mr. dorsey: yes. mr. lujan: during the initial purge of bots, who lost more followers, president trump or former president obama? mr. dorsey: i'm not sure of those details but that was a broad-based action across all of twitter. mr. lujan: subject to confirmation, do these numbers sound familiar? president obama lost 2.3 million followers. president trump lost roughly 320,000 followers? mr. dorsey: i would need to confirm that. mr. lujan: that's what's been reported. based on that, is it correct that twitter's engaged in a conspiracy against former president barack obama? mr. dorsey: i don't believe we have any conspiracies against the former president. mr. lujan: i don't either. i don't think you have them against this president. i want to commend you on your work with what was done associated with the evaluation following the 2016 election, which led to some of this work. in your testimony, you note that twitter conducted a comprehensive review of platform activity related to the 2016 election. i ass

mr. dorsey: yes, he was over -- mr. dorsey: yes, it was over 600,000 accounts. >> no, no, there are 600,000 accounts affected, how many democrat versus republican accounts? the allegation that we made, the republicans, is that you are discriminatory against us. your post says that there were some democrat politicians too. out of 600,000, if there were 1000 republicans and 10 democrats, it still seems somewhat biased. if it is 50-50 than that is a different ball game. mr. dorsey: we agree that the result was not impartial. that is why we corrected and fixed it. >> so you do agree that there were more republicans than democrats. mr. dorsey: i did not say that. >> you cannot have it both ways, sir. it is either 50-50 or one-sided . the allegation is that more republicans were affected. mr. dorsey: we do not always have the best the methods to determine who is a republican and who is a democrat. >> usually it is known because we run as republican or democrats, that is not hard to identify. mr. dorsey: when it is self identif

mr. dorsey. "wired" magazine last week had an article that said you admitted to having to rethink fundamental aspects of twitter. would that be an accurate reflection of where you've been the last year? mr. dorsey: yes. we are rethinking the incentives that our services giving to people. senator blunt: what would be the biggest area where you're trying to rethink how you thought this was going to work out and the way it's turned out to be? mr. dorsey: well -- and this is pretty far reaching, so we're still in the process of doing this work. but when we created the service 12 years ago, we had this concept of followers. we plead the number of followers -- and we made the number of followers big and bold and a very simple but noticeable font. and just that decision alone has incentivized people to want to grow that number, to increase that number. and the question we're now asking, is that necessarily the right incentive, is the number followers you have really a proxy for how much you contribute t

mr. dorsey: correct. mr.ruiz: is that at -- how do you measure that? is that at any one time or over the course of any one year, how did you come to the conclusion of 5%? mr. dorsey: we have various methods of identification, most of them automations and machine learning algorithms to identify these in realtime look thought may havors of those accounts. mr. ruiz: that's how you determine which are false but how did you come up with the 5% estimate of total users are fake? mr. dorsey: it's 5% we believe are taking on spammy like behaviors which would indicate automation or some sort of coordination to amplify information beyond their earned reach. so we're looking at behaviors. mr. ruiz: but that number versus -- mr. dorsey: the total active. that number has remained fairly consistent over time. mr. ruiz: in 2015 you reported 302 million active monthly users on your platform. in 2016, 317 million monthly active users. 2017, 330 million, and then in 018 you said 335 million monthly active users. how do you defi

mr. dorsey? mr. dorsey: we have not found any violation of our terms of service but we're open to any law enforcement insight that would indicate a violation of our terms. sen. cotton: thank you. my time is nearly expired. i want to commend your companies for making you available in both of you for appearing. i would urge both of your companies or any company like yours to consider whether or not they want to be partners in the fight against our adversaries in places like beijing and moscow and tehran as opposed to evenhanded or neutral arbiters. thank you. congress is not meeting monday and tuesday due to russia shauna. considered spending on the veterans department. also, approval of water infrastructure projects and changing the definition of a employee.in italy? -- the senate will meet wednesday to continue debate on an irs commission nomination. pharmacists to provide prescription information. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. a 1979 c-span was created as public service by america's cable t

