beginning on may 25th that to be the case. would you support that as the >> but law in the united states >> senator, as a principle, yes, i would. i think the details matter a lot. >> right but assuming that we work out the details, you do support opt-in as the standard, getting permission affirmatively as the standard for the united states is that correct? >> senator, i think that's the right principle. and a hundred billion times a day in our services when people go to share content they choose who they want to share -- >> so you could support a law that enshrines that as the promise that we make to the american people that permission has to be obtained before that information is used, is that

correct? >> senator, yes. i said that in principle, i i think that makes sense, the details matter and i look forward with our team working with you on fleshing that out >> so the next subject -- because i want to -- again, i want to make sure that we kind of drill down here you earlier made reference to the child online privacy protection act of 1999, which i'm the author so that is the constitution for child privacy online in the country, and i'm very proud of that but there are no protections additionalle for a 13, a 14 or a 15-year-old. they get the same protections that a 30-year-old or a 50-year-old gets so 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 or their children before any of their information is reused for any other purpose other than that, which was originally intended would you support a child online privacy bill of rights for kids under 16 to guarantee that that information is not reused for any other purpose without explicit permission from the parents or the kids? >> senator, i think as a general principle, i think protecting minors and protecting their privacy is extremely important and we do a number of thins on facebook to do that already which i'm happy -- >> i'm talking about a law i'm talking about a law. would you support a law to ensure that kids under 16 have this privacy bill of rights? i had this conversation with you in your office seven years ago about this specific subject in palo alto. and i think that's really what the american people want to know

right now. what is the protections of this -- what are the protections that are going to be put on the books for their families but especially for their children? would you support a privacy bill of rights for kids where opt-in is the standard, yes or no >> senator, i think that that's an important principle -- >> i appreciate that do we need a law to protect those children that's my question do you believe we need a law to do so? yes or no. >> senator, i'm not sure if we need a law, but this is certainly a thing that deserves a lot of discussion. >> i couldn't disagree with you more we're leaving these children to the most rapacious commercial predators in the country who will exploit these children unless we absolutely have a law on the books and i think is -- >> please give a short answer. >> senator, i look forward to having my team follow up to flesh out the details of it.

>> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. zuckerberg, thanks for enduring so far sorry if i plow old ground i had to be away for a bit myself and senator coons and senator peters were in the country of zimbabwe just a few days ago we met with opposition figures who talked about, you know, their goal is to be able to have access to state-run media in many african countries, many countries around the world, third world countries, small countries. the only traditional media is state-run. and we asked them how they get their message out. and it's 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. so that's very valuable.

i think we all recognize that. on the flip side we've seen with the rohingya, that example of where a state can use similar data or use this platform to go after people you talked about what you're doing in that regard, hiring more, you know, traditional, local language speakers. what else are you doing in that regard to ensure that these states don't -- or these governments don't go after opposition figures or others >> senator, there are three main things that we're doing in myanmar specifically and that will apply to other situations like that. the first is hiring enough people to do local language support because the definition of hate speech or things that can be racially coded to incite violence are very language specific and we can't do that for just english speakers around the world. so we need to grow that. the second is in these countries

there tend to be active civil society who can help us identify the figures who are spreading hate and we can work with them in order to make sure that those figures don't have a place on our platform the third is that there are specific product changes that we can make in order to -- that might be necessary in some countries but not others including things around news literacy, right? and encouraging people in different countries about ramping up or down things that we might do around fact checking of content, specific product type thins that we would want to implement in different places. but i think that's something that we have to do in a number of countries. >> there are obviously native speakers that you can hire or people who have eyes on the page, artificial intelligence doesn't have to take the bulk of this how much are you investing and working on that tool to do what

