the upcoming elections and throughout the year, right i'm concerned that there are not eyes that are culturally competent looking at these thing and being able to see how this would impact on civil society. if everyone within the organization is monolithic then you can miss these things very easily and we have talked about diversity forever with your organization what can you say today when you look at how all this operates, that you can do immediately to make sure that we have the types of viewing or reviewing that can enable us to catch this in its tracks >> congresswoman, we announced a change in how we are going to review ad and big pages so that now going forward we are going to verify the identity and location of every advertiser who

running political or issue ads or -- and the identities of -- >> good. we would like you to get back to us with a time line on that. >> that will be in place for these elections. >> good. when mr. koegan sold the facebook-based data that he acquired through the quiz app through cambridge analytic did he violate facebook's policies at this time >> yes, congresswoman. >> when the obama campaign violate facebook's policies at this time. >> no, they didn't. >> i hope this provides little confident to those of us concerned about your privacy on line regardless of political party americans desperately need to be protected. democrats on this committee have been calling for strong privacy and data security legislation for years. we really can't wait, mr. chairman i yield back. >> gentle lady's time is

expired. chair recognizes the congress member from ohio. >> let me add my name to the list of folks that you are going to get back to on the rural broadband internet access question please add my name to that list. >> of course. >> i have a lot of those folks in my district you are a real american success story. there no, sir question that you and facebook have revolutionized the way americans, in fact, the world, communicate and interconnect with one another. i think the reason that -- one of the reasons that you are able to do that is because nowhere other than here in america, where a young man in college can pursue his dreams and ambitions on his own terms without a big federal government overregulating them and telling them what they can and cannot do could you have achieved something like this. but in the absence of federal

regulation s that would reel tht in, the only way it works for the betterment of society and people is with a high degree of responsibility and trust and you have acknowledged that there have been some breakdowns in responsibility. and i think sometimes -- and i'm a technology guy i have two degrees in computer science. i'm a software engineer. i am a patent holder i know the challenges that you face in terms of managing the technology but oftentimes technology folks spend so much time thinking about what they can do, and little time thinking about what they should do and so i want to talk about some of those should do kind of things you heard earlier about faith-based material that had been taken down, ads that had been taken down. you admitted that it was a mistake. that was in my district, by the way, francis can university, a

faith-based university was the one that did that. how is use your content filtered and determined to be appropriate or not appropriate and policy complia compliant? is there an algorithm that does it for is there a team of a gazillion people that sit there and look at each and every ad and make that determination. >> congressman, it is a combination of both. so at the end of the day we have community standards that are written out and try to be very clear about what is acceptable and we have a large team of people, as i have said by the end this year we are going to have more than 20,000 working on security and content review across the company but in order to flag some content quickly, we also build technical systems in order to take things down so if we see terrorist content for example, we will flag that and we can take that down. >> what do you do when you fine

someone or something that's made a mistake? i mean i have heard you say several times today that you know a mistake has been made what kind of accountability is there when mistakes are made because every time a mistake like that is made, it is a little bit of a chipaway from the trust and the responsibility factors. how do you hold people accountable in facebook when they make those kinds of mistakes of taking stuff down that shun be taken down or leaving stuff up that should not be left up. >> congressman, for content reviewers specifically, their performance is going to be measured by whether they do their job accurately. >> do you ever fire anybody when they do stuff like that? >> i'm sure we do. as part of the normal course of running a company, you are hiring and firing people all the time to grow your capacity and -- >> what happened to the person that took down the francis can

university ad and didn't put it back up until the media started getting involved >> congressman i'm not specifically aware of that piece. >> can you take that question for me -- my time is expired can you take this question for me and get me that answer back please. >> i will. >> chair's time is expired the chair recognize mr. lobe sack. >> thank you chair, thank you mr. zuckerberg for being here today. add my lime to the rural broadband list as well i have one part of iowa that we need more help on that front thank you. you may recall last week mr. zuckerberg that you set out to visit every state in the country to meet different people one of the places you visited was my home state of iowa and you visited a district i probabl proudly represent and some of my constituents you said you want to quote

personally hear more of those voices and give everyone a voice. i'm going to do the same thing in a second that some of my colleagues did and ask you some of the questions my constituents asked me to address with you i submit those for the record, chair. >> without objection. >> the issue is about trust, that's what i'm hearing from my constituents and my colleagues that's really the question, how can we be guaranteed for example, that when you agree to some thing today that you are going to be able to follow through and we are going to be able to hold you accountable and without perhaps constructing too many rules and regulations we would like to keep that to a minimum but i do understand that you have agreed we are going to have some rules and regulations so we can protect people's privacy so we can protect the use of the consumer data so going forward from there, i

have just got a few questions i will probably have an opportunity to get to. the first one goes to the business model issue because you are publicly traded; is that correct? >> yes. >> and you are the ceo >> yes. >> i have lauren from solen who asks is it possible for facebook to exist without collecting and selling your data? is it possible to exist? >> congressman we don't sell people's data. i think that's an important ching to clarify up front. and then in terms of collecting data, the whole purpose of the service is so you can share the things that you want with the people around you and your friend. >> is it possible for you to be in business without sharing the data because that's whauf done -- whether it was selling or not, sharing the data, providing it to cambridge analytic and other parties along the way. is it possible for your business to exist without doing that? >> congressman it would be

possible for our business to exist without having a developer platform it not be possibly for our business or our products or services or anything we do to exist without having the opportunity for people to go to facebook put in the content they want to share and who they want to share it with and then do that that's the core -- >> i appreciate that brenda has question, obviously related to trust as well that is, how will changes promised this time be proven to be completed. >> she would like to know, how is that going to happen. >> if there are changes, you said there have been some changes, how can she and folks in our districts and throughout america -- not just members of congress but how can folks in our districts hold you accountable? how do they know in fact the changes are going to happen? that's what that question is about. >> for the developer platform changes we already announced they are implemented we put them in place it is on our blog, i wrote it in my written testimony and that

stuff is happening we are also going back and investigating every app that had access to a large amount of data before we lobbed down the platform in the past we will tell people if we find anything that misused their data and when the investigation is complete. >> another constituent wants to know, who has my data other than cambridge analytic >> we are going on the agency to apps that had a large amount of somebody's data. if you signed into an app that app has some of your data. we are going to determine whether they shared that data further beyond that. if we find anything like that we will tell people that their data was misused. >> gentleman's time is expired the chair recognizes the man from new jersey, mr. long for four minutes. >> i want to thank you for being here on a voluntary business

i wanted to put that out here. you were not subpoenaed. you are the only person at the table today. not long ago we had ten people at the table i would say if we invited everyone that read your terms of service we could probably fit them at that table i would say i represent 751,000 people and of those, the people that are worked up about facebook and about this hearing today would also fit here at this table. i'm not getting the outcry from my constituents about what's going on with cambridge analytic and user agreement and everything else. but there are some thing that i think you need to be concerned with one question i would like to ask before i get into my questioning is what was face mash and is it still up and running. >> no, congressman it was a prank website i launched in college in my dorm room before i started facebook

there was a movie about this -- that said it was about this. it was of unclear truth. and that claimed that face mash was somehow connected to the development of facebook. it isn't it wasn't. >> the timing it was same, right? just so incidental. >> it was in 2003. i took it town -- it actuallily has nothing to do. >> you put up pictures of two women and decided which one was the more attractive of the two. >> congressman that is an accurate description of the panik website i made when i was a sophomore in college. >> you have come a long way. congressman shiikowski said self regulation simply does not work. mr. butterfield said that you need for african-american collusion on your board of directors. if i was you, a little bit of advice, congress is good at two thing, doing nothing, and overreacting so far we have done nothing on

facebook since your inception in that harvard dorm room many years ago we have done nothing we are getting ready to overreact. take that as a shot across the bow. you have a great outfit. you are harvard educated i have a yale hat that cost me $160,000 that's as close as i ever got to an ivy league school but i would like to show you now a little picture here. do you recognize these folks >> i do. >> who are they? >> i believe -- is that diamond and silk >> that is dooim diamond and silk >> two biologicalcal sisters from north carolina. they are african-american. their content was deemed by your folks to be unsafe so you know, i don't know what type of a picture this is, if it was taken in a police station or in a line up, but apparently

they have been deemed unsafe diamond and silk have a question for you. and that is question is, what is insafe about two black women supporting president donald! trump. >> congressman, nothing unsafe about that the specifics of this situation, i'm not as up to speed on as i probably would be if i didn't have the hearing. >> you have 20,000 employees you said to check content. i would suggest as good as you are with analytics that those 20,000 use analytic research to see how many conservative website have been pulled down and haem liberal if diamond and silk were liberal they would be on the light night talk show circuit. their humorous they have an opinion not that we have to agree with them -- but the fact that they are could be servetive, remember, if you don't remember anything else from this hearing here today