mr. dorsey: no. if you are sharing your password of your account with another, they have the rights that you would have to take on that account. rep. upton: i yield back. >> the chernow recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. ingle. >> the chernow recognizes -- chair now recognizes misty get. thank you for joining us here today, because these are important issues. even though the democrats have highlighted that really, some of the reasons why you came, we think, our political and wrong, nonetheless, there are some real issues with twitter that i think we can discuss today. as you said, twitter really has become a tool for engagement across society. and recently, we saw some of its positive social change with the role it has played in the me too movement. nonetheless, twitter has also experienced its own sexual harassment problem to confront, and i would like to ask you some questions about how twitter is dealing with these issues. i do not know if you are aware of the amnesty international report

mr. dorsey, the floor is yours. mr. dorsey: thank you chairman burr, vice chairman warner, and the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of twitter to the american people. i look forward to our conversation about the work we are doing to help protect the integrity of u.s. elections and elections around the world. i am someone of very few words and typically pretty shy. i realize how important it is to speak up now. if it is ok with all of you, i would like to read you something i personally wrote as i consider ed these issues. first, i wanted to step back and share our view of twitter's role in the world. we believe many people use twitter as a digital public square. they gather from all around the world to see what is happening and have a conversation about what they see. in any public space, you will find inspired ideas and you will find lies and deception. people who want to help others and unify, and people who want to hurt others and themselves and divide. what separates a physical and digital click space

mr. dorsey? foundrsey: we have not any violation of our terms of service but we're open to any law enforcement inside that would indicate a violation of our terms. sen. cotton: thank you. my time is nearly expired. i would urge both of your companies or any company like yours to consider whether or not they want to be partners in the fight against our adversaries in places like beijing and moscow to tehran as opposed evenhanded or neutral arbiters. >> senator reid. sen. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank you for recognizing senator john mccain. we both don't know any latin so we have various translations of -- the one we like best is real cool. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here. been organizing very diligently for the 2018 elections and have tried to anticipate maligned activities we saw in 2016. have you seen the same cap of coherence from the federal government in terms of your ability to contact and work with them? we have long had very good relationships

mr. dorsey. i represent that portion of virginia that's in the southwest corner and borders a big chunk of southern west virginia. so i have some questions similar to mr. mckinley's questions because we are suffering from a huge opioid problem, but drugs in general. so i know you're trying and you're working on it and you're looking for things, but last year in an edition of scientific american, they talked about having artificial intelligence scan twitter for signs of opioid abuse. and it would seem to me that on something that's an illegal conduct, if somebody is selling drugs, that's not just an inconvenience of trying to judge whether it's truly something that's bad, it's illegal. it seemed to me you ought to be able to deploy an artificial intelligence platform that would knock down anybody trying to sell illegal substances on your platform. can you address that? >> yes. i mean, we have to prioritize all of our models and we have -- >> shouldn't illegal be at the very top of that model? >> ab

mr. dorsey? >> so, we also have not found any violation of our terms of service, but, you know, we are open as always to any law enforcement insight that would indicate a violation of our terms. >> thank you my time is nearly expired. again, iowa n't to commend your companies for making you available and both of you appearing. i would urge both your companies or any company like yours to consider whether or not they want to be partners in the fight against, you know, our adversaries in places like beijing and moscow and pyongyang and teheran. as opposed to even handed or neutral arbiters thank you. >> senator reid. >> well, thank ou, mr. chairman let me begin by thanking you and the co-chair of recognizing john mccain we are both service academy graduates and we have various definitions and we like real cool you're real cool, mr. chairman thank you both for being here. you have been organizing based on your comments today very diligently for the 2018 elections and trying to anticipate malign acti