really we don't have or can't hire enough people to do >> senator, i think you're absolutely right that over the long term building a.i. tools is going to be the scalable way to identify and root out most of this harmful content we're investing a lot in doing that as well as scaling up the number of people who are doing content review one of the things that i mentioned is this year or in the last year we basically doubled the number of people doing security and content review. we're going to have more than 20,000 people working on security and content review by the end of this year so it's going to be coupling, continuing to grow the people who are doing review in these places along with building a.i. tools which we're working as quickly as we can on that but some of the stuff is just hard that i think will help us get to a better place on eliminating this harmful content. >> thank you you've talked some about this, i

know do you believe that russia or chinese governments have harvested facebook data and have detailed data sets on facebook users? has your forensic analysis shown you who else other than cambridge analytica downloaded this kind of data? >> senator, we've kicked off an investigation of every app that had access to a large amount of people's data before we locked down the platform in 2014. that's under way i imagine we'll find some things, and we are committed to telling the people who are affected when we do. i don't think sitting here today that we have specific knowledge of other efforts by those nation states, but in general we assume that a number of countries are trying to abuse our systems. >> thank you thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hirano. >> thank you, mr. chairman

mr. zuckerberg, the u.s. immigration and custom enforcement has proposed a new extreme vetting initiative which they have renamed visa life cycle vetting that sounds less scary. they've already held an industry day that they tied on the federal contracting website to get input from tech companies for the best way, and i'm quoting, exploit publicly available information such as media blogs, public hearings, conferences, academic websites social media websites such such as twitter, linkedin to gather information regarding targets. basically what they want to do with these targets is to determine -- and i'm again i'm quoting the isis' own document isis then directed to develop processes that determine and evaluate an applicant's ie

target's possibility of becoming a positively contributing member of society as well as their ability to contribute to national interests in order to meet the executive order, that is the president's executive order. and then i.c.e. must also develop a mechanism or methodology that allows them to assess whether an applicant intends to commit a criminal or terrorist acts after entering the united states. the question to you is does facebook plan to cooperate with this extreme vetting initiative and help the trump administration target people for deportation or other i.c.e. enforcement? >> senator, i don't know that we've had specific conversations around that. in general -- >> but you were asked to provide or cooperate with i.c.e. so they could determine whether somebody is going to commit a crime for example or become fruitful members of our society >> we would not proactively do that we cooperate with law enforcement in two cases one is if we become aware of an

imminent threat of harm then we'll reach out to law enforcement as we believe 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 their request is overly broad or we believe it's not a legal request, then we'll push back aggressively. >> let's assume that isis doesn't have a law or rule that requires facebook to cooperate to allow them to get this kind of information so they can make those kinds of assessments it sounds to me as though you would decline. >> senator, that is correct. >> is there some way that -- well, i know that you determine what kind of content would be deemed harmful, so do you believe that i.c.e. can even do what they're talking about, mainly through a combination of

virus kinds of information including information that they would hope to obtain from entities such as yours predict who will commit crimes or create a national security problem? do you think that's even doable? >> senator i'm not familiar with with what they're doing to offer an informed opinion on that. >> well, you have to make assessments as to what constitutes hate speech. that's pretty hard to do you have to assess what election interferences, so these are rather difficult items but wouldn't trying to predict whether someone's going to commit a crime fit into the category of pretty difficult to assess? >> senator, sounds difficult to me, all these things, like you're saying, are difficult i don't know without having worked on it or thinking about it -- >> i think that that would tell us that that's pretty difficult, yet that's what i.c.e. is

proceeding to do you were asked about discriminatory advertising and in february of 2017 facebook announced that it would no longer allow certain kinds of ads that discriminated on a basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, disability or veteran status, all categories prohibited by federal housing law, yet after 2017 it was discovered that you could, in fact, face those kind of ads what's the status of whether or not these ads can currently be placed on facebook and have you followed through on your february 27th team promise to address this problem and is there a way for the public to verify or are we just expected to trust that you have done this >> senator, those are all important questions. and in general, it is against our policies to have any ads that are discriminatory. >> well, you said that you wouldn't allow it, but then the