remember we do nothing and we overreact. i would suggest you go home and review all the things people accused of you today and get with your team behind you. you are the guy to fix this. we are not you need to save your ship thank you. >> gentleman's time is expired >> mr. chairman since my name was mentioned -- >> welcome to "power lunch." auto aim melissa lee day two of mark zuckerberg's testimony on capitol hill over facebook's data scandal. we want to pull away for just a moment and get you caught up on the major headlines from the hearing. for that, we go to yulia boor ten live. >> reporter: today's hearing has been more conthen husband is than yesterday there have been a number of committee members who pressed mark zuckerberg for yes or no answers. he said some of the issues are more complex and he didn't want to give a yes or no answer many interrupted mark, some are repeatedly interrupting him which is creating a an avenue of

more tension hot topics today a lot of questions about ads for opioids. a lot of questions about why facebook isn't doing a better job shutting down these ads for illegal products zuckerberg responding to a number of those questions with an emphasis on the need for mar artificial intelligence to better identify content on the system also a number of test equestions about data, who owns data, whether or not facebook is doing enough to offer clear disclosures about the user data anding arelation zuckerberg saying repeatedly he is on to regulation. the hearing is continuing right now. we are hearing there will not be another break and that there will be another hour of questions. of course that could change. >> we will be all over it. joining us now is former facebook executive kev knight ryan raidier and franklin four,

national correspondent for the atlantic i'll pick up with congressman long who ask basically said, this is what congress does, we don't do anything for a very long time and then we overreact. are we in that position right now? that the sense that you are getting in term of the line of the questions from the senate and the house today? >> i think you are seeing a line of members who are proposing to overreact. mark zuckerberg made the good point if we create a new data privacy law in the united states it might be harmful not just to fable and its users but to new companies. the downside is it might end up entrenching facebook rather than improving competition. >> it might be the best thing that happened to facebook in some respects. to that point if there is regulation in place it could make barriers higher a into entry in terms of being a

competitor to facebook. >> i think that's exactly right. the harder the government makes it for companies to access share data or data that changes places between different platforms, the stronger it makes the companies that have access to tons of data within their own rights. so that means facebook that's amazon. that's google. so i think any regulation that emerges from this is most likely to entrench facebook and hurt competition more than anything else. >> franklin, how do you think he did? as julia said more contentious today. a wider variety of poppic, boyd ads. but when it comes to substance and style as well, which matters when you are dealing with congress did he pass >> right look, there is just the sheer scale of issues he is having to confront reflects the way facebook has become this big powerful force within american life and he has made incredible concessions. the fact that zuckerberg is essentially inviting regulation i think shows the position that

he's in. on style, i think you know, the guy -- the expectation that he would walk away personally humiliated from these hearings was never going to happen. i mean, he always was going to be well coached and well prepared for this. he's a smart person, and a decent talker. so he's basically succeeded. still, we have all these viral moments, if you forgive the expression that will emerge from this where you have these confrontations where flash points and real core problems that facebook has are being distilled into moments that everybody will see and these hearings reflect the way in which members of congress and the public are starting to become aware, educated, better equipped to conceptually describe the problems that facebook represents. >> kind of i mean, kevin, kara swisher put it best she said it amounted to a bunch of help desk questions i think what was on display from the senators, less so from the

members of the house committee today, but still they are all over the map when they talk about some of the problems that facebook faces they are all over the map in terms of their understanding of facebook's model a lot of talk about connecting broadband in rural communities how are they going to impose regulation on a company that many of them struggle to understand >> i don't think they are going to be able to. i think this is one of the things that i hear a lot discussed right now is there is this notion that facebook can regulate itself. well, the reality is if congress doesn't understand how internet advertising works or technology or how facebook works they can't regulate either. i think everyone would agree it would be better if mark zuckerberg implemented the changes he is talking about years ago but the fact he is implementing them would be above and beyond what any realistic regulation could do anyway because the technology changes so fast. >> it could play into facebook's hand if congress is willing to go out there and ask questions with a

ill full display of almost incompetence i mean when it comes to this particular area, he can offer his services, which he has done during the course of this testimony to say you know what, i will help you draw up the regulation. >> yeah. i think that's exactly right mark zuckerberg understands this better than anybody else and he's moving to action right now and congress is demonstrating in the course of these hearings that they don't understand the issues well enough to be trugsed by the american people to address them. >> it's true that although politicians have shown they don't understand the platform some said they would be give rule making to the federal trade commission which could do a will not the space. all the big tech companies are in the 20 year consent decrees there is leeway that the ftc has to impose fines and punish companies after the fact. >> the ftc has done anything

politicians don't understand the way that our aviation system works yet i think we are all greatful we have set up aviation rules and there is air traffic control that's nationalized. we are in the early stages of this of course politicians need to educate themselves, understand things but we are also in a world where our privacy is being thrashed, facebook has displayed no inclination to constraining ourselves. our regulators have proven themselves to be next to useless in dealing with these companies, and the culture is changing. society's expectations are changing and the rules that govern or economy are going to have to change, too, or we are going to wake up 30 years from now really seriously regretting it. >> franklin, we are looking at the stot stock at an intersession high. i would highlight, ryan, one thin that zuckerberg talked about when they talked about regulation is he said look if you regulate the sector, we are a big, strong company. we have got a lot of money, to the point that melissa brought

up at the beginning it is small companies that tend to get hurt because economists call it regulatory capture the biggest guys or teams or women out there, the most powerful companies can handled lots of regulation it's the little guys who can't. >> that's right. not just facebook, but other large tech companies, apple, google, amazon, and so forth, have now established a presence in washington, d.c. across all branches of government because they have no real choice the concern is not just that regulation might entrench existing companies a hyper regulated tech sector with look dreerier and -- turns out when you subject a regulator and impose strict rules you don't see risk taking that you see in the tech sector. >> you saw all the will beying money they spent. >> $11.5 million. >> they have got that and more if they want to spend i.

what about a small company they can't go up to washington and spend those millions to lobby. you know. >> it's not clear. kevin, maybe you can clear this up it's not clear what sort of regulation we are talking about. it doesn't seem like there is any sort of unanimous coherent regulatory action that is being verbalized by some of the members in congress. am i wrong. >> no. that's exactly right i think the question that's being asked right now is congress overreacting. congress has yet to act so by definition they haven't overreacted yet. i will be interested to see what type of regulation is proposed >> if any. >> one thing that is interesting is the hypocrisy of selling data facebook does not sell data, but the u.s. postal service does >> hypocrisy in government,

shocked. kevin and ryan, thanks to you. we want to go back to capitol hill and continue listening in on ceo mark zuckerberg's testimony. >> can advertisers then, understanding that you, facebook, maintain the data, you are not selling this to anybody else but advertisers clearly end up having access through that through its agreements with you about how they then target ads to me, to you, to any other us ear, can advertisers in if i way use non-public date, data that individual would not think is public so they can target their ads? >> congressman, the way this works is -- let's say you have a business that is selling skis. and you have on your profile that you are interested in skiing, but let's say you reason is made that public but you share with it your friend. so broadly we don't tell the advertiser that here's is list of people who like skis they just say, okay, we are trying to sell skis, can you reach people who

like skis? then we match that up on our side without sharing any of the information with the advertiser. >> you don't share that but they get access to that information they know they want to market skis to me because i like skis on the realm of data that's accessible to them, does facebook include deleted data? >> congressman, no i also would push back on the idea we are giving them access to the data. we allow them to reach people who have said that on facebook you we are not giving them access to the data. >> fair. can advertisers either directly or indirectly get access to or use the metadata that facebook collects in order to more specifically target ads? so that would include -- i know you have talked a lot about how facebook would use access to information for folks that -- well, i might be able to opt in or out about your ability to track me to other website.

that used by those advertisers as well? >> congressman i'm not sure i understand the question. can you give me an example of what you mean. >> essentially, does the advertisers that are using your platform do they get access to information that the user doesn't actually think is either one being generated or two is public understanding that yes if you dive into the details of your platform users might be able to shut that off. but i think one of the challenges with trust here is there is an awful lot of information that's jen rayed that people don't think they are generating and that advertisers are being able to target because facebook clkts it. >> yes my understanding is that the targeting options that are available for tide advertisers are generally things that are based on things that people share. won an advertiser chooses how they want to target something facebook also does its own work to help rank and determine which ads are going to be interesting to which people we may use metadata or other

whafrs of showing what you are interested in, a news feed and other places in order to make our systems more relevant to you. but that's different from giving that as an option to an advertiser. >> right i guess the question -- i only have 20 seconds. one of the rubs that you are hearing is i don't understand how users then own that data i think that's part of the rub second you focus a lot of your testimony and the testimony on the individual privacy aspects of it. but we haven't talked about the societal implication while applaud some of the ploms you are putting forward the underlying issue is your platform has become a -- >> gentleman's time. >> two seconds d. a mix of news, entertainment, social media that is up for manipulation we have seen that with a foreign actor. if the changes to individual privacy don't seem to be sufficient to address that underlying issue >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> i would love your comments on that at the appropriate time thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr.

