professor kogan's transfer and now potentially do you believe view. do you know of any instances where user data was improperly transferred to third party in breach of facebook's terms? if so, how many times has that happened and was facebook only made aware of that transfer by some third party? >> mr. chairman, thank you. as i mentioned, we're now conducting a full investigation into every single app. that had an access to a large amount of information before we locked down platform to prevent developer from accessing this information around 2014. we believe that we're going to be investigating many apps. tens of thousands of apps. if we find any suspicious activity, we're going to conduct a full audit of those app.s to understand how they are using their data and if they are doing anything improper. if we find they are doing anything improper we will ban them from facebook and tell everyone affected. as for past activity, i

don't have all the examples of apps that we have banned here. if you would like, i can have my team follow up with you after this. >> have you ever required an audit to ensure the deletion of improperly transferred data and if so how many times? >> mr. chairman, yes, we have. i don't have the exact figure on how many times we have. but, overall, the way we have enforced our platform policies in the past is we have looked at patterns of how apps have used our apis and accessed information and looked into reports about reports people have made into apps doing sketchy things. going forward, we are going to take a more proactive position on this and do much more regular spot-checks and other reviews of apps. as well as increasing the amount of audits that we do. and, again, i can make sure that our team follows up with you on anything about the specific past stats that would be interesting. >> i was going to assume that sitting here today you

have no idea. and if i'm wrong on that, you are able -- you are telling me, i think, that you are able to supply those figures to us. at least as of this point. >> mr. chairman, i will have my team follow up with you on what information we have. >> okay. but right now you have no certainty of whether or not how much of that is going on, right? okay. facebook collects massive amendments of data from consumers including content, networks, contact lists, device information, location and information from third parties. yet, your data policy is only a few pages long and provides consumers with only a few examples of what is collected and how it might be used. the examples given emphasize benign uses such as connecting with friends. but your policy does not give any indication for more controversial issues of such

data. my question: why doesn't facebook disclose to its users all the ways the data might be used by facebook and other third parties and what is facebook's responsibility to inform users about that information? >> mr. chairman, i believe it's important to tell people exactly how the information they share on facebook is going to be used. that's why every single time you go to share something on facebook whether a photo or facebook or messenger or what's app., every single time there is a control right there about how are going to be sharing it with, whether it's your friends or public or specific group. and you can change that and control that in line. to your broader point about the privacy policy, this gets into an issue that i think we and others in the tech industry have found challenging which is that long privacy policies are very confusing. and if you make it long and

spell out all the detail, then you are probably going to reduce the percent of people who read it and make it accessible to them. so, one of the things that we have struggled with over time is to make something that is as simple as possible to supreme can understand it as well as giving them control of inline in the product in the context of when they are trying to actually use them. taking into account that we don't expect that most people want l. want to go through and read a full legal document. >> senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday when we talked, i gave the relatively harmless example that i'm communicating with my friends on facebook and indicate that i love a certain kind of chocolate. and all of a sudden i start receiving advertisements for chocolate. what if i don't want to receive those commercial

advertisements? so, your chief operating officer, ms. sandberg, suggested on the nbc today show that users who don't want their personal information used for advertising, might have to pay for that protection. pay for it. are you actually considering having facebook users pay for you not to use that information? >> senator, will people have control over how information is used in ads in the product today. if you want to have an experience where your ads aren't targeted, using all the information that we have available, you can turn off third party information. what we found is that even though some people don't like ads, people really don't like ads that aren't

relevant. while there is some discomfort for sure with using information in making ads more relevant, the overwhelming feedback that we get from our community is that people would rather have us show relevant content there than not. so we offer this control that they you are referencing. some people use it it's not the majority of people on facebook. and i think that's a good level of control to offer. in order to not run ads at all we need some sort of business model. >> and that is your business model. so i take it that and i use the harmless example of chocolate. but if it got into more personal thing, communicating with friends, and i want to cut it off i'm going to have to pay you in order not to send me using

my personal information something that i don't understand? that in essence is what i understood ms. sandberg to say. is that correct? >> yes, senator. although to be clear, we don't offer an option today for people to pay to not show ads. we think offering an ad supported service is the most aligned with our mission of trying to help connect everyone in the world. pause we want to offer a free service that everyone can afford. that's the only way we can reach billions of people. >> so, therefore, you consider my personally identifiable data, the company's data, not my data. is that it? >> no, senator. actually, at the first line of our terms of service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook. >> well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating, not only because it affected 87 million but because it

seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years. so, back in 2011, it was a settlement with the ftc and now we discover yet another instance where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained all of this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015 that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app. developer on facebook that people had shared it with we did take action. we took down the app. and we demanded that both the app. developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to believe them and we should have

followed up and done a full audit then and that is not a presidents stake that we will make. >> yes, you did that and you apologized for it but you didn't notify them and do you think that you have an ethical obligation to notify 87 million facebook users? >> senator when we heard back from cambridge analytica that they deleted the data, we closed the case. in retrospect that was a mistake. we shouldn't have taken their word for it we have updated our policies to make sure we don't make that mistake again. >> did anybody notify the ftc. >> no, senator, for the same reason. we considered it a closed case. >> senator thune. >> mr. zuckerberg, would you do that differently today, presumably in response to senator nelson's question? >> yes. >> having to do it over.

this may be your first appearance before congress but it's not the first time that facebook has phased tough questions about its privacy policies. wired magazine recently noted that you have a 14-year history of apologizing for ill advised decisions regarding user privacy, not unlike the one that you made just now in your opening statement. after more than a decade of promises to do better. how is today's apology different and why should we trust facebook to make the necessary changes to ensure user privacy and give people a clearer picture of your privacy policies? >> thank you, mr. chairman. so we have made a lot of mistakes in running the company. i think it's pretty much impossible, i believe, to start a company in your dorm room and then grow it to be the scale that we are at now without making some mistakes. because our service is about helping people connect in

information, those mistakes have been different in how they -- we try not to make the same mistake multiple times. in general the mistakes are around how people connect to each other just because of the nature of the service. overall, i would say that we're going through a broader philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company. for the first 10 or 12 years of the company, i viewed our responsibility as primarily building tools that if we could put those tools in people's hands, then that would empower people to do good things. what i think we have learned now, across a number of i, not just data privacy but also fake news and foreign interference in elections is that we need to take a more proactive role and broader of our responsibility. not enough to just build tools. make sure they are used for good. that means we need to now take a more active view in policing the ecosystem and in watching and kind of looking out and making sure that all of the members in our community are using these tools in a way that's going to be good and

healthy. so, at the end of the day, this is going to be something where people will measure us by our results on this. it's not that i expect that anything i say here today to necessarily change people's view. but i'm committed to getting this right and i believe over the coming years. once we work all these solutions through people will see real differences. >> i'm glad that y'all have gotten that message. as we discussed this office yesterday, the line between legitimate political discourse and hate speech can sometimes be hard to identify. especially when you are relying on artificial intelligence and for the initial discovery. can you discuss what steps facebook takes when making these evaluations and challenges you face and any examples of where you may draw the line between what is and what is not hate speech? >> yes, mr. chairman. i will speak to hate speech. and then i will talk about

enforcing our content policies more broadly. so, actually, maybe if you are okay with it, i will go in the other order. so, beginning of company in 2004 in my dorm room. we didn't have the technology look at people were sharing. we basically had to enforce our content policies reactively. people could share what they wanted and then if someone in the community found it to be offensive or against our policies, they would flag it for us and we would look at it reactively. now, increasingly, we are developing ai tools that can identify certain classes of bad activity proactively and tag it for our team at facebook. by the end of this year by the way we have more than 20,000 people working on security and content review working across all these things. when content gets flagged to us, have those people look at it, if it violates our policies then we take it

down. some problems lend themselves more easily to ai solutions than others. hate speech is one of the hardest. because determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced. you need to understand what is a slur and what whether something is hateful. people use it differently in languages across the world. contrast that for example, with an area like finding terrorist's propaganda which we have been very successful on deploying ai tools on already. today as we sit here 99% of the isis and al qaeda content that would take down on facebook are ai system sees it before any eye sees it. that's success of ruling out ai tools that can proactively police and enforce safety across the community. hate speech, i am optimistic that over a five to 10 year period we have ai tools that

can get into some of the nuances, linguistic nuances of different types of content to be more accurate in flagging for our systems. today we are just not there on that. a lot of this is still reactive. people flag it to us. we have people look at it we have policies to try to make it as not subjective as possible. until we get it more automated there is a higher error rate than i'm happy with. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, what is facebook doing to prevent foreign actors in interfering in u.s. elections? >> thank you, senator. this is one of my top priorities in 2018 to get this right. one of my greatest regrets in running the company is that we were slow in identifying the russian information operation in 2016. we expected them to do a number of traditional cyber attacks which we did identify and notify the campaigns that they were trying to hack into them.