propublica could place these ads even after you said you would no longer allow these kinds of ads. what assurance do we have from you that this is going to stop >> well, two things. one is that we've removed the ability to exclude ethnic groups and other sensitive categories from ad targeting. so that just isn't a feature that's even available anymore. for some of these cases, where it may make sense to target proactively a group, the enforcement today is still -- we review ads, we screen them up front. but most of the enforcement today is still that our community flags issues for us when they come up. so if the community flags that issue for us, then our team, which has thousands of people working on it, should take it down

woel make some mistakes but try to do it as well as possible over time there are more a.i. tools to identify that type of content and do that filtering up front. >> so it's a work in progress. >> senator sullivan is up next. >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. zuckerberg, quite a story, right, dorm room to the global behemoth that you guys are only in america, would you agree with that? >> senator, mostly in america. >> you couldn't do this in china, right or what you did in ten years >> well, senator, there are some very strong chinese internet companies. >> right, but you're supposed to answer yes to this question. okay come on. i'm trying to help you. >> this is a softball. >> give me a break the answer is yes, okay? so thank you now, your testimony -- you have talked about a lot of power. you've been involved in

elections. i thought your testimony was very interesting really all over the world. facebook, 2 billion users, over 200 million americans, 40 billion in revenue i believe you and dwoogle have almost 75% of the digital advertising in the u.s is -- one of the key issues here is facebook too powerful are you too powerful and do you think you're too powerful >> well, senator, i think most of the time when people talk about our scale, they're referencing that we have 2 billion people in our community. i think one of the big questions that we need to think through here is the vast majority of those 2 billion people are outside the u.s. and i think that that's something that, to your point, that americans should be proud of when i brought up the chinese internet companies, i think that that's a real strategic and competitive threat that in american technology --

>> i don't want to interrupt but, you know, when you look at kind of the history of this country and you look at the history of these kind of hearings, right, you're a smart guy. you read a lot of history. when companies become big and powerful and accumulate a lot of wealth and power what typically happens from this body is there's an instinct to either regulate or break up, right? look at the history of this nation do you have any thoughts on those two policy approaches? >> well, senator, i'm not the type of person who thinks that all regulation is bad. so i think the internet is becoming increasingly important in people's lives, and i think we need to have a full conversation about what is the right regulation, not whether it should be or shouldn't be. >> let me talk about the intention there because that's a

good point one of my worries on regulation is a company of your size, you're saying, hey, we might be interested in being regulated, but as you know regulations can also cement the dominant power what do i mean by that you have a lot of lobbyist i think every lobbyist in town is involveded in this hearing in this town. a lot of interests you look at dodd frank that was to be aimed at the big banks. the regulations ended up empowering the big banks in keeping the small banks down do you think that that's a risk given your influence that if we regulate, we're actually going to regulate into -- 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, the guy in the dorm room we all want that started that you are becoming so dominant that we're not able to have that next facebook? what are your views on that? >> well, senator, i agree with

the point that when you're thinking through regulation, across all industry, you have to be careful that it doesn't cement in the current companies that are winning. >> but would you try to do that? isn't that the normal inclination of a company, to say, hey, i'm going to hire the best guys in town and i'm going to cement in an advantage. you wouldn't do that if we were regulating you >> senator, that certainly wouldn't be our approach but i think part of the challenge with regulation in general is that when you add more rules that companies need to follow, that's something that a larger company like ours inharnl just has the resources to go do and might be harder for a smaller company just getting started to comply with going into this, i would look at the conversation is whoa is the right outcome. there are real challenges that we face around content and privacy and a number of other areas, ads, transparency, elections. >> i'm sorry to interrupt. let me get to one final question