flores from texas. >> i'm up here, top row. mr. zuckerberg thank you for your time here today i'm certain there are other things you would rather be doing. we have seen it before don't take this critically, but we saw a large oil company become a monopoly in the 1800s and a telecommunications company become a large monopoly in the '60s, 70s, '80s. just like facebook they were founded by bright entrepreneurs and their companies true and in some cases they became detached from americans what happened then is policy makers then had to step in and re-establish the balance between those folks and everyday americans. you didn't intend for this to happen it did happen. and i appreciate that you have apologized for it. one of the things i appreciate about facebook it appears you are proactively trying to

address the situation. just as we addressed those monopolies in the past we are faced with a similar situation today. we need to -- and this goes beyond facebook. this has to do with the edge providers. it has to do with social media organization asks also with isps back to facebook in particular though we heard examples yesterday during the senate hearing and also today during this hearing so far about etiological bias among the users of facebook. in my texas district i had a retired school teachers whose conservative postings were banned or stopped. the good news is i was i believe to work with personnel at facebook and get her reinstated. that said, the facebook censures still seem to be trying to stop her postings anything you can do to fix that bias will go a long way. i want to move in a driven de s decks -- different direction

with respect to fairness, i think the technology company should be agnostic regarding users activities the only exception would be for potentially violent behavior my question on this is do you that facebook and other technology platforms should be idiologically neutral? >> congressman, i agree that we should be a platform for all ideas and that we should focus on that. >> good. i have got limited time. with respect to privacy, i think we need to set a baseline. when we talk about a virtual person that each technology user establishes on line, their name, address, on line purchases, gentlemenio location data, website visited, pictures, et cetera i think the individual owns the virtual person they have set up on line. my second question is this, you said earlier each user owns their virtual presence do you think this concept

applies to social media platforms and to providers and isps >> yes, in general i think people own -- >> i'm not trying to cut you off. you can provide more information supplementally after if you don't mine in this regard, i believe that if congress enacts privacy standards for technology providers just as we have for financial institutions, health care, employee benefits, et cetera, the policy should state that the data of technology users should be held privately unless they specifically consent to the use of the data by others, this release should be based upon the absolute transparency as to what date will be used, how it will be processed, where it will be stored, what algorithms will be applied to it, who will have access to it, if it will be sold and to whom it might be sold the disclosure of this information and the associated opt-in action should be easy to understand and easy for non-technical users to execute the days of the long scrolling fine print disclosures with the

single checkmark at the bottom should end i think you have come a long way toward meeting that objective. >> gentlemen's time. >> i will two other questions to submit later and you can expand on your responses to my earlier questions later. >> we will continue to monitor the facebook hearing we are in hour four, day two facebook's stock near session highs up 1.4% on top of yesterday's 4.5% gain. speaker of the house paul ryan will not seek re-election president trump out with inflammatory words for russia over its involvement in syria. tweeting that the missiles will be coming. ayman jaffers is at the white house covering it all. >> there is anticipation in the wake of that presidential tweet about syria whether or not the u.s. military will be conducting air strikes or something else in syria in the days to come. here's what the president tweeted. you read a piece of that tweet here's what he said this morning

on twitter he said russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at syria get ready russia because they will be coming, nice and new and smart. you shouldn't be partners with a gas killing animal who kills his people and enjoys it so the president there sinding a warning to russia that an attack might be coming. and also criticizing bashar al assad the syrian leader as a gas killing animal in the wake the chemical attack we saw over the week that tweet raised a lot of eyebrows here at the white house because it goes eight against what the president said in the past, that he wouldn't telegraph what he intends the do here is the president. >> one of the things you noticed about me is militarily i don't like to say where i'm going and what i'm doing. >> that was in april in the rose garden suggesting that the

military shouldn't telegraph where it's going to strike and presidents shouldn't do this as well i talked to a white house aide they are pushing back saying that the president criticized barack obama because he gave a specific date in the future if conditions weren't met and this situation is different. we will hear more from white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders at 3:30 we are also getting reaction of the retirement of paul ryan. here's what the president said on twitter this modern he said speaker ryan is a truly good man while he will not be seeking re-election he will leave a legacy of achievement that nobody can question. we are with you, paul. the up and down relationship between the speaker of the house and the president end here on an up note, a congrats lathery tweet to paul ryan who says he will serve out the remainder of his term, retiring in january and will not run for re-election

this fall. >> will there be a confrontation with russia? joining us is richard huff, president of the council on foreign relations, also thor thou of aworld in disarray nice to see you, richard, thank you for joining us. >> good to see you, sarah. >> 8:35 p.m. right now in damascus you have been critical of president trump's strategy before we are all wondering now that he has shown his happened what happens next >> he raised expectations, raised the bar on himself. i think it's pretty cleare he's going to do something. that says, exactly what the something is, what difference it will make your guess is as good as mine. if he really wants to make a difference it's less in shooting off a couple of missiles or taking out this or that target much more significant is long term american plans for syria. and essentially, is he willing to make an open-ended commitment that several thousand u.s. force also stay in syria, will continue to stand by our most

effective partners there, the syrian kurdish forces, and we'll be there to make sure there is no reconstitution of isis and will continue to control some territory so at least there the syrian people can live something of a normal hive. >> we did see stocks react early when it happened oil shot up. there was buying of gold a muted reaction one thin investors are paying attention to is the potential conflict between the u.s. and russia even a military one in syria what's your assess men of that risk. >> if we shoot missiles it's one things the russians can try to shoot them down. easier said than done. aircraft is a bigger commitment on our rt payment it you puts pilots at risk and the russians and the sir yabs have significant air defense capabilities i doubt russians -- you can't rule anything out these days would do something against american naval ships some distance away. russians have a lot of military

assets in syria and obviously in europe it's the one form of power that mr. putin seems to have at his disposal we need to think twice before we essentially push them and make this the type of challenge that somebody like putin will have difficulty backing down from that's why i'll be honest with you i'm uncomfortable with all this public rhetoric if teddy roost roosevelt were alive he would say you have got it exactly backwards we want to be saying less and doing more. >> it's michele, richard good the see you again another event which pushed oil today was saudi air defenses intercepted two missiles coming from the houthi rebels in yemen. how would a supply disruption even in the oil sector drive prices higher. >> there is two ways to have a

supply disruption. one is cyber say targeting saudi aram coor some other country you could have missiles and conceivable have internal protests that could get in the way. look, there is a chance of the saudi/iranian proxy war in yemen escalating i don't think anybody can rule that out i assume these are iranian supplied weapons things are heating up. diplomacy doesn't look promises thus far when you look at the middle east you have more fault lines that could erupt than you or i can count. i don't think one can discount this. >> what should u.s. policy be? what should the administration be telling vab when it comes to what's going on in yes, ma'amen and their proxy war there. >> we can tell them anything we want i think they stopped listening during the previous administration and it's not clear they are listening now they see the iranian hand behind everything happening in yemen.

iran is their sworn enemy. i don't know the saudis are going to let up. they ought to look for a way to get out. this has the potential of being their vietnam. yemen is a hard place to be ambitioi ambitious on i find it hard to see how the current course that the saudis are on is going to enor enwell for them. >> this is melissa in terms of making a commitment that u.s. troops will be present in iria, it almost seems lik that's not an option, at least according to this administration how do you see this playing out? i mean he has made such a big deal about the line in the sand and how obama didn't honor that line in the sand this is second time he is going to have to use force in syria, if he does use force. >> he probably will use force. about you the kind of force he used last time or this time is likely to be more of a spasm a punitive attack. >> you don't think it's going to be worse >> it might be twice what it was

but it doesn't change the fundamental. assad will still be in power if he wants the use chemical weapons a month from now he will still have the capability to do that i don't rule out the possibly or the likelihood that u.s. forces stay in syria for the foreseeable future i think this is content where the president maysay we are no staying there forever it's not permanent but my guess is we are going to be there for some time to come. >> there are conflicts piling up, trade wars between the u.s. andware, potential conflict between the u.s. and russia. these are big important economies. does it worry you? what is the international security game plan here from the white house in terms of dealing with this. do you have any faith in president trump's ability to handle this? >> i will be straight with you i have run out of fingers to count the things i'm worried about i'm worried about the trade situation we find ourselves in i don't like the accumulation of

american dent. i think we have overjuiced between the tax cuts and the spending increases i worry about the middle east. cyber worries me it's not a coincidence, i actually wrote a book called the world in disarray. there is more source of instability at work now -- >> sorry to cut you off. do you give president trump any credit in terms of how he handles north korea, bringing them to the negotiating table, south korea with the trade deal? do you give him any credit >> some, arming ukraine, and sanctions been north korea but these are still early days on these things on balance i'm more comfortable giving criticism than credit to this administration. i think they inherited a difficult inbox and they have essentially gone out of their way to make it more difficult. >> whaung of ambassador bolton coming on at this point?