mr. dorsey, congratulations. i'm the last one. mr. orsey, in preparation to this hearing, i asked them and let them know we're having this hearing and i would be asking questions and he said would be thinking about asking? i got some responses for the them came from a teenage high school student, conservative teenage high school student in camden county raid on the georgia florida state line and he said, you know, conservative teenage high school student i'm on twitter and i've got over 40,000 followers. yet i have tried, this young man had tried five times to get verification and yet even turned down all five times. his question to me is i've got friends who are more liberal than me, have countless followers than me and yet they've been verified. why is that? what should i tell them? >> first and foremost we need a complete reboot of our verification system. it's not serving us. it's not serving the people we serve well. it really depends on when his friends were verified. we had an open verification system not too long ago to look fo

mr. dorsey.itial fall starts it does appear that you have committed to a shift in your company's culture respect to safety and security on a platform. obviously, i'm impressed by the increasing efforts. question i have is obviously underperformed there are a lot of automated counts or bots and there's nothing inherently good or bad about an automated counts. certainly there are good things that come out of some of these automated counts. do you believe that an individual user could have a right to know when he or she is being contacted whether the context is initiated by human being or a country to make. >> i do believe that first and foremost anyone using twitter has the right to more context. >> with that go as far as having a policy underperformed indicating but allowing the user to know whether the context was initiated by a human being versus machine? >> as far as we can detect them. we can certainly label and add context to accounts that come through our api where it becomes trickier is whe

mr. president, before it is too late. jack dorsey is trying to influence mr. president trump, before it is too late. because jack dorsey is trying to influence the election to sway the edirection -- >> what is she saying? i can't understand her. >> that is why they are censoring and shadow banning. [ auction calling ] >> officer, will you escort this young lady out, please. [ auction calling ] [ auction calling ] >> i yield back. [ laughter ] [ applause ] >> somehow i think our auctioneer and resident will get tweeted about today. i remind members of the audience, you are here to observe and not to participate. and i appreciate this. now to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, for four minutes. >> that is a hard act to follow, mr. chairman. that's a hard act to follow. maybe i'll get mr. long to help me along a little bit as well. thank you, mr. channing and mr. pal own and mr. darcy. our country is facing a direct threat to our democratic institutions and we need to find ways to stop russia and iran from using technology against us. this year robert mueller

mr. dorsey. excellent -- after some initial false starts, it appears you have committed to a shift in your company's culture with respect to the safety and security on your plot or dust on your platform. -- security on your platform. is thereion i have have been a lot of accounts, bought accounts and there is nothing inherently bad about an automated account. there are certain good things that come from these accounts but do you believe that an individual twitter user should have the right to know when he or she is being contacted, whether that is -- what is that contacted being made by a human or a bot? that anyoneeve using twitter has the right to more context. having that go as far as -- would that go as far as having a policy on your platform indicating, allowing the user to know whether that contact was initiated by a human being versus a machine? jack: as far as we can detect them. we can certainly label and add context to accounts that come through our api. it becomes trickier where automa

mr. dorsey? i got a response back from a teen, a high schooler and i'm a conservative and i have a conservative tweet and i can't get verified on it. why can't i get verified? i have over 44,000 followers, letyet more liberal ones they have many less followers than i do, but they're getting verified. why is that? that is the kind of question we want an answer here. neil: you know, congressman, the president was very upset at google last week as you recall with he was saying that users are getting rigged results and that he would be opened to considering regulations on the company. larry kudlow, one of his top economic advisors had said at the time, we're taking a look doing just that. ajit pai, the chairman of the fcc, is noting that he wants to see all social media companies to be more transparent. he held off the possibility of doing anything more than that but there was clearly an, appeared, sir, to be an appetite on the part of the white house to crack down on these guys, maybe outright regul

mr. dorsey? jack: yes, we agree. as we are building a digital public square, we do believe thatexpectations to follow and a default to freedom of expression and opinion. we need to understand when that default interferes with other fundamental human rights such as physical security or privacy. and the adverse impact on the fundamental human rights. i do believe that context matters in this case. suppression, 2016, it was tweeted out and we are happy to say organically the number of impressions that were calling it out as fake were eight times the reach of the original tweet. not to say we should rely on that but asking the question -- how we make that more possible and how we do it as a velocity is the right one to ask. sen. king: thank you both. if you have further thoughts as you are flying home, technical ways to increase information available to your users through , pleasetings, stars share them with us and we look forward to working with you on this problem that is important to our country. thank you very much.

