you have knowledge of those ads. will you begin to take them down today. >> the ads that are flagged for us we will review and take down if they violate our policies which i believe the ones that you are talking about. >> if they are illegal, they clearly violate your policy. >> what needs to happen is not just us reviewing content that gets flagged for us. we need to be able to build tools that can proactively go out and identify what might be these ads for opioids before people even have to flag them for us to review. >> i agree agreed >> that's going to be a longer term thing in order to build that solution. but today if someone flags the ad ads for us we will take them down. >> work on those tools as soon as possible please a swept of mine in district 12 of florida, the tampa bay area came to me recently with what was a clear violation of your privacy policy in this case, a third party organization publicly posted personal information about my constituent on his facebook page this included his home address, votin

bob: i think it will impact the business, but to be fair, search ads are different from those ads onacebook. there is a difference, i will give them that, but clearly we are going to see some impact. emily: how much? bob: that is the big question, how much. i will say yes, they are more adult like in the manner in which they handle things, but be honest, there was a story today in the wall street journal on the fact that google probably has more data on all of us banned facebook. -- than facebook. they have been ignoring some of these issues, but if we start to see privacy regulations come out come i think we could see google even more impacted by those regulations. now, for their business model is more balanced, so in that regard they may face more sanctions and yet not have as big of a financial hit as maybe facebook my. emily: i asked her about honest ad fact, that facebook and twitter is a they will support -- say they will support. google has been notably silent and lawmakers have noticed this and that they have called on google to state their position. i asked her, why are you

search ads are different from the kind of ads we see drawn by facebook. we will see some impact here. emily: how much? >> that is the big question. they are adult and how they handle things, but let's be honest, there was an interesting story that the wall street journal wrote that google has more data on all of us than facebook. if we start to see privacy regulations come out, i think we will see google even more impacted with these regulations. their business model is more balanced so they may face more sanctions but not have such a financial hit as facebook might. legislation's a new that facebook and twitter said they will support about digital transparency in advertising. google has been quiet about this. why weren't you publicly supporting the yet and thesaid they are monitoring situation. what do you make of the fact that google has not stated their position on the honest ads -- honest ads act. >> the majority of their ad revenue is from search advertising, which is quite different from a lot of the other advertising that is been in the headlines r

although, to be clear, we don't offer an option today to pay for people not to show ads ad supported service is aligned with the mission to help connect everyone in the world. 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, the first line in 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 it's part of a pattern of lax data practice the going back for years. back in 2011, there was a settlement with the ftc, and now we discover yet another incident where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that fraudulently obtained all the 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 share

what we found is that even though some people don't like ads, people really don't like ads that aren't relevant. and 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 you're referencing. some people use it. it's not the majority of people on facebook, and i think that that's -- that's a good level of control to offer. i think what sheryl was saying was to not run ads at all, it would be a business model. >> i used the harmless example of chocolate but if if got into more personal things communicates 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 want. that in essence is what i understood ms. sandberg to say. is that correct? >> yes, senator. to be clear, we don't offer an option to not pay for ads. we want to offer a free service that everyone can afford. >> therefore, you consider my perso

opt out of ad targeting. there is clearly tension as other senators pointed out between your bottom line and what's best for your users. you said in your testimony that facebook's mission is to bring the world closer together and you said you will never prioritize advertisers over that mission and i believe that you believe that. but at the end of the day, your business model does priority eyed advertisers -- does prioritize advertisers over the mission. at the end of the day you have a legal duty to do what's best for your shareholders. why should we shi facebook on it own will be able to make the changes needed to protect americans' well-being and privacy. >> you raised a number of important points in there. the first is i think it's important to think about what we are doing as building this community other long term. any business has the opportunity to do things that might increase revenue in the short term. but at the expense of trust or building engagement over time. what we find is the increasing time