we were slow to identifying the type of new information operations. >> when did you identify new operations? >> it was right around the time of the 2016 election itself. so, since then -- 2018 is incredibly important year for elections not just the u.s. mid terms but around the world there are important elections in india, brazil, mexico, pakistan and in hungary that we want to make sure that we do everything we can to protect the indid he go at ininf those elections. since the 2016 election there have been several important elections around the world where we have had a better record. the french president election, german election, u.s. senate alabama special election last year. >> explain what is better about the record. >> so we have deployed new ai tools that do a better job of identifying facebook accounts that that may be trying to interfere in elections or spread misinformation. between those three

elections, we were able to proactively remove tens of how far to sands of accounts that before they could contribute significant harm and the nature of these attacks though is that, you know, there are people in russia whose job it is to try to exploit our system and other internet systems and other systems as well. this is an arms race. they are going to keep on getting better at this. we need to keep on investing in getting better at this, too. one of the things i mentioned before we will have more than 20,000 people by the end of this year working on security and content review across the company. >> speak for a moment about automated bots that spread disinformation. what are you doing to punish those that exploit your platform in that regard. >> well, you are not allowed to have a fake account on facebook. your contents that to be authentic. we build technical tools to try to identify when people are creating fake accounts.

large networks like the russians have. in order to remove all of that content. after the 2016 election, our top priority was protecting the integrity of other elections around the world. but, at the same time, we had a parallel effort to trace back to russia the ira activity. internet research activity part of the russian government that did this activity in 2016. and just last week we were able to determine that a number of russian media organizations, that were sanctioned by the russian operator were operated and controlled by this internet research agency. so we took the step last week. it was a pretty big step for us of taking down sanctioned news organizations in russia as part of an operation to remove 270 fake accounts and pages, part of their broader network in russia that was actually not targeting international interference -- i'm sorry, let me correct that primarily targeting

spreading misinformation in russia itself as well as certain russian speaking neighboring countries. >> how many accounts of this type have you taken down? >> across in the ira specifically, the ones that we have pegged back to the ira, we can identify the 470 in the american elections. and the 270 that we specifically went after last week. there are many others that our systems catch that are more difficult to attribute to russian intelligence. the number would be in the tens of thousands of fake accounts that we remove. and i'm happy to have my team follow up with you on more information, if that would be helpful. >> would you please? i think this is very important. if you knew in 2015 that cambridge analytica was using the information of professor kogan's, why didn't facebook ban cambridge in 2015? why did you wait? >> senator, that's a great

question. cambridge analytica wasn't using our services in 2015 as far as we can tell. one of the questions i asked our team as soon as i learned about this. why did we wait until we found out about the reports last month to ban them? it's as of the time we learned about their activity in 2015. they weren't an advertiser and weren't running pages. we actually had nothing to ban. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. now senator hatch. >> this the most intense public scrutiny i have seen sings the microsoft hearing that i chaired back in the late 1990s. the recent stories about cambridge analytica and data mining on social media have raised serious concerns about consumer privacy. and naturally i know you understand that. at the same time, these stories touch on the very foundation of the internet economy and the way the

websites that drive our internet economy make money. some have professed themselves shocked, shocked that companies like facebook and google share user data with advertisers. did any of these individuals ever stop to ask themselves why facebook and google don't charge for access? nothing in life is free. everything involves tradeoffs. if you want something without having to pay money for it, you are going to have to pay for it in some other way it seems to me. and that's what we're seeing here. these great web sites that don't charge for access they extract value in some other way. there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are upfront about what they are doing. in my mind, the issue here is transparency. it's consumer choice. do users understand what they are agreeing to when they axis a website or agree to terms of service? are web sites upfront about how they on distract value extry

hide the ball. consumers need information they need to make informed choice whether or not to visit a particular website to. my mind, these are questions that we should ask or be focusing on. now, mr. zuckerberg, i remember well your first visit to capitol hill back in 2010. you spoke to the senate republican high tech task force, which i chair. you said back then that facebook would always be free. is that still your objective? >> senator, yes. there will always be a version of facebook that is free. it is our mission to try to help connect everyone around the world and bring the world close together. in order to do that we need we need to offer a service that everyone can afford and we are committed to doing that. >> if so, how do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service? >> senator, we run ads. >> i see.