because the obvious that he is more hawkish. >> that's a difficult job. you have got to dispense due process, make sure the playing field is fair and you have got to be an adviser you can't let your own prervess get in the way of your job of being an honest broker the questions i have raised, does he have the temper men, does john bolton have the judgment to succeed in this job? i would simply say based on his past behavior what he has written and done in government and what he said it is not obvious the pea. i would love to be proven wrong. we should all love for me to be proven wrong because the stakes are enormous we have a neophyte president when it comes to foreign policy so john bolton has his work cut out for him. >> what about his tweeting >> you have been warn being this >> my enthusiasm about that is stroh. these are white house statements they ought to be considered. tweets ten to be impulsive

you need to think two or three or four steps ahead and think approximate trade-offs that's in some ways to thely inconsistent with the culture of tweeting so i actually think the president would be wise to put down his phone or only to do it after the potential tweets have been reviewed the same way that any white house statement would be this kind of a confrontational rhetoric against china, against russia -- either the president means what he says, which ought to give you real pause, or he doesn't mean what he says, which for different race ought to give you pause. then people start to discount what he has to say either way, i don't think he is doing himself or this country any good by his use of his cell phone. >> a world in disarray richard, thank you richard huff i think one issues for the market -- it's never difficult to determine theeio political factor when it comes to pricing it in for stocks but it's happening at a time when

interest rates are rising. it make all of these problems and these conflicts which appear to be escalating maybe a little bit more scary. >> yet the markets are flat today. that's a fascinating thing. >> but it has been volatile. >> yes, broadly higher and take it in stride. >> you wonder, if you ever get to the point now for more than a year the markets have looked through everieeio political event as if it is a nothing. and the same way we asked wow the valuations were so stretched maybe it's not actually trade but a vulnerable market that's causing the selloff. and maybe a geopolitical thing becomes the excuse for people to say i'm paying how much for a stock. >> the downside have been accumulating it could not be one thing causing the tipping but an amalgam. >> oil hitting new high, so is gold protecting your monefry om uncertainty ahead. "power lunch" back in two minutes as we discuss that

engineered to take the crown. presenting the all-new lexus ls 500 and ls 500h. experience amazing, at your lexus dealer. where can investors seek pin an uncertain world?

pgim sees alpha in real assets. like agriculture to feed the world. and energy to fuel its growth. real estate such as e-commerce warehouses. and private debt to finance transportation and infrastructure. building blocks of strategies to pursue consistent returns over time from over one hundred fifty billion dollars in real assets. partner with pgim. the global investment management businesses of prudential.

you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. welcome back to "power lunch. dow jones off by 133 points.

remember that used to be a lot now it is a decline of .5% now it tells like a quiet day compared to what we've experienced recently the s&p is lower by 6.5 ipts p po -- points a couple of influence on the market, the president's tweets about syria, interception of missiles going into saudi arabia affected oil and gold as well today. just to let you know, the facebook hearing is in break at the moment that stock is higher by more than 1% and higher than 5% on the week don't move, we'll be right back after the break. why are you so good at this? had a coach in high school. really helped me up my game. i had a coach. math. ooh. so, why don't traders have coaches? who says they don't? coach mcadoo!

you know, at td ameritrade, we offer free access to coaches and a full education curriculum- just to help you improve your skills. boom! mad skills. education to take your trading to the next level. only with td ameritrade.

need a change of scenery? the kayak price forecast tool tells you whether to wait or book your flight now. so you can be confident you're getting the best price. giddyup! kayak. search one and done. oil and gold moving higher on president trump's tweet about syria. we're also starting to get clues about what the fed is thinking with the release of the minutes of the last fed meeting. could be a market mover.

what should investors be doing from here. gentlemen, good to have you here and the facebook hearing is in a break. let me start right there, brian. you own any facebook why or why not >> me, personally, no, i don't i'm sure in some of our portfolios we do. it's an interesting situation if you listen back on some of the transcript here. one of the congressman mentioned about how congress is very good at doing one of two things, either doing nothing or overreacting perhaps that's a bit of hyperbole but that's one of the key risks to consider when you're investing in the tech sector right now, especially some of the faang phenomenon. that have lost its luster a little bit if we see the regulatory pendulum swing a little bit more against some of these companies. it is an area that from

portfolio positioning perspective on the multi-assets solution team we do still like technology but it's more of the business to business as opposed to the consumer facing technology that we tend to like. >> that was a congressman billy long of missouri i'm not sure it was hyperbole. i thought it might be a good description of how congress works. ron, what do you think of either facebook or tech at this moment as we watch this hearing unfold and raises big questions about whether society as turned against these companies and hence they'll face more regulation or something out of congress >> i assume there's going to be some kind of regulation and we were talking or i was listening to you guys talk, that's probably good for facebook and google and apple they'll figure out how to make hay out of that. technology's here to stay. we're very bullish on technology listen to your guests just before, so if we don't blow ourselves up and we don't get

into a war, if we assume that that's so, then technology is the wave of the future we've hardly started the number of chips that are going to go into automobiles in five years, it's an extraordinary -- >> what's your biggest tech holding, ron >> probably facebook. >> facebook, okay. >> very close to that is google. we all know -- we own the big one -- we're investors not traders. >> sure. >> we're investing in companies that are -- that we think over the long-term they'll do well. we don't think you can trade in and out of a 10% up and down and that's gambling. we're not like that. >> brian, you take a look at the market action we have. the sharpest market reaction in terms of downside in financials, we're getting a number of them reporting on friday morning, financials are down by 9/10 of a percent. some would say financials have got everything going for them,

strong economy, rising rates, why is it reacting to things like syria and what's going on in capitol hill the most out of all the sectors? >> i think that part of it is -- we agree still are favorable on financials we do have a strong economy. they do seem to have a lot of things going for them, strong economy, low default rates, you have -- the yield curve maybe could be a little bit better here for them but still net interest margins are pretty decent, regulatory environment seems to be improving. i think that on any given day you can see them sell off if you suddenly see that ten year treasury falling you see that yield fall, suddenly that means that you get a little bit more of the flattening of the yield curve, investors start wondering what does this really mean as far as what the health of net interest margins going forward -- >> even though the fundamentals are good, it's still a yield curve play that's the way the trade has been for all the people out there who say fundamentals are ter require if i can for

financials it has largely traded along with that yield curve. >> it really has been on any given day but over a longer period of time and i think this is to ron's point before about the difference between the day-to-day trading maybe gambling versus the longer term investing. on any given day, yes, it's going to sell off if you see the yield curve flattening, but we still think it's a fairly favorable environment. there's decent value in the financials here. >> gentlemen, good to have you on. >> pleasure. and let's take a look at stocks right now we got the dow down by 118 points. s&p is down by five points we're about to get the minutes from the latest fed meeting. j. powell's first one as fed chair. what do they say about the economy and the future rate hikes is next on "power lunch." a about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail

they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪

seconds away from the minutes and we're tracking stocks the dow is almost at the flat line down half a percent or 115 points s&p down by .16 points. consumer discretionary, real estate energy are leading. crude is spiking hitting the highest level since 2014

we should take a check on the bond yields as well. the two year note is at 2.307%. >> crude oil was higher by more than 2%. >> yep so let go to elon moy in d.c. for the fed minutes. >> there's a debate within the fed over whether officials have to change their language showing the central bank moving from an monetary positive stance to one that is neutral restraining economic growth. the participants argue the fed would have to signal this in its statement sometime in the future, they didn't say when but in light of strengthening economic growth and more solid inflation data, several participate yants also said the fed might have to raise the fed funds rate over its long run estimate at least for a lyle while. all the participants did agree that the outlook for the economy is strengthening and it is

increasingly likely the fed will hit its 2% inflation target. a few participants brought up this idea of overshooting modestly that goal in order to anchor expectations but this debate over whether the fed have to switch gears came amid a very robust discussion over the impact of fiscal policy. they did agree that the tax cuts and the spending deal are likely to boost economic growth, but they also noted it's very unusual to get this much fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy's already operating either at or near potential and a number of participants suggested that bigger deficits could be a downside risk for the economy. another downside risk that participants saw was tariffs. they're hearing concern about tariffs from businesses within their districts. they said that tariffs themselves are not expected to do much economic damage but that retaliatory action and general uncertainty over trade policy, a strong majority saw those things as downside risk to the economy.

overall, the fed officials appear to be very bullish on the economic outlook and at least the talk of tightening is on the table. back over to you. >> thank you markets not moving too much in reaction to these minute steve, your take. >> it's interesting. i think elon really highlighted the main issue out there as policy normalizes their language has to normalize and that language why is it important? it's forecasting where the fed is going you can think of two or three places in the statement, one highlighted by elon is when do they move toward characterizing the policy as neutral but also the idea that rates remain lower for longer than would otherwise normally be the case that's other language that signals that they'll be accommodative. they're moving into a nonaccommodative stance here on policy and the language is going to change. i don't think it really affects the actual number of hikes they do, it effects the kind of bias that the market might impute to the federal market committee which is all things being equal

if something comes in more negative what are they likely to do they are indeed moving toward neutral. >> when they saywe had a frank discussion it means they yelled at each other. when i see robust discussion of the effects of fiscal policies, so much stimulus at this stage, what does robust discussion mean amongst generally monotone economists >> i think you're wrong they yelled at each other. >> i'm not suggesting that they did. >> not litd electorally but figuratively. very strong positions on thcht there's a lot of upside to this and the nut of the debate at the federal reserve is going to be to the effect on potential growth is this extra growth inflationary or does it increase the supply side of the economy this the debate that you can go out and have with any number of economists from different ilks, the supply side versus demand side and how much extra growth you'll get from this that's where i think they are. they don't need to make a

decision ahead of time they've decided that when it comes to policy we'll wait and see and change after the fact. >> what i read here is that they're more confident that they'll hit inflation at 2% and that goal is going to come up. stronger economic outlook and firmer inflation had increased the likelihood of inflation hitting 2% this was the problem over the last few years this to me sounds a little hawkish. >> it's a touch hawkish. i would take it from the idea that there's this mathematical ability towards inflation rising it's not a very bold statement to say who's going to win the race when you know -- when you're talking about yesterday's race that was the scam in the movie, right, with paul newman and robert redford all those years ago. they know that the numbers are going to go their way. what they're not saying, though, sarah is whether or not they see a change in the underlining inflation rate beyond what's going to happen. you understand what happened, right? the telecom numbers which brought down -- >> let me explain that.