more ads were at ad campaigns in finance and employment and in housing. these are the kinds among legitimate ad targeting. there are those that are possible in the system. and those for facebook business models, which is finding for finding certain segments. the main question i have is how was it public teacher going to be able to scrutinize this ad targeting behavior? what is facebook going to do to help facebookhese issues? has made a few small promises so far. there is a lot more that the company can do. first, facebook have slowly started to make advertisements on the platform available to public scrutiny. if you're a user and you go to an advertiser you can actually see the list of running ads that advertisers currently running. in principle all ads are visible. if you are a researcher, it makes it difficult to know. in many occasions advertisers have thousands of ads. in the same way they have built a robust api user base. robust api with search functionality. the second thing facebook has started to make enhanced transparency promises, especially a

the ad business model is the mission we have. cantimes, that rep. guthrie: -- you are different, when i'm watching the hill toppers, the person who does the advertising does not know anything about me, no risk. with you, there is consumer driven data. if we greatly reduced or stopped , or greatly released through legislation the use of consumer driven data for targeting ads, what would that do to the internet? not just facebook. mr. zuckerberg: it would make the ads less relevant. rep. guthrie: what would less revenue do? mr. zuckerberg: have a number of affects, for people using the services, make the ads less relevant. for businesses like small businesses that use advertising, it would make advertising more expensive because they would have to reach -- pay more to reach more people. because targeting helps small reachsses afford and people as effectively as big companies have had the ability to do for a long time. it would affect our revenue. there are a couple of points lost, one is that we already give people control to not use the data and adds

type of ads, are you? >> no, congressman. you're right. this is, ad based business models have been a common way people have been able it offer free services for a long time. our social mission of trying to help connect everyone in the world relies on having a service that can be affordable to everyone, that everyone can use. that is why the ads business model is in service of the social mission that we have and i think sometimes that gets lost but that is a really important point. >> but you're activity instead of getting, when i'm watching the hilltoppers on basketball the person advertising me doesn't know everything about me. i'm just watching the ads. there is no data, no agreement, or no risk i guess there but with you there is consumer-driven data but if we were to greatly reduce or stop or greatly reduce legislation of use of consumer-driven data for targeting ads, what do you think that would do to the internet, when i say interfet not i mean everything not just facebook. >> less -- it would have

what we've found is that even though some people don't like ads, people really don't like ads that aren't relevant, and 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 you're 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. i think what sheryl was saying was that in order to not run ads, we would still need a 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 want? that in essence is what i understood her 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 an

as soon as june, i heard, before this election so that people can view these ads, including issue ads, is that correct? mr. zuckerberg: that is correct. i 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, one is around transparency. so, now you're going to be able to go and click on any advertiser or any page on facebook and see all of the ads that they're running. so that actually brings advertising online on facebook to an even higher standard than what you'd have on tv or print media, because there's nowhere where you can see all of the tv ads that someone is running. for example, whereas you will be able to see, now on facebook, whether this campaign or third party is saying different messages to different types of people. i think that's a really important element of transparaphernalia. is -- transparency. the other important piece is around verifying every single advertiser who's going to be running political or issue ad

centers or aggressive ads for for-profit colleges or sketchy loan repayment schemes or ads or ad campaigns that drive illegal discrimination, especially if we're talking about advertising in finance, in employment, and in housing. so these are the kind -- you know, among legitimate ad targeting, there's a range of possible abuses that are possible in the system. this goes to the core of facebook's business model, which is finding certain segments of facebook's users and targeting specific messages based on paid messages to those users. the main question that i have is how is the public in the future going to be able to scrutinize this ad targeting behavior and address a lot of these abuses? what is facebook going to do to help address these issues? how are they going to be transparent about what's happening? so facebook has made a few small promises so far. it seems clear to us at upturn that there's a lot more that the company can do. i'll just go over four potential things facebook could do real quick. first, facebook has slowly started to make advertisements on its platform available to