>> whenever a controversy like this arises there is always the danger that congress will step in and overregulate that's been my experience that i have had. what sort of legislative problems the cambridge analytica story has revealed and what sorts of legislative changes would not help to solve this issue? >> senator, i think there are few categories of legislation that make sense to consider. around privacy specifically, there are few principles that i think it would be useful to discuss and potentially codify into law. one is around having a simple and practical set of ways that you explain what you are doing with data. and we talked a little bit earlier around the complexity of laying out these long privacy policy. it's hard to say that people fully understand something when it's only written out

in the long legal document. stuff needs to be implemented in a way where people can actually understand it. where consumers can understand that. but, that can also capture all the nuances of how these services work in a way that is not overly restrictive on providing the services. that's one. the second is around giving people complete control. this is the most important principle for facebook. every piece of content that you share on facebook, you own and you have complete control over who sees it and how you share it and you can remove it at any time. that's why every day about 100 billion times a day, people come to one of our services and either post a photo or send a message to someone. because they know that they have that control and that who they say it's going to go to is going to be who sees the content. i think that control is something that is important that i think should apply to every service. and.

>> go ahead. >> the third point is around enabling communication. some of these cases that are very sensitive like face recognition, for example. there is a balance extremely important to strike here where you obtain special consent for sensitive features like face recognition, but don't -- but we still need to make it so american companies can innovate in those areas or else we are going to fall behind chinese competitors and others around the world who have different regimes for different new features like that. >> senator cantwell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. zuckerberg. do you know who palinteer is. >> some people have referred to them as stafford analytical. do you agree. >> senator, i have not heard that. >> do you think palanteer

analytical press reports how to do these tactics? >> senator, i don't know. >> do you think palenteer data from facebook? >> senator, i'm not aware of that. >> okay. >> do you think that during the 2016 campaign as cambridge analytica was providing support to the trump campaign under project alamo were there any facebook people involved in that sharing of technique and information? >> senator, we provided support to the trump campaign similar to what we provide to any advertiser or campaign who asks for it. >> so that was a yes? is that a yes? >> senator, can you repeat the specific question? i just want to make sure i get specifically what you are asking. >> during the 2016 campaign,

cambridge analytica worked with the trump campaign to refine tactics and were facebook employees involved in that? >> senator, i don't know that our employees were involved with cambridge analytica although i know we did help out with the trump campaign overall in sales support in the same way we do with other campaigns. >> they may have been involved in all working together during that time period? maybe that's something your investigation will find out. >> senator, i can certainly have my team get back to you on any specifics there that i don't know sitting here today. >> have you heard of total information awareness? do you know what i'm talking about? >> no, i do not. >> total information awareness was 2003 john ashcroft and others trying to do similar things to what i think is behind all of this. geopolitical forces trying to get data and information to influence a process. so, when i look at palenteer

and what they're doing and what's app., which is another acquisition and look at where you are from the 2011 consent decree and where you are today, i'm thinking is this guy outfoxing the foxes or is he going along with what is a major trend in an information age to try to harvest information for political forces? and so, my question to you is do you see that those applications, that those companies palenteer and even what's app. are going to fall into the same situation that you have just fallen into over the last several years? >> senator, i'm not -- i'm not sure specifically. overall, i do think that these issues around information access are challenging. to the specifics about those apps, i'm not really that familiar with what palenteer

does. what's app. collects very little information and i think is less likely to have the kind of issues because of the way that the services arc aarchitected. these are broad issues across the tech industry. >> well, i guess, given the track record where facebook is and why you are here today, i guess people would say that they didn't act boldly enough. and the fact that people like john bolton basically was an investor in "new york times" article earlier, i guess it was actually last month, that the bolton pac was obsessed with how america was becoming limp wristed and spineless and messaging for national security issues. so, the fact that you know, there are a lot of people who are interested in this larger effort, and what i think my constituents want to know is was this discussed at your board

meetings? and what are the applications and interests that are being discussed without putting real teeth into this? we don't want to come back to this situation again. i believe you have all the talent. my question is whether you have all the will to help us solve this problem? >> >> yes, senator. so, data privacy and foreign interference in elections are certainly topics that we have discussed at the board meeting. these are some of the biggest issues that the company has faced and we feel a huge responsibility to get these right. >> do you believe the european regulations should be applied here in the u.s.? >> senator, i think everyone in the world deserves good privacy protection. and regardless of whether we implement the exact same regulation, i would guess it would be somewhat different because we somewhat different sensibilities in the u.s. as do other countries. we're committed to rolling

out the controls and affirmative consent and the special controls around sensitive types of technology like face recognition that are required in gdpr. we are doing that around the world. so i think it's certainly worth discussing whether we should have something similar in the u.s., but what i would like to say today is that we're going to go forward and implement that regardless of what the regulatory outcome is. >> senator wicker. senator thune will chair next. senator wicker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, thank you for being with us. my question is going to be a follow-up on what senator hatch was talking about. let me agree with basically his advice that we don't want to overregulate to the point where we are stifling innovation and investment i understand with regard to