>> they're dropping out. so you can be right -- there's nothing that would stop you from being right. inflation's moving toward our target that doesn't mean they have the inflation problem -- >> it's not widespread in this which he, energy prices fell last month you still have pockets of weakness. >> that's exactly right. you had two different worlds in the cpi report this morning. there was a bunch of negatives and a bunch of positives it all amounted to a higher rate overall. housing prices were up, medical care prices were up, what he is was down >> energy was the big one. >> energy was down. that come back. new vehicles were unchanged. >> used cars too going back to sarah's assessment in terms of hawkish. it seems like it confirms the increase hawkishness that we heard from jay powell when he gave a speech and took the q&a last week. he trended, i thought, to be a little bit more hawkish and i feel like that sort of -- made these minutes more acceptable.

>> i'm trying to gauge hawkishness in a different way than how you guys do. >> that was seen a -- >> i'm trying to think if the yellen fed would be doing anything differently now from what powell is doing and i don't think so. >> hum. >> i think this is the course that was set out and agreed when the powell was the federal reserve governor i don't see any change when i look at the futures, i see two more rate hikes but in i don't see that third more or fourth for the year built in i don't see the change i do see that the two year is up a little bit more than it was and i want to see what it was relative to where we went into the numbers. it was 230 and change or something like that. so i think the market -- you had huge stimulus effect. how would yellen have reacted? i think the same powell is on board with the same course of action. >> we're seeing the dow come up a little bit relative to where it was before this. >> let's get more on the market reaction here to these fed

minutes just released and bring in james norman, president and head of equity strategy and deputy chief economist with pnc. gus, do you read this as a sign that the fed is more confident in hitting the inflation target and on course to raise rates two more times this year >> i do. i think that certainly with this morning's cpi numbers and wage pressure buddings, inflationary pressures are building. we'll see inflation move toward that 2% goal and that's going to give the fed the confidence to raise rates again when they meet in june. >> what's your take, james >> i think investors are really looking at two different things. first of all, they're balancing is the fred becoming more hawkish and it did to me sound like they're being more hawkish but at the same time they're also -- investors are looking at is there a powell putt what i heard is they will consider some of the trade information, how that might

effect economic growth, so given that, that there's a little bit of an opening for perhaps a powell putt -- >> that was the thing with yellen. there was always this feeling that she had the market's back and if we started to see wild swings impact volatility and therefore confidence and growth, that she would hold off on raising rates or even potentially go easier. >> one of the big differences is that she wasn't confronted with an earnings picture that we are confronted with now. the earnings expectations for the first quarter, they're up -- the estimates are 18% and revenue's up 7%. the top and bottom line are looking attractive with that backdrop i think that really -- you know, sort of the need for a putt -- >> the burden, though, gus is going to be much higher in terms of the fed deciding not to raise rates, that's the message i get from both powell last week as well as the minutes today, it's going to take a lot more to

convince the fed to not continue to raise rates >> absolutely. i think the economy's in very good shape right now, the labor market's in excellent shape and everything is pointing towards higher inflation given all of that it would be surprising if the fed doesn't continue with their current gradual pace because they want to be ahead of the curve. a few years ago the fed was concerned that growth would slow down but now that things are so solid now, now that the job market's in such good shape, they'll be looking to raise rates. same pace we've seen over the past year or two. >> they always have on the one hand -- on the other hand to your point, the other hand was concerns about what trade could mean for the economy and we're all asking that question and the market's are clearly asking that question. >> people are concerned. last year we had eight movements in the s&p 500, just eight. >> right. >> and this year we have over 28 already year-to-date obviously there is this headwinds/tailwinds fight back

and forth and within that and also with slowing economic numbers. this is the first time we've had slowing economic indicators since 2009. they're still up but they're slowing with also the backdrop of rising interest rates and a very clear path that rising interest rates are going to rise that's where this volatility. year-to-date equity market's have gone nowhere. they're volatile but gone nowhere. how do you position your portfolio for a growing but slowing market >> you buy a market that's priced 16 times four earnings. >> there is that upside. you have to -- you need to hedge sort of the market draw down that's might occur as well as hedge any type of volatility that's out there and make sure you're able to do so. >> you were speaking about volatility. remember how i just said that, you know, dow come off lows, it was lower by 99 points, the session now we're off 175. >> fundamentally that idea of going to neutral is seen as

hawkish. >> they had to do it, it was coming, but it's one of those things where the market has reacted negatively sometimes to stuff that it knows is coming and then it's told it and then it reacts negatively. >> add to that the robust discussion of the impact of a very stimulus fiscal policy this late in the cycle and yeah -- >> that's the other big takeaway the fed which is completely apolitical, but they do see a significant fiscal policy growth boost over the next few years. it's a vote of confidence, the tax cuts, and the deregulation we'll see whether those trade downsides risks will enter the picture. >> good to have you on thank you steve and james and gus. >> five points off session lows on the s&p 500 it's worth noting that financials are sitting close to sessions lows down by 1.1%. a real reaction we're seeing in the market here in the financial sectors. let get back to capitol hill and mark zuckerberg's testimony. >> i think we could all agree

that technology has outpaced the law with respect to the protection of private information. i wonder if you think it would be reasonable to define the legal duty of privacy that's owed to customers with respect to their personal information? >> congressman, i think that that makes sense to discuss and i agree with the broader point i think you're making, which is that the internet and technology overall is just becoming a much more important part of all of our lives. the tech company are growing -- >> it's outpaced. i wonder -- i also want to take you at your word i believe you're sincere you place a high value on personal privacy. but i also observe the performance on privacy has been inconsistent. i wonder myself whether that's because it's not a bottom line issue. it appears that the shareholders are interested in maximizing

profits, privacy neither -- certainly doesn't drive profits, i don't think but also may interfere with profits if you have to sacrifice your ad revenues because of privacy concerns. would it not be appropriate for us once we define this duty to assess financial penalties in a way that would send a signal to the shareholders and employees who you must be frustrated with, too, that the privacy you're so concerned about is a bottom line issue at facebook? >> it's something we can consider, although one thing that i would pushback on. it is often characterized as maybe these mistakes happened because there's some conflict between what people want and business interests i don't think that's the case. a lot of these hard decisions come down to different interests between different people so, for example, on the one hand, people want the ability to sign into apps and bring some of their information and bring some of their friends' information in order to have a social experience and on the other

hand, everyone want their information locked down and completely private the question is, is not a business question as much as which of those equities do you weigh more >> part of it is also what happened with cambridge analytica, some of this data got away from us and i'd suggest to you that if there were financial consequences to that, that made a difference to the business, not people dropping their facebook account, they would get more attention and it's not so much a business model choice, i congratulate you on your business model, these issues on the getting the bottom line attention that i think would have given made them a priority with respect to facebook let me just follow-up in my final time on exchange you had with scenarenator graham yester. do you as a company welcome regulation you said if it's the right regulation, then yes question, do you think the europeans have it right? and you said i think they get some things right. i wanted you to elaborate on what the europeans got right and what do you think they got

wrong? >> congressman, there are a lot of things that the europeans do and i think that -- the gdpr in general is going to be a very positive step for the internet, and it codifies a lot of the things in there are things we've done for a long time some of them are things that i think would be good steps for us to take. for example, the controls that this requires are generally controls, privacy controls that we've offered around the world for years. putting the tools in front of people repeatedly not just having them in settings but putting them in front of people and getting -- and making sure that people understand what the controls are and they get a affirmative consent is a good thing to do that we've done periodically in the past i think it makes sense to do more -- require us to do and will be positive. >> anything you think they got wrong? >> i need to think about that more. >> i would appreciate if you could respond in writing thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you we'll go now to the gentleman

from north carolina, mr. hudson for four minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. zuckerberg for being here this is a long day you're here voluntarily. we appreciate you being here i've hosted two events with facebook in my district in north carolina working with small business and finding ways they can increase their customer base on facebook and it's been very beneficial to us, so i thank you for that i do want to pivot slightly and frame the discussion in another light from my question one of the greatest honors i have is i represent the men and women of ft. bragg, airborne special operations you visited last year. >> i did. >> very well received. so you understand that due to the sensitive nature of some of the operations these soldiers conduct that many are discourage the or even prohibited from having a social media presence however there are others who still have profiles, some who deleted their profiles many have family members who have facebook profiles and as we've learned each one of these

users information may have been shared without their consent there's no way facebook can guarantee the safety of this information on another company's server if private information could be gathered by apps without consent of the user they're almost asking to be hacked. are you aware of the national security concerns that would come from allowing those who seek to harm our nation access to information such as geographic location of members of our arms services is this something you're looking at >> congressman, i'm not specifically aware of that threat, but in general there are a number of national security and election integrity type issues that we focus on and we try to take a very broad view of that, and the more input that we can get from the intelligence community as well encouraging us to look into specific things, the more effectively we can do that work. >> i'd love to follow-up with you on that.