>> senator, are you referring to the verification of political and issue ads? >> yes, and before that political ads, yes. >> yes, so what we're going to do is require a valid government identity and we're going to verify the location. so we're going to do that so some way someone sitting in russia, for example, couldn't say they're in america, and therefore able to run election ad. >> if they were running through a corporation domiciled in delaware, you wouldn't know they are actually a russian owner. >> senator, that's correct. >> okay, thank you, my time is expired and appreciate the courtesy of the chair for the extra seconds, thank you, mr. zuckerberg. >> senator lee? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want the follow-up on a statement you made shortly before the break a few minutes ago. you said that there are some categories of speech, some types of content that facebook would never want to have part of and takes active steps to avoid disseminating, including hate speech, nudity, racist speech, i assume you also meant terrorist acts, threats of physical violen

political ad.if chamber of commerce wanted to place an ad as this would be a impact on the regulations would have an impact to talk about that through an ad that would be labelled as political which is different than current standards of what is political and issue advocacy. is it your intent to label things political? that would be in contradiction to federal law? >> senator, the intent of what we're trying to get at is the foreign election interference we've seen has taken more of the form of issue ads than direct political electioneering advertising so because of that we think it's important to extend the verification and transparency to issue ads in order to block the kind of interference that the russians attempted to do and i think will likely continue to attempt to do. that is why i think those measures are important to do. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. senator tester. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here today, mark, i appreciate you coming in and i hope this isn't the

of ads. what's the status of whether or not these ads can currently be placed on facebook? have you followed through on your february 2017 promise to address this problem? is there way for the public to verify you have or we are expected to trust you have done it. >> those are all important questions. in general, it's against our policy is to have any ads that are discriminatory. >> you said you wouldn't allow it. but then propublica could place these ads even after you said you are no longer allowing these kinds of ads. what assurance do we have from you that this is going to stop? >> two things. one is we have removed the ability to exclude ethnic groups and other sensitive categories from ad targeting. that just isn't a feature that's even available anymore. for some of these cases, where it may make sense to target proactively a group, the enforcement today is, we review ads, we screen them up front. but most of the enforcement today is still that our community flags issues for us. if the

or 10 seconds on a 60-minute ad and while i personally prefer the beginning of the ad to the end of the ad, whatever is the will of this body, if we can do that. and deal with supervisor kim's same issues around social media and electronic media, so i think item number -- hold on one second -- 4 is still a work in progress. the choice we have between amendments 5 and 6, again, my personal belief is that we should go with the first alternative, with i is to delete -- which is to delete the section 3.209 recusal provision, but if that causes us a problem with our brothers and sisters at the ethics commission, i have an alternative and we have not heard from the ethics commission, which is to delete the 1% or more of matters pending which quite frankly, is administrative nightmare, so i really need to hear, or we need to hear from the ethics commission on that for, i would prefer amendment number 5, but we can -- i can live with amendment number 6. we've already adopted amendment number 8. as to amendment number 7, that, through the president to supervisor tang, this may be mooted by t

as june before this election so that people can view these ads including issue ads. is that correct? >> that is correct. i want to thank you for your leadership on this. area forn important the whole industry to move on. the two specific things we are doing is one is around transparency. they were going to be able to go and click on any advertiser, any page on facebook and see all of the ads they are running. that actually brings advertising online, on facebook to an even higher standard than what you have on tv or print media. there is no way you can see all of the tv ads that someone is running. now whether this campaign or third-party is sunny different messages to different types of people, i know that is a helmet of transparency. the other pieces around verifying every single advertiser that will be when political or issue ads. senator warren, i have caught on google and other platforms to do the same. so, memo to the rest of you, we have to get this done or we will have a patchwork of ads. i hope you'll be working with us to pass this. " on the subject of cambr

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 are referencing. some people use it is not the majority of people on facebook and i think that that's that's a good level of control to offer i think what sheryl was saying was that in order to not run ads at all we would still 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 all off i'm going to have to pay you in order not to sin me using my personal information something that i don't want that innocent 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 because we want to offer a free servic

education, taxes and health care, you will find those in every ad all the way back to the radio ads. you are still finding those today because we are still having those discussions about education and health care that we were having then. this is a piece called hell-bent for election that was put out for franklin delano roosevelt in 1944. news were shown prior to before we had televisions in our homes later in the 1950's. minute little over 13 animated feature. roosevelt is depicted as the streamlined, fast train against the old, chugging locomotive. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> he's portrayed as the shiny, hasdeal who is modern and and sort ofrials implies a modern technical know-how as he surpasses the old slick,ngine in this modern train that is roosevelt. 1944, you've got full-color animation with some very good that weren't seen a lot at the time. when we had black-and-white televisions in our homes in the 1950's, they were black-and-white. that was full-color done in 1944. that's one of the things i find needy need about it -- about it -- neat about it. theng the vietnam war, images we were expose