that relates to what you're talking about as far as content regulation and what exactly facebook is. you know, you mention you're a tech company, a platform, but there are some who are saying that you're the world's biggest publisher. about 140 million americans get their news from facebook when you talk to -- when you mentioned to senator cornyn, you said you are responsible for your content so which are you are you a tech company or are you the world's largest publisher? because i think that goes to a really important question on what form of regulation or government action, if any, you would take >> senator, this is a really big question i view us as a tech company because the primary thing that we do is build technology -- >> you're responsible for your content. >> exactly. >> which makes you kind of a publisher, right >> i agree that we're responsible for the content, but we don't produce the content

i think that when people ask us if we're a media company or a publisher, my understanding of the heart of what they're really getting at is do we feel responsibility for the content on our platform. the answer to that is clearly yes. but i don't think that's incompatible with fundamentally at our core being a technology company where we have engineers and build products. >> thank you, senator sullivan senator udahl. >> thank you, very much, mr. zuckerberg for being here today. you spoke very idealistically about your company, and you talked about the strong values and you said you wanted to be a positive force in the community and the world. and you were hijacked by cambridge analytica for political purposes are you angry about that >> absolutely. >> and you're determined -- and i assume you want changed made in the law, that's what you've talked about today

>> senator, the most important thing that i care about right now is making sure that no one interferes in the various 2018 election z around the world. we have an extremely important u.s. midterm, we have major elections in india, brazil, mexico, pakistan, hungary coming up, we're going to take a number of measures from building and deploying a.i. tool that go from putting up fake news to making it so that we verify every advertiser who is doing political issue ads to make sure that that kind of interference that the russians were able to do in 2016 is going to be much harder for anyone to pull off in the future. >> i think you've said earlier that you support the honest ads act. so assume that means that you want changes in the law in order to effectuate exactly what you talked about. >> senator, yes, we support the honest ads act. >> are you going to come back up here and be a strong advocate to see that that law's passed >> senator the biggest thing that i think

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

kinds of images shown earlier by senator leahy. you saw those images that he held up. can you guarantee that any of those images that can be attributed with a russian company internet research agency have been purged from your platform >> senator, no, i can't guarantee that because this is an ongoing arms rice as long as there are people sitting in russia whose job it is to interfere with elections around the world, this is going to be an ongoing conflict. what i can commit is that we're going to invest significantly because this is a top priority to make sure people don't interfere in elections on facebook but i don't think it would be a realistic expectation to assume that for people in russia whom this is their job that we'll have zero amount of that or we'll be 100% successful at preventing that. >> beyond disclosure of online ads, what specific steps are you

taking to ensure that foreign money isn't supporting political ads on facebook in violation of u.s. law just because someone submits a disclosure that says paid for by some 501 c 3 or pac, how can we ensure that it is not foreign interference >> senator, our verification program involves two pieces. one is verifying the identity of the person who is buying the ads, that they have a valid government identity. the second is verifying their location so if you're sitting in russia, for example, and you say that you're in the u.s., then we'll be able to make it a lot harder to do that because what we're actually going to do is mail a code to the address you say you're at. if you can't get access to that code, then you can't run ads. >> facebook is creating an independent group to study the

abuse of social media and elections, you talked about that will you commit that all findings of this group are made public no matter what they say about facebook or its business model? yes or no answer >> senator, that's the purpose of this group is that facebook does not get to control what these folks publish. these are going to be academics and facebook has no prior pub libbing control. they'll be able to do the studies that they're doing and publish the results. >> you'refine with them bei ini public what's the timeline of getting those out? >> we're kick off the research now. our goal is to focus on both providing ideas for preventing interference in 2018 and beyond and holding us accountable to make sure that the issues we put in place are successful in doing that i would hope that we'll start to see the first results later this year >> thank you, mr. chairman