it's been said many times here that you refer to facebook as a platform of all ideas or platform for all ideas. i know you've heard from many yesterday and today about concerns regarding facebook's censorship of content, particularly content that may promote christian believes or conservative beliefs. i have to bring up diamond and silk again because they're from my district. i think you've addressed these concerns but i think it's also become very apparent that this is a very serious concern. i actually asked on my facebook page for my constituents to give me ideas of things they'd like me to ask you today and the most common question was about personal privacy. so this is something that i think there is an issue. there's an issue that your company in terms of trust with consumers, you need to deal with i think you recognize that based on your testimony today. but my question to you is, what is the standard that facebook uses to determine what is offensive or controversial and how's that standard been applied across facebook's platform >> this is an important question

there are a couple of standards. the strongest one is things that will cause physical harm or threats of physical harm, but then there's a broader standard of hate speech and speech that might make people feel just broadly uncomfortable or unsafe in the community. >> that's probably the most difficult to define so i guess my question is how do you -- what standards do you apply to try to determine what's hate speech or speech you may disagree with? >> congressman, that's a very important question and i think is one we struggle with continuously and the question of what is hate speech versus what is legitimate political speech, is i think something that we get criticized both from the left and the right on what the definitions are that we have it is -- it's nuanced and what we try -- we try to lay this out in our community standards which are public documents that we can make sure that you and your office get to look through the

definitions on this, but this is an area where i think society is sensibilities are also shifting quickly. it's also very differently -- >> i'm running out of time here. let me just say that based on the statistics, mr. skally shared and the anecdotes we can provide you, it seems like there's still a challenge when it comes to -- with that, mr. chairman, i'll stop talking. >> we now go to the gentleman to new york mr. collins for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman i wasn't sure where i would be going with this but when you're number 48 out of 54 members, you can do a lot of listening and i've tried to to that today and to frame where i am now, i think -- first of all, thank you for coming and there's a saying you don't know what you know till you know it and i really think you've done a great benefit to facebook and yourself in particular as we now have heard without a doubt facebook doesn't sell data. i think the narrative would be, of course you sell data and now we all know across america you

don't sell data. that's very good for you. a very good clarification. the other one is that the whole situation we're here is because a third party app developer alexander keoghan didn't follow through on the rules he was told he can't sell the data, he gathered the data and then he did what he's not supposed to do and he sold the data. it's very hard to anticipate a bad actor doing what they're doing until after they've done it and clearly you took actions after 2014, so one real quick question is, what it change in ten or 20 or 30 seconds, what data was being collected before you locked down the platform and how it that change to today? >> congressman, thank you. so before 2014 when we announced the change, a -- someone could sign into an app and share some of their data, but also could share some basic information about their friends.

and in 2014, the major change was we said, now you're not going to be able to share any information about your friends. so if you and your friend both happen to be playing a game together or on an yp, listening to music together then that app could have some information from both of you because you each had signed in and authorized that app but other than that, people wouldn't be able to share information from their friends the basic issue here were 300,000 people used this poll and the app and ultimately sold it to cambridge analytica and cambridge analytica had access to as many as 87 million people's information. it wouldn't be possible today. if 300,000 people used the app, the might have information about 300,000 people. >> that's a very good clarification as well. how does 300,000 become 87 million? that's also something good to know my last minute as i've heard the tone here, i've got to give you all the credit in the world, i could tell from the tone we would say the other side,

sometimes when we point to our left, when the representative from illinois to quote her said, who is going to protect us from facebook that threw me back in my chair that was certainly an aggressive, but i think out of bounds kind of comment just my opinion and i've said i was interviewed by a couple of folks in the break and i said, you know, as i'm listening to you today i'm quite confident that you truly are doing good you believe in what you're doing, 2.2 billion people are using your platform and i sincerely know in my heart that you do believe in keeping all ideas equal and you may vote a certain way or not but that doesn't matter you've got 23,000 employees and i think the fact is that you're operating under a federal trade commission consent decree from 2011 that's a real thing and it goes for 20 years, so when someone said do we need more regulations, do we need more

legislation, i said no. right now what we have is facebook with a ceo that's mind is in the right place doing the best you can with 27,000 people, but the consent decree does what it does. it would be significant financial penalties were facebook to ignore that consent decree. as i'm hearing this meeting going back and forth, i for one think it was beneficial. it's good. i don't think we need more regulations and legislation now and i want to congratulate you i think on doing a good job here today and presenting your case and we now know things we didn't know before hand so thank you again. >> thank you. okay. now, i think we go next in order to mr. wahlberg, actually, who is here when the gavel dropped. we will go to mr. wahlberg for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. and mr. zuckerberg, i appreciate you being here as well.

it has been interesting to listen to all of the comments from both sides of the aisle, to get an idea of the breadth, length, depth, the vastness of our worldwide web, social media and more specifically, facebook. i want to ask three starter questions. don't think they'll take a long answer but i'll let you answer. earlier you indicated that there were bad actors that triggered your platform policy changes in 2014, but you didn't identify who those bad actors were. who were they? >> congressman, i don't sitting here today remember a lot of the specifics of early on but we saw generally a bunch of app developers who were asking for permissions to access peoples' data in ways that weren't connected to the functioning of an app. so they just say, okay, if you want to log in to my app, you

would have to share all this content even though the app doesn't actually use that in any reasonable way so we looked at that and said, hey, this isn't right. we should review these apps and make sure that if an app developer is going to access certain data that they have a reason to have access to it and over time we've made a series of changes that culminated in the major change in 2014 that i referenced before where we made it so now a person can sign in but not bring their friends information with them any more. >> secondly, is there any way, any way that facebook can with any level of certainty ensure facebook users that every single app on its platform is not misusing their data? >> congressman, it would be difficult to ever guarantee that any single -- that there are no bad actors every problem around security is sort of an arms race where you have people are trying to abuse

systems and our responsibility is to make that as hard as possible and to take the necessary precautions for a company of our scale and i think that the responsibility that we have is growing with our scale and we need to make sure -- >> i think that's an adequate answer, truthful answer. can you ensure me that ads and content are not being denied based on particular views? >> congressman, yes, politically, although i think what you -- when i hear that, what i hear is kind of normal, political speech we certainly are not going to allow ads for terrorist content, for example, so we'd be banning those views. >> i wanted to bring up a screen grab that we had, again, going back to representative upton earlier on, was he constituent but was my legislative director

for a time. it was his campaign ad that he was going to boost his post and he was rejected. rejected as being -- your ad wasn't approved because it doesn't follow advertising policies we don't allow ads that contain shocking disrespectful or sensational content including ads that depict violence or threats of violence. as i read that and i also know that you have since or facebook has since declared that that was a mistake. an algorithm problem that went on there that's our concern that we have, that it wouldn't be because he had his picture with a veteran, it wouldn't be because he wanted to reduce spending but pro-life second amendment, those things and conservative that causes us some concerns. so i guess what i'm saying here, i believe that we ought to have a light touch in regulation and when i hear some of my friends on the other side of the aisle decry the fact of what's going on now and they were high-fiving

what took place in 2012 when president obama and what he was capable of doing in bringing in and grabbing for use in a political way, i would say the best thing we can do is have these light of day hearings, let you self-regulate as much as possible with a light touch coming from us, but recognizing that in the end your facebook subscribers are going to tell you what you need to do so thank you for your time and thank you for the time you've given me. >> now recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. walters for four minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. zuckerberg for being here one of my biggest concerns is the misuse of consumer data and what controls users have over their information. you've indicated that facebook users have granular control over their own content and who can see it as you can see on the screen, on the left is a screen shot of the on/off choice for apps which must be on for users to use apps

that require a facebook log in and which allows apps to collect your information. on the right is a screen shot of what a user sees when they want to change the privacy settings on a post photo or other content. same account same user. but which control governs, the app platform access or the users decision as to who they want to see a particular post? >> sorry could you repeat that? >> which app governs, okay, or which control governs, the app platform access or the users decision as to who they want to see a particular post? so if you look up there on the screen. >> yeah. congresswoman, so when you're using the service, if you share a photo for example, and i only want my friends to see it, then in news feed and facebook only your friends are going to see it if you then go to a website and you want to sign in to that website, that website can ask you, here are the things that i

want to get access to in order to for you to use the website, if you sign in after seeing that screen where the website is asking for certain information then you are also authorizing that website to have access to that information. if you turned off the platform completely which is what the control is that you have on the left, then you wouldn't be able to sign in to another website. you'd have to reactivate this before that would even work. >> do you think the average facebook users understand that is how it works and how would they finds this out? >> congresswoman, i think that these -- the settings when you're signing in to an app are quite clear in terms of every time you go to sign into an app, you have to go through a whole screen that says, here's the app, here's your friends who use it, here are the pieces of information that it would like to have access to, you make a decision whether you sign in, yes or no until you say you want to sign in nothing gets shared similarly in terms of sharing