as political ads. it was to beance labeled a political ad. of the chamber of congress wanted you to, it would set an impact on climate change regulations. talk about it through and at. which is different than current standards of what is political, what is advocacy. is it your intent to label things political that would be in contradiction? >> the intent of what we are to get out, is the foreign taken moren -- has the form of issue ads than political. because of that, we think it is important to extend verification and transparency to issue ads in order to block the kind of interference the russians likelyed to do and will continue to attempt to do. that is why think those issues are important. you. >> thank you senator. senator tester. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here today, mark, i appreciate you coming in and i hope this isn't the last time we see you in front of committee. i know this is approaching five hours so it's been a little tenuous and mental gymnastics for all of us. and

they could place ads even after you said you would no longer allow these ads. what assurance do we have from you that this is going to stop? mark: two things. one is we removed the ability to exclude ethnic groups and other sensitive categories from at targeting. that isn't a feature that is available anymore. for some of these cases where it may make sense to target practically a group -- the -- we reviewoday ads and screen them up front. ist of the enforcement today that our committee fights issues for us when it comes up. if the committee finds the issue which hasan our team, thousands of people working on it, should take it down. we will make some mistakes, but wanted to make them as soon as possible. overtime discharge is to develop or ai tools that can practically identify those types of content and do the filtering up front. >> thank you. story.kerberg, quite a to the global but he missed you guys are. only in america, which it agreed with that? you couldn't do this in china, what you did. mark: there are some strong chinese internet companies. >> you ar

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 s

somebody is going to put up an ad. a covered unlicensed facility posts an ad in los angeles county in how many languages must they print the disclosure, the disclaimer? >> it would be 13. and it would be -- if a plaintiff showed standings and made a record of the kind of add that they used to run and it would be impossible to run it. that way it is unconstitutional. but that requires actual standing and -- >> what kind of an ad -- what kind of an ad would -- as to what type of ad would that not be unconstitutional? >> there is nothing in the record about what ads these plaintiffs do in fact run. so we don't know. we do know this doesn't apply to tv and radio ads, for instance. i want to make sure if i may to address one -- >> so you want me to have a reman to tell the court what a billboard is? there are a lot of things we don't know but i think we know what a billboard is. >> we don't know what ads these petitions run. it's no the in the complaint. and for a preliminary injunction, the court was not -- the language is

ads.lease take your time when you see wet conditions like this. >>> president trump says he did not know about the $130,000 payment his personal attorney made to stormy daniels. she's the porn actress who alleges she had an affair with the president. >> michael is my attorney and you will have to ask michael. >> the comments were the first from the president about daniels. she's suing to invalidate a nondisclosure agreement she signed before the 2016 presidential election. her attorney says the president's denial of the case helps his client. if the president didn't know about the agreement then the agreement can't be enforced. sources say donald trump has been meeting with evangelical leaders to try and calm the waters. we asked willie brown what is the president's relationship with evangelicals? >> it's interesting. all of a sudden he is having to explain to his natural base about his conduct. he has not had to do that since the first day he announced. all the allegations about him and w

these kinds of ads. so what kind of insurance to be happy me that this is going to stop? >> two things. one is that we have removed the ability to exclude ethnic groups and other sensitive categories from ad targeting for that is a feature that is even available anymore. some of the cases it may make sense to target practically a group. enforcement today is still, we reviewed ads, we screen them up front. most of the enforcement today is still the arab community plans issues for us when they come up. if the community plans issues for us than our team has thousand people working on it. should take it down. we will make some mistakes but we try to make as few as possible. over time i think the strategy would to be developed more ai tools that can be more proactively identify those kinds of content and filter up front. >> facebook founder and founder mark zuckerberg testifying today. he took questions. you can watch more of this hearing tonight on c-span and on c-span.org. mr. zuckerberg is back on capitol