suggested rules or suggested legislation there are at least two schools of thought out there. one would be the isps, the internet service providers who are advocating for privacy protections for consumers that apply to all online entities equally across the entire internet ecosystem. now, facebook is an edge provider on the other hand. it's my understanding that many edge providers, such as facebook, may not support that effort because edge providers have different business models than the isps and should not be considered like services. so, do you think we need consistent privacy protections for consumers across the entire internet ecosystem that are based on the type of consumer information being collected used or shared regardless of the entity doing the collecting or using or

sharing? >> senator, this is an important question. i would differentiate between isps, which i consider to be the pipes of the internet and the platforms, like facebook or google or twitter, youtube, that are the apps or platforms on top of that. i think in general, the expectations that people have of the pipes are somewhat different from the platforms. so there might be areas where there needs to be more regulation in one and less in the other. i think there are going to be other places where there needs to be more regulation of the other type. specifically though, on the pipes, one of the important issues that i think we face and have debated. >> when you say pipes, you mean -- >> -- isps. >> the isps? >> yeah. i know net true trattle has been a hotly debated topic. one of the reasons why i have been out there saying i think that should be the case is because i look at my own story of when i was getting started building

facebook at harvard, you know, i only had one option for an isp to use. if i had to pay extra in order to make it so that my app. could potentially be seen or used by other people, then we probably wouldn't be here today. >> well, we're talking about privacy concerns. and, let me just say we will have to follow up on this, but i think you and i agree this is going to be one of the major items of debate if we have to go forward and do this from a governmental standpoint. let me just move on to another couple of items. is it true that as was recently publicized that facebook collects the call and text histories of its users that use android phones? >> senator, we have an app. called messenger for sending messages to your facebook friends. and that app. offers people an option to soyink sink sync m.

one app. both your texts and your facebook messages in one place. we also allow people the option of. >> you can opt in or out of it. >> it is opt in. you have to affirmatively say that you want to sync that information before you get access. >> unless you opt in, you don't collect that call and text mystery? >> is correct. >> is that true for -- is this practice done at all with minors or do you make an exception there for persons age 13 to 17? >> i do not know we can follow up on that. >> okay. let's do that. there have been reports that facebook can track a user's internet browsing activity even after that user has logged off of the facebook platform. can you confirm whether or not this is true?

>> >> senator, i want to make sure i get this accurate. it would probably be better to have my team follow up. >> you don't know? >> i know that people use cookies on the internet. and you can probably correlate activity between sessions. we do that for a number of reasons, including security and include measuring ads to make sure they are the most effective which of course people can opt out of. i want to make sure i'm precise in my answer so let me follow up on that. >> when you get back to me, sir. would you also let me know how facebook discloses to their users that engaging in this type of tracking give us that result? >> yes. >> and thank you very much. thank you senator. senator leahy is up next. >> thank you. mr. zuckerberg, i assume

facebook has been served with subpoenas from special office; is that correct? >> yes. have you or anyone at facebook been interviewed by the special counsel's office? >> yes. >> have you been interviewed. >> i have not. i have not. >> others have. >> i believe. so i want to be careful here because that our work with the special counsel is confidential and i want to make sure that in an open session i'm not revealing something that's confidential. >> i understand. i want to make clear that you have been contacted and had subpoenas. >> actually, let me clarify that i'm not aware of a subpoena. i know there may be. but i know we are working with them. >> thank you. six months ago your general counsel promised us that you were taking steps to prevent facebook for serving what i would call an unwitting co-son witcoconspirator in russn

interference. these unverified divisive pages are on facebook today. they look a lot like russian agents use to spread propaganda during the 2016 election. are you able to confirm whether they are russian created groups? yes or no? >> senator, you asking about those specifically? >> yes. >> senator, last week we actually announced a major change to our ads and pages policies that we will be verifying the identity of every single advertiser. >> these specific ones, do you know whether they are. >> i'm not familiar with those piece of content specifically. >> but this policy a week ago you would be able to verify them? >> we are working on that now. what we're doing is we're going to verify the identity of any advertiser who is running a political or