mr. dorsey? >> this is not something we want to compete on. we hosted our company's career officers in the mast two wepasts in our company if there were undercurrents, we would immediately look to alert our peer companies, this committee and our law enforcement partners. >> let me just say in closing, to either of you, if you see impediments that exist to notify or collaborate as it relates to nefarious actors that you'll certainly make this committee aware in case where is we can help with that, mr. vice chairman >> as i indicated in my -- i think after some initial false starts, it does really appear that you have committed to a shift in your company's culture with respect to the safety and security on your platform and obviously i have been impressed by some of the increasing efforts that you have taken. the question i have, obviously on your platform, there are a lot of automated accounts or bots and there's nothing good or bad about an automated account. >> anyone using twitter has the right

mr. dorsey. it's the height of hypocrisy that president trump and congressional republicans criticize twitter for supposed liberal bias when president trump uses the platform every day for his juvenile tweets and spreading lies and misinformation to the whole country and to the world in my opinion, you have an obligation to ensure your platform at a minimum does no harm to our country, our democracy, and the american public as i noted in my opening one persistent critique of twitter by civil rights advocates and victims of abuse and others is that your policies are uneventually enforced. the research and powerful get special treatment. others get little recourse unless the company gets bad press. you have admitted twitter needs to do a better job explaining how decisions are made especially those by human content moderators who handle the most difficult and sensitive questions. let me just ask you, how many human content moderators does twitter employ in the u.s. and how much do they get paid? >>

mr. dorsey is taking i would appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. now turn to mr.pton, former chairman of the committee, for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so mr. bores sy, i think it is fair to say, looking at my twitter feed there are fairly ugly things on twitter that come every now and then. my name is fred upton. i got to bet my initials are used just about more than any other. might even think it is bipartisan on both sides of the aisle. [laughter]. but i would like to see civility brought back into the public discourse. in july post, twitter acknowledged that tweets from bad faith actors who intend to manipulate or divide the conversations should be ranked lower. so the question is, how do you determine whether a user is tweeting to manipulate or divide the conversation? >> this is a great question and one that we have, we have struggled with in the past. we recently determined that we needed something much more tangible and to work and we come across as health with a concept. we all had experiences where we felt we'd been in a conversation that felt

mr. dorsey: thank you for the question. we used signals. usually hundreds of signals to determine and decide what to show, what to down rank, or potentially what to filter. in this particular case, as i mentioned in my opening, we were using a signal of the behavior of the people following accounts. we didn't believe upon further consideration, and also seeing the impact, which was about 600,000 accounts, pretty broad pace based, that was fair and we decided to correct t we decided it was not fair to use a signal for filtering in general. we decided to crack that within search as well -- correct that within search as well. it is important for us to, one, be able to experiment freely with the signals, and to have the freedom to be able to inject them and also to remove them, because that's the only way we're going to learn. we will make mistakes along the way, and the way we want to be judged is making sure that we recognize those and that we crack them. host: not only talk about his response but his style in approaching the legislators and

mr. dorsey actually talked about the fact that people like marsha blackburn have had campaign ads kicked off of twitter, that was a mistake. they were brought back on. she is a conservative republican. but that is what this hearing is about this afternoon and here's what mr. dorsey has said about the difficulty policing speech on twitter. >> early and strong defense of open and free exchange has enabled twitter to be the platform for activists, marginalized communities, whistleblowers, journalists, governments and the most influential people around the world. twitter will always default to open and free exchange. >> i think we've learned a lot, and i think we are going to have to continue to learn, because as we learn, our opponents learn and we have to keep up. reporter: now, the last person you saw speaking was sheryl sandberg from facebook, because it's not just twitter which has been on the hot seat, but they're on the hot seat for different reasons. but the big reason out of that senate intelligence committee hearing you heard this morning, is the fact that regulation is most likely