content, every single time you upload a photo, you have to make a decision, it's right there at the top, it says are you sharing this with your friends or publicly or with some group and every single time that's quite clear. so in those cases, yes, i think that this is quite clear. >> okay. so these user control options are in different locations and it seems to me that putting all privacy control options in a single location would be more user friendly. why aren't they in the same location >> congresswoman, we typically do two things. we have a settings page that has all of your settings in one place in case you want to go and play around or configure your settings. but the more important thing is putting the settings in line when you're trying to make a decision if you're going to share a photo now, we think that your setting about who you want to share that photo with should be in line right there. if you're going to sign into an app, it should be very clear right in line when you're signing into the app what permissions that app is asking for. we do both it's both in one place in settings if you want to go to it

and it's in line in the replace. >> okay. california has been heralded by many on this committee for its privacy initiatives. given that you and other major tech companies are in california and we are still experiencing privacy issues, how do you square the two >> sorry can you repeat that >> given that you and other major tech companies are in california and we're still experiencing privacy issues, how do you square the two? >> what was the other piece? >> california's been heralded by many for its privacy initiatives. >> i think that privacy is not something that you can ever -- it's -- our understanding of the issues between people and how they interact online, only grows over time, so i think we'll figure out what the social norms are and the rules we want to put in place and then five years from now we'll come back and we'll have learned more things and either that just be that social norms have evolved or put rules in place, but i think our

understanding of this is going to evolve over quite a long time. i would expect that even if a state like california's forward leaning that's not necessarily going to mean that we fully understand everything or have solved all the issues. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. we recognize ms. dingle for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. zuckerberg, thank you for your patience. i am a daily facebook user much to my staff's address and because we need a little humor i'm marry today a 91-year-old man that's thinking of twitter i know facebook's value. with that value also comes obligation. we've all been sitting here for more than four hours some thing's are striking during this conversation, as ceo you didn't know some key facts you didn't know about major court cases regarding your privacy policies against your company, you didn't know that

the ftc doesn't have finding authority and that facebook could not have received fines for the 2011 consent order. you didn't know what a shadow profile was. you didn't know how many apps you need to audit. you didn't know how many other firms have been sold data by dr. keoghan other than cambridge analytica and annoya technologies even though you were asked that question yesterday and yes, we were all paying attention yesterday. you don't even know all the kinds of information facebook is collecting from its own users. here's what i do know. you have trackers all over the web. on practically every website you go to we all see the facebook like or facebook share buttons. and with the facebook pixel, people browsing the internet may not even see that facebook logo.

it doesn't matter whether you have a facebook account, through those tools facebook is able to collect information from all of us. so i want to ask you, how many facebook like buttons are there on nonfacebook web pages >> congresswoman, i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head but we'll get back to you. >> is the number over 100 million? >> i believe we've served the like button on pages more than that, but i don't know the number of pages that have the like button on actively. >> how many facebook share buttons are there on nonfacebook web pages? >> i don't know the answer to that exactly off the top of my head either but that's something that we can follow-up with you on. >> and with we think that's over 100 million likely. how many chunks of facebook pixel code are there on nonfacebook web pages? >> congresswoman, you're asking

some specific stats that i don't know off the top of my head but we can follow-up with you and get back with you on all of these. >> can you commit to get back to the committee, the european union is asking for 72 hours on tran par rensi, do you think we could get that back in 72 hours. >> congresswoman, i will talk to my team and we will follow-up. >> i know you're still reviewing but do you know now whether there are other fourth parties that had access to the data from someone other than dr. keoghan or is this something we'll find out in a press release down the road i think what worries all of us and you've heard it today is it has taken almost three years to hear about that and i am convinced that there are other people out there. >> congresswoman, as i've said, a number of times we're now going to investigate every single app that had access to a large amount of peoples' information in the past before we locked down the platform. i do imagine that we will find some apps that were either doing

some suspicious or misused people's data. if we find them then we will ban them from the platform, take action to make sure they delete the data and make sure everyone involved is informed. >> and you make it publicly quickly not three years. >> as soon as we find them. >> i'm going to conclude because my time's almost up that i worry when i hear companies value or privacy it's meant in monetary terms not in the moral obligation to protect it data protection and privacy are like clean air and clean water. their need to be clear rules of the road. >> the time is expired the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello for four minutes. >> i would echo congresswoman collins comments as well mr. zuckerberg, i think that we as americans have a concept of digital privacy rights and privacy that aren't necessarily codified and we're trying to sift through how do we actually

make privacy rights in a way that are intelligible for tech and understandable to the community at large and so my questions are oriented in that fogs. first, if you look at gdpr, the eu -- the law that's about to take effect, what pieces of that do you feel would be properly placed in american jurs prudence, in other words, right to erasure, right to get our data back? could you rectify how you see that playing out i believe you have a sincere interest in seeing small tech companies prosper. >> yes, congressman. there are a few parts of gdpr that i think are important and good one is making sure that people have control over how each piece of information that they share is used. people should have the ability to know what a company knows about them, to control and have

a setting about who can see it and to be able to delete it whenever they want the second set of things is making sure that people actually understand what the tools are that are available so not just having it in some settings page some where but put the tools in front of people, so they can make a decision and that both builds trust and makes it so that peoples' experiences are configured in the way they want. something we've done a number of times over the years at facebook but with gdpr we will now be doing more and around the whole world. the third piece is there are some very sensitive technologies that i think are important to enable innovation around, like face recognition, but that you want to make sure you get special consent for. if we make it too hard for american companies to innovate in areas like facial recognition then we will lose to chinese companies and other companies around the world that are able to innovate on that. >> do you feel you should be able to deploy acht i. for

facial recognition for a non-fb user >> i think that's a good question and i think that this is something that probably -- that we should -- that people should have control over how it is used, and that we'll be rolling out and asking people whether they want you to use it for them around the world as part of this push that's upcoming. i think in general for sensitive technologies like that, i do think you want a special consent. >> right. >> that would be a valuable thing. >> two quick ones, is facebook in utilizing that platform ever a publisher in your mind >> congressman -- >> you said you're responsible for content. are you ever a publisher as the term is legally used >> i'm not familiar with how the term is legally used. >> would you ever be legally responsible for the content that is put on to your platform

>> well, congressman, let me put it this way, there is content that we fund, specifically in video today and when we're commissioning a video to be created, then i certainly think we have full responsibility of owning that content. >> which is what the chairman's questions was up front. >> the vast majority of the content on facebook is not something we commissioned. for that i think our responsibility is to make sure that the content on facebook is not harmful, that people are seeing things that are relevant to them and that encourage interaction in budding relationships with the people around them and that i think is the primary responsibility that we have. >> my big concern -- i'm running out of time, is someone limits their data to not being used for something that it might potentially be used for that they have no idea how it might actually socially benefit and i'm out of time, but i would like for you to share at a later point in time how the data that you get might be limited by a

user and your inability to use that data may actually prevent the kind of innovation that would bring about positive social change in this country because i do believe that was the intention and objective of your company and i believe you perform it very well in a lot of ways. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. >> go now to the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter for four minutes. >> thank you plrks chairman. thank you, mr. zuckerberg for being here you're almost done. when you get to me that means you're getting close to the end. so congratulations thank you for being here we do appreciate it. you wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the privacy, peoples' information and the privacy and the fact that you had this lapse. you know all about fake news you know all about foreign intervention. i know you're concerned about that i want to talk about just a few different subjects, if you will. i would like to ask some yes or no questions please excuse my redundancy.

did you know that 91 people die every day because of opioid addiction? yes or no? >> i did not know that specifically. >> did you know it's estimated to be between 2.5 million people lighting now addicted to opioids. >> yes. >> did you know that the average age of americans has decreased for the first time in decades as a result of what people are saying as a result of the opioid epidemic >> yes, especially among certain demographics. >> absolutely. i ask you this because, some of the other members have mentioned that about the ads for fentanyl and other elicit drugs that are on the internet and where you can buy them and about your responsibility to monitor that and make sure that's not happening. i had the opportunity this past week to speak at the prescription drug abuse and heroin summit in atlanta, that representative hal rogers started some years ago. also we had the fda commissioner

there and he mentioned the fact that he's going to be meeting with ceos of internet companies to discuss this problem. i hope that you will be willing to at least have someone there to meet with him so we can get your help in this. this is extremely important. >> congressman, i will make sure that someone is there. >> let me ask you another question, mr. zuckerberg did you know that there are groups of conservations -- conservation groups that have provided evidence to the security and exchange commission that endangerered wildlife goods in particular, ivory, is extensivelily traded on closed groups on facebook. >> congressman, i was not specifically aware of that but i think we -- we know that there are issues with content like this that we need to be more pro active monitoring for. >> did you know that there are some conservation groups that assert there's so much ivory being sold on facebook that it's literally contributing to the extinction of the elephant species? >> congressman, i have not heard