of ad targeting. there was clearly tension. the mission is to bring the world closer together and you said you will never prioritize advertisers over that mission. and i believe that you believe that. but at the end of the day, your business model does prioritize advertisers over the mission. facebook is a for-profit company. and you have a legal duty to do what is best for your shareholders. given all of that, why should we think that facebook on its own will ever truly be able to make the changes that we needed to make to protect americans well-being and privacy? mark: senator, you raise a number of important points and so let me respond in a couple of different ways. it is important to think about what we are doing is building this community over the long term. do to increase revenue in the short-term, but at the expense of trust or building engagement over time. it is going to be best for our business. it aligns very closely. when people are interacting with .ther people happiness, not feeling lon

including issue ads. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. and i just want to make a statement this is an important issue for the whole industry to move on. the two specific things that we are doing are one is around transparency. so now you are going to be able to go and click on any advertiser on any page and see all of the ads they are running so that brings advertising online on facebook to higher standards than what you would have on tv or print media because no where you can see all of the tv ads that someone is running, for example, where you will see be able to see on facebook whether this campaign or third party is saying different messages to different types of people. i think that's a really important element of transparency. the other important piece is verifying every single advertiser who is going to be running political or issue ads. >> i appreciate that. and we have called on google and other platforms to do the same. so memo to the rest of you. we have to get this done or we're go

how to get ahead in digital advertising in twenty eighteen why the new ad men dislike regulation like harvesting as much data as possible about you. also this week france's labor pains will president emmanuel mccraw de railed in his attempt to shake up the world's fifth largest economy. plus international tensions send the price of oil to three year highs and the ruble as its worst week in twenty years. or the world of online advertising is changing fast and it's all because of the explosion of technologies which help companies make money from processing our personal data and what we found out this week is that there is a lack of transparency trust and even insight into how this world operates let's say you want to place an ad on facebook social network puts out lots of information on how to buy ads on its platforms companies can and i'm quoting here from facebook choose their audience based on demographics location interests and behavior they can feed ads to a bunch of other apps and mobile web sites through the facebook audience network and all of it is completely unregulated facebo

what we've found is that even though some people don't like ads, people really don't like ads that aren't relevant. and 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 you're referencing. some people use it. it's not the majority of people on facebook. and i think that that's, that's a good level of control to offer. i think what sheryl was saying was that in order to not run ads at all, we would still need some sort of business model. >> and that is your business model, so i take it that -- and i used 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 want. 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

we don't allow ads that can contain shocking or disrespectful ads or threats of violence. as i read that, i also know that you have sense or facebook has since declared that was mistake. an algorithm problem that went on there. that's our concern that we have. that it wouldn't be because the ad is pictured 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. i guess what i'm saying here i believe that we have a light touch in regulation. when i hear some of my friends the other side of the aisle they were high fiving what took place in 2012 with president obama and what he was capable of doing and bringing in and grabbing for use in a political way. i would say the best thing we can do is have these hearings and 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. thank you for your time and thank you for the time. >> i recognize the gentle lad

on facebook social network puts out lots of information on how to buy ads on its platforms. companies can and i'm quoting here from facebook choose their audience based on demographics location interests and behavior they can feed ads to a bunch of other apps and mobile web sites through the facebook audience network and all of it is completely unregulated facebook has been correcting its own homework so to speak for some time the result a data leak affecting eighty seven million of its users and a grilling for facebook c.e.o. mark zuckerberg by u.s. lawmakers alan fischer has more. to cheer his favorite group t. shirts for a suit this was a polish to facebook c.e.o. with a performance to match mark zuckerberg apologize for the massive data breach that impacted eighty seven million users worldwide we didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility and that was a big mistake and it was my mistake and i'm sorry but the importance of this appearance was not lost on senator this should be a wake up call for the tech community we want to hear more without delay about what f

no longer allow these kinds of ads. what assurance do we have from you that this is going to stop >> well, two things. one is that we've removed the ability to exclude ethnic groups and other sensitive categories from ad targeting. so that just isn't a feature that's even available anymore. for some of these cases, where it may make sense to target proactively a group, the enforcement today is still -- we review ads, we screen them up front. but most of the enforcement today is still that our community flags issues for us when they come up. so if the community flags that issue for us, then our team, which has thousands of people working on it, should take it down woel make some mistakes but try to do it as well as possible over time there are more a.i. tools to identify that type of content and do that filtering up front. >> so it's a work in progress. >> senator sullivan is up next. >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. zuckerberg, quite a story, right, dorm room to the global behemoth that you guys are only in america, would