mr. dorsey, your acknowledgment that we ought to move towards and i guess ms. sandberg echoed this, as well. some ability to indicate where they're contacted by a human being or machine and acknowledging that just because it's a bot doesn't mean it's good or bad. might be a data point that individual ought to have as they make determinations going forward. i also really appreciated, ms. sandberg, your notion that not only should users have access to the information that you or others collecting but as we work through to this how you monetize that and let users know the value of their data, i think that increased price transparency and i'm grateful of your willingness to at least consider that because i think it goes a long way towards making this exchange better understood by individuals i also, i know i didn't get a chance to get into this at length but you and i have had this conversation in the past around data portability. i don't want to make the complete analogy and number portability came around, we have competition in the wireless industry and elsewhere

mr. dorsey was very interested at one point when he was asked whether he feltis company's policiesn what fair mment and when they removed people, whether they were understandable and transparent he didn'tswer was -- even understand them. >> yes. there was a lotog of aping going on today. both s.a.m. sandberg aandberg a admitting they had to do better and the terms of service were not clear saying that they making changes to make sure that they have far more transparence oat platfornd they want to make sure that everything is totally crystal clear to all their users and then they're going to have more transparency about political and issue ads? particular. thank you very much. the news is still breaking right behind you. julia boorstin on h capitoll. >>> the justice department plans to meet with state attorneys general later this montho discuss social media platforms and whether they're hurting competition and intentionally stifling free speech. meeting is the first major signal, of potential anti-trust action against silicon valley and the president and conservatives, of course, complain

mr. dorsey. google did not show up. google declined the invitation. jack dorsey was talking about the issue of trying to keep the platform. i know people hate his phrase, but i'm going to it's, a safe place for an exchange ideas and to keep russians out. >> we are proud of how that free and open exchange has been weaponnized and used to distract and divide people and pour nation. we found ourselves unprepared and ill equipped for the immensity of the problems we acknowledged. reporter: facebook talking about the immensity of what they have done since the 2016 election to kick off fake accounts. they say they have to make it easier for people who use facebook to know who they are dealing with. this is what sheryl sandberg had to say. >> the threat we face is not new. america has always confronted attacks from determined opponents who want to undermine our democracy. what is new is the tactics they are using. to stay ahead we all need to work together. everyone here today knows this an arms race. reporter: there was a hearing on the house side specifical

mr. dorsey to answer. >> can you demonstrate or open your alder rhythm -- algorithm up us so we are ableo see that there is not content bias there, and i think the other thing that is less about whether there is a philosophical bias there is something even more fundamental which is, does your algorithm , in essence, reward extremist rhetoric be it on the left or right? we are at a moment in time with the very fabric of our political culture continues to deteriorate. emily: mark zuckerberg has been through this already. we can expect sheryl sandberg will stick closely to what zuckerberg has said. what makes dorsey's appearance different? obviously the platform is completely different in size and scope. twitter talks about they do not have the resources facebook has to stop. shira: resources are certainly an issue. facebook does not have a resources problem. it's interesting that the representative talked about opening up algorithms to outside review which is an issue that has come up on the left side and right. i don't think something that any of the internet companies would permit to hap

mr. dorsey. ms. sandberg:

mr. dorsey's comments because twitter was way down on the day that he testified. >> yeah, and i'm not surethem. they have changed al tba rism that they wrote with their opinions that was exerting some bias against conservatives, but i don't think jeff sessions has the right idea either, there is a problem here, there is an extreme left-wing bias among a lot of silicon valley companies and i think there's a market solution and i think the real danger here is if you get a deal with silicon valley giants and washington politicians to make the federal trade commission some giant internet regulator, i think we would all regret it forever. david: i think you may be right. kim, the bias does appear to be real. congressman jim jordan and others were talking about how they were shadow ban by twitter, an expression, a way they can ban, subtle banning of what they do, what should government do if anything, the president himself said earlier that he doesn't want regulation of the internet, but he says he wants things to change, how do you change things if you don't regulate? >> well, look, one thing k