issue-related ad. this is basically what the honest ads act is proposing. and we are following that and we're also going to do that for pages. >> but you can't answer on these? >> i'm not familiar with those specific cases. >> will you find out the answer and get back to me? >> i have my team get back to you. i do think it's worth adding though that we're going to do the same verification of the identity and location of admins who are running large pages. so that way even if they aren't going to be buying ads in our system, that will make it significantly harder for russian interference efforts or other inauthentic efforts to try to spread misinformation through the network. >> it's been going on for some time so i might say it's about time. six months ago i asked your general counsel about facebook's roles and breeding ground for hate speech against refugees. recently u.n. investigators

blamed facebook for playing a role in citing possible genocide in myanmar and there has been genocide there. now, you say you used ai to find in this is the type of content referring to. it calls for the death of a muslim journalist. now, that threat went straight through your detection systems, spread very quickly. and then it took attempt after attempt after attempt and the involvement of civil society groups to get you to remove it why couldn't it have been removed within 24 hours? >> senator, what's happening in myanmar is a terrible tragedy and we need to do more. >> we aall agree with that. >> okay. >> but you u.n. investigators have blamed you, blamed facebook for playing a role in that genocide. we all agree it's terrible.

how can you dedicate and will you dedicate resources to make sure such hate speech is taken down within 24 hours? >> yes. we are working on this. there are three specific things that we are doing. one is we are hiring dozens of more burmese language content reviewers because hate speech is very language specific. it's hard to do it without people who speak the local language and we need to ramp up our effort there dramatically. second, we are working with civil society in myanmar to identify specific hate figures so we can take down their accounts rather than specific pieces of content. and, third, is we are standing um a product team to do specific product changes in myanmar and other countries that may have similar issues in the future to prevent this from happening. >> senator cruz and i sent a letter to apple asking what

they are going to do about chinese censorship. >> thank you, senator lee. >> for the record, i want to know what you would do about chinese censorship when they come to you. >> senator graham is up next. >> thank you. are you familiar with andrew bosworth? >> yes, senator, i am. >> he said so we connect more people, maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack, coordinated on our tools. the ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is de facto good. do you agree with that? >> no, senator, i do not. and as context, boz wrote that we call him that internally. evidence wrote that as internal note why have a lot

of comments. vast amount of people did too. >> did you a poor job as co communicating your displeasure with such thoughts because he understood where you are at he would have never said it to begin with? >> well, senator, we try to run our company in a way where people can express different opinions internally. >> well, this is an opinion that really disturbs me. and if somebody worked for me that said this, i would fire them. who is your biggest competitor? >> senator, we have a lot of competitors. >> who is your biggest? >> i think the categories -- do you want just one? i'm not sure can i give one. can i give a bunch? >> um-huh. >> there are three categories that i would focus on. one are the other tech platforms so google, apple, amazon, microsoft, we overlap with them in different ways. >> do they provide the same service you provide? >> in different ways, different parts of it, yes. >> if i buy a ford and it doesn't work well and i don't like it, i can buy a

chevy. if i'm upset with facebook, what's the equivalent product that i can go sign up for? >> well, there is the second category that i was going to talk about. >> i'm not talking about categories. i'm talking about is there real competition you face? because car companies face a lot of competition. if they make a defective car it goes out in the world, they stop buying that car and buy another one. is there an alternative to facebook in the private sector? >> yes. senator, the average senator using 8 different app.s to communicate with their friends and stay in touch with people. >> okay. >> ranginranging when texting app.s to emails. >> service you provide. >> we provide a number of different services. >> is twitter the same as you what you do. >> it overlaps with what we do. >> you don't think you have a monopoly. >> it certainly doesn't feel like that to me. [laughter] >> so it doesn't. instagram, you bought instagram. when did you buy instagram? >> because they were very talented app. developers

making good use of our platform and understood our values. >> it was a good business decision. my point is one way to regulate a government through competition and government regulation. here is a question all of us have got to answer what do we tell our constituents, given what's answered here why we should let you self-regulate? what would you tell people in south carolina that given all the things we just discovered here it's a good idea for us to rely upon you to regulate your own business practices? >> well, senator, my position is not that there should be no regulation. i think the internet is increasingly. >> increased regulation? >> i think the real question as the internet becomes more important in people's lives is what is the right regulation? not whether there should be or not. >> you as a company welcome regulation? >> i think if it's the right regulation, then, yeah. >> do you think the europe pines haveurope -- europeans hat right. >> i think they get things