year by targeting ads. in fact, facebook claims that advertising makes it easy to find the right people, capture their attention, and get results, and you recognize that an ad-supported service is as you said today best aligned with your mission and values. but the reality is there is a lot of examples where ad targeting has led to results that i think we would all disagree with or dislike or would concern concern us. have you already admitted that facebook's own ad tools allowed russians to target users, voters, based on racist or anti-muslim or anti-immigrant views and that may have played a significant in an election in the united states. just today "time" magazine posted a story saying wildlife traffickers are continue to use facebook tools to advertise illegal sales of protected animal parts and i am left questioning whether your ad targeting tools would allow other concerning practices like diet pill manufacturers targeting teenagers who are struggling with their weight or allowing a liquor distribute

ad -- as to what type of ad would that not be unconstitutional? mr. klein: there's nothing in the record about what ads these plaintiffs do in fact run. so we don't know. we do know this doesn't apply to tv and radio ads, for instance. i want to make sure,ify may, to address one -- >> so you want me to have a remapped to tell them what a billboard is? there's a lot of things we don't know but i think we know what a billboard is. mr. klein: we don't know what ads these run. it's not in the complaint. the court was not -- and the language issue wasn't raised at ll in preliminary injunctions. justice ginsburg: what about what i said about filings about false and misleading representations? has california ever brought charges against any of these places for false and misleading advertising? mr. klein: i'm not aware that the state has. i believe that the city and county of san francisco has, for instance. but in any case, that doesn't address the -- such a procedure would not be superior. first, that kind of policing -- policing that kind of issue woul

you're no idea what the scope of those ads in the reach of those ads are. the first thing i think facebook could do, in the same way that they built a very robust api for user data, a robust api for advertisements that allows the public, researchers and journalists to scrutinize ads more effectively. facebook has started to make enhanced transparency promises especially around election. that's us narrow slice of the problem. looking at federal election ads that mention a candidate or election or get people to vote. it ignores the broader range of abuses described. should be turning their attention not just to election ads but really to all ads run on facebook platform. effectiveo have accountability it's important not just to know what the content of those individual ads are but it important to know the scope and reach of those ads. i'm talking about exactly what the explicit targeting criteria was for the ad campaign. who is that advertiser trying to target? complicated.gets they might use something like custom audience or look like audience were the uploa

those in every ad possibly all the way back to the radio ads. you're finding those today because we are having those discussions about education and health care that we were having then. this is a piece called " hell-bent for election," put out for franklin ardell -- roosevelt. -- franklin eleanor roosevelt. this is a 13 minute animated feature and roosevelt is depicted as a new streamlined fast train against the old chugging locomotive. ♪ he is portrayed as the signee -- shiny new deal who is modern and andall of the materials implies modern, technical know-how as he surpasses the old steam engine in this sleek new modern train. what i find interesting, 1944, you have a full-color animation with some good effects. they weren't really seen a lot at this time. black and white televisions in our homes in the 50's, well, they were black and white. and this is full-color that was done in 1944. that's the one thing i found need about it. war, thee vietnam images that we were exposed to became a lot more violent. cycle, it was showing us things that w

facebook added that users can opt out of these types of ads entirely.nwhile, mark zuckerberg withstood over 10 hours of questioning from lawmakers in the u.s. and now he is getting ready to me the european union's top regulators as well. he is set to meet with the european commission vice president during a two day trip to san francisco starting tuesday. this comes as the eu is planning to unveil new legislation aimed at shutting on how tech giants are dealing with customer complaints. let's go to sarah frier who is standing by. your amazing reporting continues. he is not coming to europe, but europe is flying out to him. what are we expecting in the meetings with some of the chief digital regulator? sarah: as we saw last week in testimony, there were a lot of questions about whether facebook rules, they have to now in europe. he's also going to be meeting with google. it will be a very educational trip. he met zuckerberg in the past and said it was a very cordial meeting. they shared information. he has met with sheryl sandberg in the past. now, i thin