mr. dorsey. >> just for the record, since you've been singled out as a social media platform before thismittee, twitter undertook no behavior to selectively censor conservative republicans or conservative voices on your platform, is that correct? >> correct. >> good. so let the record reflect that. that is the whole reason supposedly we're here, because house leader kevin mccarthy wrote our chairman a letter and said, hey, this is going on and we think your committee should investigate it and it's a load of crap. reporter: just a quick correction. i referred to sheryl sandberg as ceo, co off, chief operating officer at facebook. back to you. melissa: adam, thank you, we'll have more with the power panel coming up in a bit. david: taking extra precautions, expanding across the globe. uber rolling out the very latest on its plan for an ipo. fox business exclusive interview with uber's ceo coming next. >> lifting ourselves and are part of a transportation revolution. this is about ultimately ending car ownership. david: ride-sharing company, ubers now in more than 400 cities in the world up

mr. dorsey, your knowledge meant that acknowledgment -- acknowledgment, the ability to indicate users whether being contacted by a machine recognizing the technical difficulties. just because it is a bot, it does not mean it is good or bad, just a data point that an individual should have to make. i appreciated miss amber -- miss sandberg, not only should users have access to the data but as we work through how you monetize that and let users know the value of their data, that increased price transparency and i was grateful you will consider that because it will go a long way to making this exchange better understood. i did not get a chance to get into this at length but you and i have this conversation, about data portability. when number portability came around, a lot more competition in the wireless industry and i know you make it available right now. which canr formatted go from platform to platform would be important in making sure we have competition. ,nd i appreciated your comment i think will have more and more areas where there is manipulation that brings violence. example ine horrib

mr. dorsey's testimony it is up online energy and customers, house/-- the -- for the hearing today nrj commercetestimony from dorsey he says look we don't use political influence here, we've got algorithms we try to be neutral believe in public health of the intent ecosystem but the question is it happens, we hear it happening, we are trying to find out how does it happen so this is about getting to transparency, this is about getting to accountability before any legislation, it is really important here that we get to the facts, that is what underpins our work we had a hearing new jersey and customersor gri oor algorithm h they work most don't think what is behind feeds subjects topics coverage i think they have a right to know in in platform. you think about in terms of debate on public square, in the importance of these media companies now, that is what they really are look they sell advertising, they interconnect questions are they kind of a common carrier in the internet age i am not saying they are. but wow swlm if you're connecti point among 300 million people can alter what is seen heard

mr. dorsey came before the committee.before we move on, i want to ask about the cavanaugh hearing. before we move on, what are the potential drawbacks for the tech companies? what can you actually do in terms of congress writing a new law? what do you think plays out from this? >> of course, we're the committee of jurisdiction for legislation. i am not there yet. i would prefer to have a situation where there doesn't need to be further legislation but that remains to be seen, maria, based upon what these companies do in the future and incidentally i was disappointed that google chose not to show up on the senate side of the capitol yesterday. maria: will you subpoena google? where does that go in terms of google just blowing it off? >> i think it's a decision in the senate as to whether the senate wishes to subpoena. i hope regarding a future invitations, google will come in voluntarily, maria. maria: let me switch gears. the senate heading into day three of questioning supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. he took a sta

mr. dorsey had to say. twitter really got hit a lot worse. >> what is fascinating is jack dorsey got praise by his candor. they were impressed how he did not see like a ceo. he was more franken forthcoming. that is not what investors want to see. to see twitter continue revenue gains. alix: when we are dealing with a fragile now global growth is hurt, but tech is doing well. if that deteriorates, we are in for a different world. >> i am not sure how far tech will deteriorate. it is so embedded in everything we do, despite the pullbacks. investors will look at what he said as a progressive action to get things done down the line. there aren't that many alternatives. alix: also true. you saw what happened to facebook when they said we are taking action. stock got stressed as well. it is a no-win, no wind right now. >> i think they were not clear about the extent of the changes that would have to be made to their business model. having these capitol hill hearings where you have to answer these questions and com