that. >> and did you know that the american -- the motion picture association of america is having problems with piersy of movies and their products, not only is this challenging their profits but their very exist in. did you know that that was a problem? >> i believe that has been an issue for a long time. >> it has been. so you did know that the reason i ask you this is that i just want to make sure that i understand you have an understanding of a commitment -- look, you said earlier, it may have been yesterday, that hate speech is difficult to discern i get that and you're absolutely right. but these things are not. and we need your help with this. i will tell you there are members of this body who would like to see the internet monitored as a utility i am not one of those. i believe that that would be the worst thing we could do. i believe it would stifle innovation i don't think you can legislate

morality and i don't want to try to do that but we need a commitment from you that these things that can be controlled like this, that you will help us and that you'll work with law enforcement to help us with this. look, you love america i know that. we all know that. we need your help here. we don't -- i don't want congress to have to act. you want to see a mess you let the federal government get into this you'll see a mess, i assure you. please, we need your help with this and i just need that commitment. can i get that commitment? >> congressman, yes, we take this very seriously. that's a big part of the reason overall these content issues why by the ends of this year we'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and content review and we need to build more tools too. >> thank you very much. >> the chair recognizes mr. duncan for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman usually i'm last, but today i think we have one behind me that came in late. mr. zuckerberg, i want -- >> only by two minutes did he come in late. >> i want to thank you for all

the work you've done and i want to let you know that i've been on facebook since 2007 and started as a state legislator, used facebook to communicate with my constituents and it has been an invaluable tool for me in communicating we can actually do it in realtime multiple issues as we deal with them and here in congress answer questions. it's almost like a town hall in realtime i also want to tell you that your staff here of the governmental affairs office and others do a fabulous job in keeping us informed, so i want to thank you for that. before this hearing when we heard about it, we asked our constituents and our friends on facebook what would they want me to ask you and the main response was addressing the perceived as many confirmed, discrimination against christians and conservatives on your platform. today, listening to this i think the two main issues are user privacy and censorship.

the constitution of the united states and the first amendment says, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise there of. the right of people to assemble or address the congress for grievances. i've got a copy of the constitution i want to give you at the end of this hearing the reason i say all that. this is maybe a rhetorical question but why not have a community standard for free speech and free exercise of religion that is simply a mirror of the first aspect with algorithms that are viewed -- that have a viewpoint that is neutral? why not do that? >> well, congressman, i think that we can all agree that certain content like terrorist propaganda should have no place on our network and the first amendment, my understanding of it, is that is that kind of speech is allowed in the world i just don't think that it the kind of thing we want to allow to spread on the internet.

so once you get into that, you're -- you're deciding that -- you take this value that you care about safety and that we don't want people to be able to spread information that could cause i think that that -- our general responsibility is to -- is to allow the broadest spectrum of -- >> i appreciate that answer. you're right about propaganda and other issues there i believe the constitution generally applies to government and says that congress shall make no law respecting -- talks about religion and then we want to bridge the freedom of speech of the press but the standard has been applied to private businesses. whether those are newspapers or other media platform and i would argue that social media has now become a media platform to be considered in a lot of ways the same as other press media. so i think the first amendment probably does apply and will apply.

what will you do let me ask you this. will you do to restore the first amendment rights of facebook users and they are treated equally regardless if they're moderate, liberal, or whatnot? >> well, congressman, i think we make a number of mistakes in content review today that i don't think only focus on one political persuasion and i think it's unfortunate that when those happen, people think that we're focused on them and it happens in different political groups we have -- >> in the essence of time, conservatives are the ones that raise the awareness that their content has been pulled. i don't see the same awareness being raised by liberal organizations, liberal candidates, or liberal policy statements so i think -- and i think you've been made aware of this over the last few days. probably need to go back and make sure those things are treated equal. i would appreciate if you do that i appreciate the platform.

i appreciate the work you do we stand willing and able to help you here in congress because facebook is an invaluable of what we do and how we communicate so thanks for being here i yield back >> and for our final four minutes of questioning comes from mr. cramer, north dakota. former head of the public utility commission there we welcome your comments go ahead >> thank you and thanks for being here, mr. zuckerberg don't eat the fruit of this tree is the only are raegulation initiated. since then many laws and rulgs have been created in response to an abusive freedom oftentimes that response is more extreme than the abuse and that's what i fear could happen based on some of the things i've heard today in response of this this national discussion is very important. not only for these last two days, but it continues lest we overrespond, okay? now, that said, i think the consumer and industry and whatever industry it is your

company or others like yours share that responsibility. so i appreciate both your patience and your preparation coming in today. but in response to the questions from a few of my colleagues related to the illegal drug ads, i have to admit that there were times i was thinking his answers aren't very reassuring to me and i'm wondering what your answer would be as to how quickly you could take down on illegal drug site if there was a million-dollar proposed per day regulation fine tied to it in other words, give it your best i mean, don't wait for somebody to flag it look for it. make it a priority it's certainly far more dangerous than a couple of conservative christian women on tv so please be better than this. >> congressman, i agree that this is very important i miscommunicated if i left the impression that we weren't

proactively going to work on tools to take down this content and were only going to rely on people to flag it for us right now i think underway we have efforts to focus not only on ads which has been most of the majority of the questions, but a lot of people share this stuff in groups too. and the free part of the products that aren't paid. we need to get that content down too. i understand how big of an issue this is. unfortunately the enforcement isn't perfect. we do need to make it more proactive and i'm committed to doing that >> i don't expect it to be perfect, but i expect it to be a higher priority than conservative thought speaking of that, i think in some of your responses to senator cruz yesterday and some responses today related to liberal bias, you've sort of implied the fact that while you have these 20,000 enforcement folks you've implied that silicon valley is a very liberal place so the talent pool, perhaps, leans left in its bias. let me suggest that you look

some place perhaps in the middle of the north american continent for some people. maybe even your next big investment of capital could be in the -- some place like bismarck, north dakota, or williston where you have visited where people tend to be pretty common sense if the talent pool is a problem, then let's look for a different talent pool. maybe we can even have a nice, big center some place. i want to then close with this because you testified yesterday under the opening statement by the ranking member of the committee bothered me in that suddenly there's this great concern that providers particularly facebook, other large edge providers and content providers should be hyperregulated when all along we as republicans have been talking about net neutrality we talked about earlier this year when -- last year when we rolled back the internet service provider privacy stuff that seemed tilted heavily in your

favor and against them don't you think the ubiquitous platforms like google and facebook and many others should have the same responsibility to privacy as an internet service provider >> congressman, let me answer that in a second before i get to that, on your last point, the content reviewers who we have are not primarily located in silicon valley so i think that was an important point. >> it is >> i do worry about the general bias of people in silicon valley, but the majority of the folks doing content review are around the world in different places to your question about net neutrality, i think that there's a big difference between internet service providers and platforms on top of them and the big reason is that -- well, i just think about my own experience when i was starting facebook, i had one choice of an internet service provider if i had to potentially pay extra in order to make it so that people could have facebook

as an option for something that they used, then i'm not sure that we'd be here today. platforms, there are just many more so it may be true that a lot of people choose to use facebook. the average american i think uses about eight different communication and social network apps to stay connected to people it just is clearly correct or true that there are more choices on platforms so even though they can reach large scale, i think the pressure of just having one or two in a place does require us to think a little bit differently. >> i will submit to you i have fewer choices on the platform in your type of a platform than i do internet service providers even in rural north dakota with that, thank you, mr. chairman >> i suppose you don't want to hang around for another round of questions. just kidding >> isn't he funny? >> your staff, several of them just passed out behind you on a serious note as we close, i would welcome your suggestions of other technology ceos we might benefit from hearing from.

>> all right mark zuckerberg cracking a smile there when he was jokingly asked if you'd like to do another round of questions i think the answer is no let's bring in john scully, former apple ceo good to have you here. thanks for joining us. did he achieve what he needed to >> i think he did a great job. i think the performance of mark zuckerberg showed that he was well prepared. he was thoughtful in his responses. and he was dealing with a group of questioners who really in many cases didn't know much about technology or much about facebook so i think he did it with great courtesy >> that was pretty obviously some of the questions they had at the end when they asked could you think of other ceos we should bring to capitol hill i feel they haven't had enough of this experience they'd like to go after more people in silicon valley >> what i think about is that if they were to hold these hearings two years from now, i think the

line of questions would be quite different. because what didn't really come out quite so clearly is that social media world is rapidly changing what's changing, too, is a much bigger priority on machine learning and machine learning is not just about the privacy of your specific data. it's about the metadata. it's about the interpretation of data that's being done with algorithms which are using probability statistics >> so effectively in two years this problem goes away because it solves itself in some respects >> well, it's going to be a different set of issues. i mean, i think to a large extent, it's not so much about exposing people's individual data in fact, by then we'll start to see probably more hearings around medical data, financial data and probably not so much behavioral data and that sort. i think what would still be in

the agenda unless it's been solved is what about teenagers in my case, my grandchildren don't have permission to go online as early teens. i know steve jobs' children didn't either. many people who know about technology have pretty strict parental control over their kids going on these types of services that would have a lot of impact on instagram, obviously. because instagram focuses on young people. >> you think tim cook goes to capitol hill >> well, i think tim cook is becoming a media star. i sort of wonder whether he isn't running for president. he's very articulate, has strong points of view he's highly respected. the other day he was on television for quite some time and he talked about privacy being a right, not just something -- >> some people thought he was holier than thou would you have been as cri