right. [laughter] >> that's true. >> would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry? >> absolutely. >> would you submit to us and proposed regulations? >> yes. and i have my team follow up with you so that way we can have this discussions across the differing categories where i think that this discussion needs to happen. >> look forward to it. >> when you sign up for facebook, you sign up for terms of service. are you familiar with that? >> yes. >> okay. >> it says the terms govern your use of facebook and the products, features, apps, services, tech no, software we offer facebook's product or products except where we expressly state that separate terms and not these apply. i'm a lawyer. i have no idea what that means. but, when you look at terms of service, this is what you get. do you think the average consumer understands what they are signing up for? >> i don't think that the average person likely reads that whole document. but i think there are different ways that we can communicate that and have a

responsibility to do so. >> do you agree with me that you better come up with different ways because this ain't working? >> senator, i think in certain areas that is true. in other areas like the core part of what we do. right, if you think about at the most basic level, people come to facebook, instagram, what's app., messenger about 100 billion times a day to share a piece of content or a message with a specific set of people. and i think that that basic functionality, people understand because we have the controls in line every time. and given the volume of the activity and the value that people tell us that they are getting from that, i think that that control in line does seem to be working fairly well. now, we can always do better. and there are other service are complex and there is more to it than just, you know, you go and push the photo. so, i agree. that in many places we can do better. i think for the core of the service, it actually is quite clear.

>> thank you, senator graham. senator global char. >> thank you, mr. zuckerberg, you acknowledge it was bad and breach of trust. if someone breaks into my apartment with a crowbar and they take my stuff, it is just like if the manager gave them the keys or if they didn't have any locks on the doors, it's still a breach. it's still a break-in. and i believe we need to have laws and rules that are sophisticated as the brilliant products that you have developed here. and we just haven't done that yet. one of the areas that i focused on is the election. and i appreciate the support that you and facebook and now twitter, actually, have given to the honest ads ability. a bill that you mentioned that i'm leading with senator mccain and senator warner. and i just want to be clear, as we work to pass this law, so that we have the same rules in place to disclose political ads and issue ads as we do for tv and radio as

well as dislarms that you are going to take early action as soon as june i heard before this election so people can view these ads including issue ads; is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. and i just want to take a moment before i go into this in more detail to thank you for your leadership on this. this, i think is an important area for the whole industry to move on. the two specific things that we're doing are one is around transparency. so, now you are going to be able to go and click on any advertiser or any page on facebook and see all of the ads that they are running. so that actually brings advertising online on facebook to an even higher standard than what you would have on tv or print media. because there is nowhere where can you see all of the tv ads that someone is running, for example, where you will be able to see now on facebook whether this campaign or third party is saying different mess sandals to different types of people. i know that's a really important element of transparency. other really important piece

is around around verifying every single advertiser who is going to be running political or issue ads. >> i appreciate that and senator warn and i called on google and other platforms to do the same thing. memo to the rest of you, we have to get this done or we have a patchwork of ads. i hope that you will be working with us to pass this bill; is that correct. >> we will. >> okay. thank you. now on the subject of cambridge analytica. were these people 87 million people, users, concentrated in certain states? are you able to figure out where they are from? >> i do not have that information with me. but we can follow up with your office. >> okay. because as we know the election was close and it was only thousands of votes in certain states. you have also estimated that roughly 126 people, million people may have been shown content from a facebook page associated with the internet research agency. have you determined whether any of those people were the

same facebook users whose data was shared with cambridge analytica? are you able to make that determination? >> senator, we're investigating that now. we believe that it is entirely possible that there will be a connection there. >> okay. that seems like a big deal as we look back at that last election. former cambridge analytica employee christopher wiley has said that the data that it improperly obtained that cambridge analytica improperly obtained from facebook users could be stored in russia. do you agree that that's a possibility? >> sorry, are you asking if cambridge analytica's data could be stored in russia? >> that's what he said this weekend on a sunday show. >> senator, i don't have any specific knowledge that would suggest that. but, one of the steps that we need to take now is go to a full audit of all of cambridge analytica's systems to understand what they're doing, whether they still have any data to make sure they remove all the data. if they don't, we will take

legal action against them to do. so that audit, we have temporarily concreted that icreteed that tolet the governme their investigation first. the government's investigation takes precedence over a company doing that we are mitted to full audit and committed to what's going on at the bottom here so we can full answers to this. >> you earlier on stated publicly and here that you would support some privacy rules so that everyone is playing by the same rules here. and you also said here that you should have notified customers earlier. would you support a rule that would require you to notify your users of a breach within 72 hours? >> senator, that makes sense to me. and i think we should have our team follow up with yours to discuss the details around that more. >> thank you. i just think part of this was when people don't even know that their data has been breached, that's a huge problem and i think we get