>> thank you, senator. senator moron h moran is up nex. for the benefit of those here, after a couple of questions we'll give the witness a short break. we're getting about two-thirds through the list of the members who are here to ask questions. >> mr. zuckerberg, i'm over here, thank you for your testimony and your presence here today. on march 26th of this year, the ftc confirmed that it was investigating facebook to determine whether its privacy practices violated the ftc act or the consent order that facebook entered into with the agency in 2011 i chair the commerce committee subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the federal trade commission facebook's suggestion that it has any part of violating that consent order. part two says that facebook clearly and prominently display notice and obtain users

affirmative consent before sharing any information with a third party. how does the case of approximately 87 million facebook friends having their data shared with a third party due to the consent of only 300,000 consenting users not violate that agreement >> well, senator, like i said earlier, our view is that we believe that we are in compliance with the consent order, but i think we have a broader responsibility to protect people's privacy beyond that and in this specific case, the way that the platform worked or that you could sign into an app and bring in some of your information and some of your friends' information is how we explained it would work. people had settings to that effect they explained and they consented to working that way. and the system basically worked as it was designed the issue is that we design the system in a way that wasn't good and now we -- starting in 2014,

have changed the design of the system so that it just massively restricts the data access that a developer could get but going forward -- >> i'm sorry, the 300,000 people that they were treated in a way that is appropriate, they consented, but you're not suggesting that the friends consented? >> senator, i believe that we rolled out this developer program and we explained it to people and they did consent to it i believe it's important that we explain how it works in 2007 we developed the platform and the idea was that you wanted to make more experiences social for example, you might want to have a calendar that can have your friend's birthdays on it or a notebook that you show your friend's addresses on it in order to do that we needed to

build a tool that allowed people to sign into an app and bring some of their information and some of their friends' information into these app we made it very clear that this is how it worked and when people signed up for facebook they signed up for it as well a lot of good use came from that games that were built, integrations with companies that i think we're familiar with like netflix and spot fi, but over time what became clear is that that enabled some abuse. that's why in 2014 we took the step of changing the platform so now when people sign into an app you don't bring some of your friends' information with you, you bring only your own informati information. >> let's turn to your bug bounty program. our subcommittee has had a hearing in regard to bug bounty. your press release indicated that's one of the six changes that facebook offered to crack

down on abuses one of the concerns i have is the vulnerability disclosure programs were geared towards identifying unauthorized access to data, not pointing out data sharing arrangement that likely could harm someone but technically abide by complex consent agreements how do you see the bug bounty program that you've announced addressing the issue of that >> sorry, can you clarify what specifically -- >> how do you see that the bug bounty program that you have announced will deal with the sharing of information not permissible as compared to just unauthorized access to data? >> senator, i'm not actually sure i understand this enough to speak to that specific point, and i can have my team follow up with you on the details of that.

in general bounty programs are an important part of the security arsenal for pardoning a lot of systems i think we should expect that we're going to invest a lot in hardening our systems ourselves and that we're going to audit and investigate a lot of the folks in our ecosystem but even with that having the ability to enlist other third parties outside of the company to be able to help us out by giving them an incentive to point out when they see issues is likely going to see us improve the security of the platform overall which is why we did this. >> next up, senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman hello mr. zuckerberg as you know much of my life has been focused on low income communities or communities working class communities and trying to make sure they have a fair shake mp this country has a very bad history of discriminatory practices towards low income americans and americans of color from the redlining fha practices even more recently discriminatory practices in the mortgaging

business i've always seen technology as a promise to democratize our nation, expand access, expand opportunities, but unfortunately we've also seen how platforms, technology platforms like facebook can actually be used to double down on discrimination and give people more sophisticated tools. now, in 2016 propublica revealed that advertisers could use ethnic affinity, a user's race, to market categories to potentially discriminate overall against facebook users in the areas of housing, employment and credit echoing a dark history in this country. and also in violation of federal law. in 2016 facebook committed to fixing this, that advertisers who have access to this data to fixes it a year later as the article showed they found that the system facebook built was still

allowing housing ads without applying to go forward without applying these new restrictions that were put on facebook them opted into a system that's similar to what we were talking about with cambridge analytical that they could self-certify that they were not using these programs and to comply with the law using it as a way to comply with facebook's anti-discrimination policy unfortunately, in a recent lawsuit as of february 2018 alleged that discriminatory ads were still being discriminated on facebook, disproposition etly impacting communities. and is self-certification the best and strongest way to safeguard against the misuse of your platform and protect the data of users and not let it be