we don't allow ads that can contain shocking or disrespectful ads or threats of violence. as i read that, i also know that you have sense or facebook has since declared that was mistake. an algorithm problem that went on there. that's our concern that we have. that it wouldn't be because the ad is pictured 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. i guess what i'm saying here i believe that we have a light touch in regulation. when i hear some of my friends the other side of the aisle they were high fiving what took place in 2012 with president obama and what he was capable of doing and bringing in and grabbing for use in a political way. i would say the best thing we can do is have these hearings and 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. thank you for your time and thank you for the time. >> i recognize the gentle lad

at the beginning of the ad whether it's a radio or tv ad before you heard the message you would know who the message came from. this is something many of our stakeholders felt strongly about and we had months of meetings on this very issue. and that is why we came to having the disclaimer required by section 1.161 spoken at the beginning of such advertisement. as nor -- for the concept of 10 seconds or longer though it probably didn't make it into our substitute ordinance is that we just simplified it to say it would be spoken at the beginning of such advertisements and pure and writing during the entirety of the advertisement so taking out 5 and 10 seconds. the entire video commerce you could see who funded it for the entirety of the ad. i just think that's basic. i don't care if it's 5 or 10 seconds you should know who paid for it and it should be clear who paid for the ad. i would like to push on that. i think that's incredibly important but at the end we'll go with the will of the board and commission. i want to introduce some of my less substantive amendments that shouldn't dela

and if there is a certain amount of public question back about these kinds of ads you know there has been something of a debate inside china about need to look for example and greater gender equality i think if they if the company is really take it down and don't reposed these kinds of ads it sets a little bit of competition between the government and those private companies you know there's also a lot of scope for making more precise and was what constitutes discrimination that's very vague and last but not least chinese courts could easily accept a lot of the cases related to discrimination that come before them but that they reject and i think having real precedent and rejecting these kinds of ads would be helpful so if you richardson china director of human rights watch thank you very much for talking to us on that and we in the wall street yes call to has a look ahead for a week of the next report. four. hundred. microsoft general motors twitter. name a few overall expectations are sky high mainly because of the message. we will probably. be the best in a. well analysts already

and issue ads as we do for t.v. and radio as well as disclaimers that you're going to take early action as soon as june i heard before this election so that people can view these ads including issue ads is that correct. that is correct senator and want to take a moment before you 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're going to be able to go and click on any advertiser any page on facebook and see all of the ads that they're running so that actually brings advertising online on facebook to an even higher standard than what you would have on t.v. or print media because there's nowhere where you can see all of the t.v. ads that someone is running for example whereas you will be able to see now on facebook whether this campaign or third party is saying different messages to different types of people and that's a really important element o

and we convert the web logs into a set of ad interests that you might be interested in those ads and we put that in the download your information instead and you have complete control over that. so i just wanted to clarify that one for the record. >> appreciate that. thank you. we go now to gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you mr. zuckerberg for appearing before the committee today. the fact is mr. zuckerberg facebook failed its customers. we have a responsibility to find out what went wrong here and what can be done differently to better protect consumers private digital data in the future. so my first question for you, mr. zuckerberg, why dfacebook nt notify ftc in 2018 when you first heard this happened? hand was it your company that you are under no obligation to notify the ftc even with the 27 order in place? >> congressman, in retrospect it was a mistake and we should have and i wish we had notified and told people about it then. >> did you think -- >> the reason we didn't. >> did you think the rules were lax, were you sort of debating whether yo

ads drawn by facebook.rence. i will give them that much, but clearly we are going to see some impact here. emily: how much? bob: that's the big question mark, how much? and they are more adult like, but let's be honest, there was an interesting story in the wall street journal that google has more data on all of us than facebook. so yes, they have been conveniently ignoring these issues, but as if we start to see privacy regulations come out, in some ways we can see google even more impacted by those regulations. their business model is more balanced, so in that regard they may space -- face more sanctions and not have as big a financial hit as facebook might. asked interestingly, i her about the honest dad packed, the new legislation facebook and twitter said they would support transparency in digital advertising. google has been notably silent and some lawmakers have noticed this and called on google to state their position. i did ask her, why aren't you publicly supporting this yet and she said we are co