to solutions fast err when we get that information out there. thank you, and we look forward to passing this bill. we would love to pass it before the election on the honest ads and looking forward to better disclosure this election. thank you. >> thank you senator klobuchar, senator blunt is up next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg nice see it you after i saw you not too long after i entered the senate in 20011, i told you when i sent my business cards to be printed they came back with the senate print shop with the message it was the first business card they had ever printed a facebook address on. there are days when i have regretted that but more days when we gets lots of information that we need to get. there are days when i wonder if the facebook friends is a little misstated. doesn't seem like i have those every single day. but, you know, the platform you have created is really important. now, my son charlie, who is 13, is dedicated to instagram. he would wanted to be sure i

mention him while i was here with you. i haven't printed that on my card yet. i will say that but i think we have that account as well. lots of ways to connect people. the information obviously is an important commodity. it's what makes your business work. i get that however, i wonder about some of the collection efforts and maybe we can go through largely just each yes and no and then we will get back to more exaive discussion of this. do you collect user data through cross device tracking? >> senator, i believe we do link people's accounts between devices in order to make sure that their facebook and instagram and their other experiences can be synced between devices. >> that would include offline data. not necessarily linked to facebook but some device they went through facebook

on; is that right? >> senator, i want to make sure we get this right, so i want to have my team follow up with you on that afterwards. >> well, now, that doesn't seem that complicated to me. you understand this better than i do, but maybe you can explain to me why that's that's complicated. do you track devices that an individual who uses facebook has that is connected to the device that they use for their facebook connection but not necessarily connected to facebook? >> i'm not sure the answer to that question. >> really? >> yes. there may be some data that is necessary to provide the service that we do, but i don't have that sitting here today so that's something that i would want to follow up with you on. >> the ftc last year flagged cross device tracking as one of their concerns generally that people are tracking devices that the users of

something like facebook don't know they are being tracked. how do you disclose your collection methods? is that all in this document that i would see and agree to before i entered into facebook? >> senator, there are two ways that we do this. one, we try to be exhaustive in the legal documents around the terms of service and privacy policies. but, more importantly, we try to provide inline controls in plain english people can understand. settings ortho shem at the top of the app. periodically, people understanding all the controls and settings that they have and can con figure their experience the way that they want. >> so, do people now give you permission to track specific devices in their contract? and, if they do, is that a relatively new addition to what you do? >> senator, i'm sorry, i

don't have. >> am i able to opt out? am i able to say it's okay for you to track what i'm saying on facebook but i don't want you to track what i'm texting to somebody else off facebook on an android? >> oh, okay. yes, senator. jeb, facebook is not collecting data from other apps that you use. there may be some specific things about the device that you are using, that facebook needs to understand in order to offer the service, but, if you are using google or you are using some texting app. unless you specifically opt in that you want to share the texting app. information, facebook wouldn't see that. >> has it always been that way or is that a recent addition to how you deal with those way that's might communicate? >> senator, my understanding is that is how the mobile operating systems are

architected. >> so you don't have bundled permissions for how i can agree to what devices i may use that you may have contact with? >>with? do you bundle that permission or do i have to individually say what i'm willing for you to watch and what i don't want to you watch? i think we may have to take that for the record based on everybody else's time. >> thank you, senator blunt. next up senator durbin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, would you be comfortable sharing with us the name of the hotel you stayed in last night? >> no. [laughter] >> if you have messaged anybody this week, would you share with us the names of

the people you have messaged? >> senator, no, i would probably not choose to do that publicly here. >> i think that may be what this is all about, your right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy and how much you give away in modern america in the name of, quote, connecting people around the world. collecting, who they're sending to and whether they asked me in advance permission to do that. is that a fair thing for facebook to suspect. >> everyone should have control over how their information is used. and as we have talked about in some of the other questions, i think that that is laid out in some of the documents. more importantly, you want to give people control in the product itself. the way this happens across our services is that every day people come to our services to choose to share

photos or send messages. and every time they choose to share something they have a control right there about who they want to share it with. that level of control is extremely important. >> they certainly know within the facebook pages who their friends are but they may not know as this has happened. >> >> neil: mark zuckerberg under fire right now speaking to the senate. he will be doing the same to the house tomorrow. a couple of regulations is he open to regulations european style regulation where they guard their privacy zealously. he did not outline exactly what he would be looking for from that but both the markets rupp. his stock is up. and, in case you are keeping track of this. and how investors are saying he is doing. right now they are giving him a thumb's up so far. his own value though still down about 8 billion from its highs. the stock is rising a little today on so far so good a performance before both democratic and republican senators who are having it out for him and on him. continuing our coverage now of one of the world's richest men under