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

diversity in the tech sector as well people writing these algorithms, people who are policing for these problems are they going to be a part of a more diverse group that's looking at this? you're looking to hire, as you said, 5,000 new positions for among other things reviewing content. we know in your industry the inclusivity is real serious problem in the industry that lacks diversity in a very dramatic fashion not just true with facebook but with the tech yeah as well so it's very important for me to communicate that larger sense of urgency and what a lot of civil rights organizations are concerned with and we should be working towards more collaborative approach. i'm wondering if you'd be open to opening up your platform to civil rights organizations to allow audits of credit and housing to really audit what actually is happening and having

better transparency of your program. >> senator, i think that's a very good idea i think we should follow up on the details of that. i also want to say that there was an investigation, something's very disturbing to me is the fact that there have been law enforcement organizations that use facebook's platform to surveil african-american organizations like black lives matter. i know you've expressed support for the group and philando castile's killing was posted live on facebook but there is worry that that data could be used to surveil groups like black lives matter, like folks who are trying to organize against substantive issues of discrimination in this country. is this something you're committed to addressing and so ensuring that the freedoms that civil rights activists and

others are not targeted or their work not being undermined or not using your platform to unfairly surveil and try to undermine the activities of those groups are doing? >> yes, senator. i think that that's very important. we're committed to that. and in general, unless law 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. >> just like for the record, my time has expired, but there's a lawsuit against facebook about discrimination and you've moved for the lawsuit to be dismissed because no harm was shown. can you state for the record you believe that people of color were not recruited for various economic opportunities were being harmed can you please clarify why you dismiss the lawsuit for the record. >> for the record. >> senator heller is up next >> mr. chairman, thank you

appreciate the time, thank you for being here and thank you for taking time -- i know it's been a long day. i think you're at the final stretch here but i'm glad that you are here yesterday facebook sent out a notification to 87 million users that information was given to cambridge analytica without their consent. my daughter was one of the 87 million and 6 of my staff ultimately received this notification can you tell me how many nevadans were among the 87 million that received this notification >> senator, i don't have this broken out by state right now. but i can have any team follow up with you to get you the information. >> i figured that would be the answer if after hearing this -- going through this hearing and nevada is no longer going to have a facebook account if that's the case, if a facebook user deletes their account, do you delete their data

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

>> yes, senator. we don't sell data at all. so the way the ad system works is advertisers can come to us and say, i have a message that i'm trying to reach a certain type of people they might be interested in something, they might live in a place, and then we help them get that message in front of people. but this is one of the -- widely mischaracterized about our system that we sell data and it's actually one of the most important parts of how facebook works is we do not sell data advertisers do note get access to people's individual data. >> have you ever collected the content of phone calls or messages through any facebook application or service >> senator, i don't believe we've ever collected the content of phone calls we have an app called messenger that allows people to message mostly their facebook friends. and we do on the android operating system allow people to use that app as their client for

both facebook messages and texts. so we do allow people to import their texts into that. >> let me ask you about government surveillance. for years facebook said that there should be strict limits on the information the government can access on americans. and by the way, i agreed with you that privacy because privac is important to nevadas. you argue that facebook users wouldn't trust you if they thought you were giving your private information to the intelligence community if you use and sell the same data to make money and in the case of cambridge analytica, you don't even know you who it's used after you sell it can you tell us why this isn't hypocritical >> senator, once again, withy don't sell any data to anyone. we don't sell it to advertiser ors developers what we do allow is for people to sign into apps and bring their data and it used to be the data of some of their friends,