mr. dorsey? ms. sandberg: sir, you're right. there are a lot of ways to try to game the system. we want to try to invest and get ahead of any tactics -- >> you can continue to watch this hearing on our website at c-span.org. you can also watch it in its entirety tonight starting at 8:00 eastern. as we leave it here, the u.s. house will start legislative work dealing with bills on embassy security, cyberthreat deterrence, and global election practices. members also expected to consider a measure requiring college students to complete annual financial counseling when they accept federal loans or pell grants. live coverage of the house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray, loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house the that they

mr. dorsey has been released and basically there are a couple of key headlines on this. tell congress the company "does not use political ideology to make any decisions. that's in the written testimony. he also says a review that he has undertaken of the company shows no statistically significant difference between how often republican and democratic members of congress's tweets are viewed. that's according to the testimony. he says basically let me be clear about one important foundational fact. that they do not use political ideology to make decisions in fact, from a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, twitter is actually innocentiveized to keep all voices on the platform he will be testifying on basically september 5t this is the written testimony and those are some of the key headlines surrounding them ty, i'll send it back to you >> thank you very much, sue. sue herrera reporting. gaming stocks moving big this at nt?ur wh'sex >> welcome back to power lunch they are tracking the action at the cme. hi, rick hi, contessa intraday chart, we

mr. dorsey will testify for committee regarding treatment of conservative voices on twitter.let's talk about this, what will we hear from technology chiefs? jon: they will get it from every side, conservatives feel conservative voices are being repressed on social media. democrats are concerned about, you know, about russian meddling and other meddling, it's going to be a tough couple of days for these executives. maria: it's interesting because conservatives usually do not want to see more government, more regulation in business, in free enterprise and yet the companies have become so big and so powerful more so than they expected initially so what do you do? >> they sthont want to see more involvement from the government, dorsey is stepping in at the last moment and making decisions, they don't have a process, clear guidelines, looks personality driven and conservatives look at that the personalities tat top are progressive, liberal and that's why our voices are being suffering here. maria: they are going to have center to explain how they actually do decide when to take so

mr. dorsey, how are those decisions made. >> what happens if we just decide rather than call them a platformm a media company and to the extent that there's commentary and analysis that's done on all sorts of media that has all sorts of biases, we've had this conversation before, i imagine you wouldn't -- you wouldn't necessarily regulate a media company. >> well, and i think that's a very, very good question because 93% of the american people say that they get their news online. two-thirds of the american people say that they get it through some type of social media platform like twitter or facebook or others and so i think that's a very good question. i think for a tech company to assert that they're just a tech company, i don't think that that's accurate. i think they are to a degree a media company and the american people deserve credibility and integrity in making sure that what they think they are seeing is accurate and true. >> julia boorstin has a question for you. >> in jack dorsey's prepared remarks he says repeatedly there's no bias in the way the algorithm works and the decisions

mr. dorsey. i thought his performance was relatively ill-advised.e up too far too fast but they have gone up too far. there is fear of governmental action on part of high-tech companies to inhibit their growth into the future. should we be surprised? no. again i think it is wise to be involved. if you're going to be long in the market buy things, if you drop them on your foot will hurt. ball bearings, steel, those sorts of things. stuart: we have heard that before. we paid attention to, tell you that. john, there is some feeling that the american market is the only game in town. what do you say? >> that's true. thus far in 2018, outside of the united states markets are down about 7% on average. china is down by nearly 19%. the u.s. is higher by 8%. that is very much the case. it is troubling that the emerging markets are doing so poorly because not too long ago we have been depending heavily, we had depended heavily on emerging markets to supply, to be the primary driver of global growth. that's not longer the case. the primary driver of global grow

