silicon valley so gallup also tweeted this a short while ago larry magid that they've secured another web provider so clearly they are saying that they are not going anywhere and they champion free speech and they say they defend liberty and free expression online is that the case. well i presume they do allow anything on their platform photo nuclear that might be true but the speech that they permit is speech that facebook and twitter and other furthermore stablish social media sites have learned to ban and i say learn to because certainly twitter when it first opened the door of allowed virtually anything on its site and they have over time realized that hate speech is destructive and it destroys sort of the fabric of their own community and they've decided that it's not welcome then court facebook has very similar policy so while these social media sites like facebook and twitter do allow for a variety of political opinion but they don't allow for demeaning and critic and basically threatening any ethnic group religion or any other group of people and if so that opens the door for

larry magid, a technologyjournalist and internet safety advocate in california, explained how this data what are called apis, or application programming interfaces, which allows third—party operators to interact with google property. and potentially some of those apis exposed data about users to some developers. now, google says they have no proof that data was breached, but the mere fact that the potential exposure was there is very much a concern. so what are they doing to rectify this, to safeguard users‘ data in the future? well, firstly, they're shutting down google+, which is no great loss, because it was a failed social network that did not even come close to competing with facebook and other social networks. they're also tightening the rules when it comes to their developers. they're making it harder for developers to get access to data, and giving users more granular control over what developers can get. now, it's important to point out that these apis have a purpose. for example, when i go on to my android phone i may log in to a new app. i can log in with my google account, w

. >> reporter: tech analyst larry magid says google may not have known sin specifically -- may not have known specifically who alerted the bug, but notified all users. >> if you are on google plus, not many, but a substantial, you might have been at risk and they could have said that publicly and they didn't. to me, that's the biggest problem. >> reporter: google said in a statement in part, our privacy office reviewed this issue, looking at the type of data involved, whether we could accurately identify the users to inform, whether there was any evidence of misuse, and whether there were any actions a developer or user could take in response. none of these thresholds were met in this instance. google discover the problem one month before facebook. ceo testify before congress about the cambridge analytica data breach. a time when government regulators are eyeing tech companies and privacy concerns. >> these companies are talking to regulators. a no regulation is coming, and they are trying to help shape that regulation. it's not a question of if, it's a question of when and what, and th