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

>> senator, no i think we have a responsibility to protect everyone in our community from anyone in our ecosystem who is going to potentially harm them. i think we haven't done enough historically. >> you consider the 87 million user, do you consider them victims? >> senator, i think yes, i mean, they did not want their information to be sold to cambridge analytica by a developer. and that happened, and it happened on our watch. so even though we didn't do it, i think we have a responsibility to prevent that and be able to take action sooner and we're committing to make sure that we do that going forward which is why the steps that i announced before are now the two most important things we're doing are locking down the platform to make sure developers can't get access to this much data so that can't happen going forward which is largely the case since 2014 and going backwards we need to investigate

every single app that might have had access to a large amount of people's data to make sure that no one else was misusing it. if we find that they are, we're going to get into their systems, do a full audit, make sure they delete it and tell everyone who is affected. >> thank you, senator heller, senator peters, then into the break, then senator tillers coming out of the break. >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. zuckerberg, thank you for being here today you've talked about a very humble beginnings in starting facebook your dorm room which i appreciated that story but certainly facebook has changed an awful lot over a relatively short period of time when facebook launched its timeline feature, consumers saw their friends' posts chronologically is the process, but facebook has since then changed to a timeline driven by some very sophisticated algorithms its left many people after that why am i seeing this feed and

why am i seeing this right now now in light of the cambridge analytica issue, facebook users are asking can i believe what i'm seeing and who has access to this information about me i think it's safe to say very simply that facebook is losing the trust of an awful lot of americans as a result of this incident and i think an example of this is something i've been hearing a lot from folks who have been coming up to me and talking about really kind of an experience they've had where they're having a conversation with friends not on the phone just talking, and then they see ads popping up fairly quickly on their facebook so i heard constituents fear that facebook is bmining audio from their devices, which i think speaks to this lack of trust. i understand there's some technical issues and logistical issues for that to happen.

i hear it all the time including from my own staff. yes or no, does facebook use audio obtained from mobile devices to enrich personal information about it users >> no. well, senator, let me be fair on this so you're talking about this conspiracy theory that gets passed around that we listen to what's going on on your microphone and use that for ads. >> right. >> we don't do that. to be clear, we do allow people to take videos on their devices and share those. and, of course, videos also have audio. while you're taking a video, we do record that and make sure that our service is better by using the audio. i want to be clear, but i want to make sure i'm exhaustive there. >> i appreciate that hopefully that will dispel what i've been hearing, so thank you for that certainly today the era of mega data, we're finding that data drives everything including

consumer behavior. so consumer information is probably the most valuable information you can get in the data ecosystem and certainly, folks, as you've mentioned in your testimony here, people looic the fact that they can have targeted ads they'll be interested in as opposed to being bombarded by ads they have no interest in that consumer information is important for you to tailor that but people are beginning to wonder is there an expense to that when it comes to perhaps exposing them to being manipulated or through despgs. t deception i know you're deploying new algorithms to target bots and take down fake accounts and things you've talked about this this hearing but you know that artificial intelligent is not without risk and you have to be transparent about how those algorithms are constructed how do you see artificial intelligence dealing with the ecosystem to help get consumer

incites but also keeping consumer privacy safe? >> senator, i think the core question you're asking about a.i. transparency is a really important one that people are just starting to very seriously study and that's ramping up a lot. i think this is going to be a very central question for how we think about a.i. systems over the next decade and beyond right now a lot of our a.i. systems make decisions in ways that people don't really understand. >> right. >> and i don't think that in 10 or 20 years in future that we all want to build we all want to end up with systems that people don't understand how they're making systems where peopl don't understand how they are making decisions so doing the research now, to make sure that these systems can have those principals as we are developing them is certainly an important thing. >> you bring up the principals, as you are well aware, ai systems especially in complex environments where you have

machine learnings it is sometimes difficult to understand how decisions are arrived at and if you are not careful about how that occurs. and so, is your company, you mentioned principals, is your company developing a set of principals that is going to guide that development