mr. president before it is too late because jack dorsey is trying to influence the election and sway the election. >> i can't understand her. $20, five have. , 40. have 45, the cap. up to it have now 75. $80, 95, 90. two and a quarter. to have, 300, 3 and a quarter. three-and-a-half, 375, 400. four and a half, by the have. i yield back. [applause] long has a past as a professional auctioneer. those it is one instances. what you think the public as far as those attending, what you think we got out of those hearings? guest: some new information they put on record about how these platforms work. what the things that was for twitter, the nomination hearing for judge kavanaugh was happening in the same time so that brought attention away. we have a time to gauge the reaction to these so we will be picking up on some of that today. host: zach from pennsylvania, democrat line. the thing i'm worried about is a lot of these social media companies are showing so many ads to the point where some people could see them as ad companies disguise is also media platforms. what i'm wondering is should we

mr. president before it is too late, because jack dorsey is trying to influence the election-- >> huh? what's she saying? i can't understand her. what? >> --sway the election, so that the democrats can steal the election-- >> stephen: but thhis protestor was no match for missouri representative and humpty dumpty who landed safely and followed his dream into politics, billy long. watch how representative long helped call the room back to order. >> what? what? she-- >> 12 and a hand, 15, seven and a hand, $20 and a hand, 7 and a hand, $30, $30 down, 35, 40. $40, 5, 5, 45, $50, $50 down. we're selling a cell phone there. four and a quarter, four and a half, four and a half, 475, five and a quarter, five and a half. i yield back. >> stephen: wow! this is beautiful! that's beautiful! not only did he successfully shut her down, i think he also sold her to a factory farm! ghai the chambers into the hallway, where florida senator marco rubio was confronted by alt-right conspiracy theorist and man whose porn name is lance boil, alex jones. jones has been permanently banned from twitter, and his

mr. president, before it is too late because jack dorsey is trying to influence the election, to sway theon. >> what? >> $35, two hands, $300. three and a quarter. for you and a quarter. cell phone there. for you and a half five and half. i yield back. >> that was congressman billy long during testimony from twitter ceo jack dorsey. >> that is the way to do it. >> he's good at that. we'll talk to senator king who questioned dorsey on the senate side. >> we'll ask him to do that. we'll be right back. book now at choicehotels.com >>> the poll numbers are through the roof. our poll numbers are great. guess what? nobody is going to come close to beating me in 2020 because of what we've done. >> you know why nobody will come close to beating him in 20? >> why? >> because he's not running for president. >> did you hear the poll numbers. they are great? >> he said they are awesome. >> survey says otherwise. abc news and "the washington post" puts the president's approval rating at 36%. >> that's not great. >> same as investors business daily, a kaiser foundation poll gives trump an approval rati

mr. president before it is too late because jack dorsey is trying to influence the election and sway thection. >> i can't understand her. $20, five have. , 40. have 45, the cap. up to it have now 75. $80, 95, 90. two and a quarter. to have, 300, 3 and a quarter. three-and-a-half, 375, 400. four and a half, by the have. i yield back. [applause] long has a past as a professional auctioneer. those it is one instances. what you think the public as far as those attending, what you think we got out of those hearings? guest: some new information they put on record about how these platforms work. what the things that was for twitter, the nomination hearing for judge kavanaugh was happening in the same time so that brought attention away. we have a time to gauge the reaction to these so we will be picking up on some of that today. host: zach from pennsylvania, democrat line. the thing i'm worried about is a lot of these social media companies are showing so many ads to the point where some people could see them as ad companies disguise is also media platforms. what i'm wondering is should we make

mr. the close of trading. stocks mixed with weakness hitting the tech heavy nasdaq. social media in the spring court competing for attention. jack dorsey testified for the second time today. brett kavanaugh fielding tough questions. u.s. supreme court nominee was pressed on president trump and abortion. contagion concerns. silicon valley taking center stage. sheryl sandberg and jack dorsey and a third chair left empty for google faced questions. the twitter ceos before the house energy and calm her's committee. first of all, can i ask how much you think or don't think this has been a positive set of questions coming towards the likes of sandberg? many thought senators had not been well versed in the previous hearings. >> they were better versed this time. they got better questions and incrementally they gave better answers. one of the most significant things that came out of today's hearings was the sense that government and these companies need to work more closely together and there was willingness to have a more reasonable discussion about that because that has not been discussed publicly at all until now. they were talking about ho