mr. zuckerberg mr. dorsey and mr. pichai can any of you and in that order zuckerberg dorsey and then pichai can you name for me one high-profile person or entity from the liberal ideology who you have censored in what particular action you took? >> senator ican get you a list. there are certainly many examples that your democratic colleagues object to win a fact checker might label something as false. >> i get that. it is want to be clear and is asking if you can name for me one hype profile person that you have censored. understand you were saying their complaints on both sides but i want one name of one person or one entity. >> senator i need to think about it but there are certainly many on both sides the aisle and people think we are making content moderation decisions. >> i think everybody agreed they could identify that maybe 10 more conservative examples. what about you mr. dorsey? >> we can give a more exhaustive list. again we don't have an understanding. >> i'm not asking for an exhaustive list. i'm asking fo

mr. zuckerberg and mr. dorsey. it's not conclusive but common sense would tell you it's a problem already and it could become a bigger problem. mr. zuckerberg, i would is unlike to go back to the task platform for a minute. when i looked at the screen shot senator hawley put up it looked a lot is unlike a work management tool. can you tell me a little bit about that and how many people are actually engaged as users on that plot form at facebook? >> senator, yes, thank you. i was a bit surprised by senator hawley's focus on our task system because all this is it's a basic internal project management tool. it's impactly what the name sounds is unlike, it's used by companies, by people across our company thousands of times a day to assign projects and track them. it's used for all manner of different types of tasks across different people and teams. >> and, do you know roughly how many facebook either contractors or full time employees are actually users of the task platform? >> i think probably the majority o

mr. zuckerberg, can i get that commitment? >> senator, yes, we wi make sure that we have the right suect matter expert to join your hearing. >> thank you. mr. dorsey? >> we'll follow up with determining the be course of action. >> thank you. and then we'll be following up on a series of qestions that i'd like to ask. let me get my head around some of the analytics information that i think you almost certainly have and hopefully willing to share. but we'll do that in a collaborative way in my office. thank you for being here today. >> thank you, we're going to take a five-minute break. i think our witnesses have requested a break. and they certainly have earned it. if that's okay with you, senator coons, we'll come back in about five minutes. thank you. ahead of the general election. we have multiple fact-checkers who focus on the spanish, as a nguage. >>> in the last four years, we have seen some unprecedented taxi on our democratic institutions, our social norms, the ways in which we conduct ourselves in this democracy. many w

mr. zuckerberg and mr. dorsey, i guess we'll start with facebook, i'm curious whether or not it's likely there is systemic bias inside of your organization in the excuse of content moderation policies given that your employee base is so unrepresentative of america in general? >> senator, i think it is a good question and certainly, i think it means we have to be more intentional about what we do and thoughtful. our principle and goal is to give everyone a voice to be a platform for all ideas. as you mentioned i do think it is undisputed our employee base, at least the full-time folks politically would be somewhat or maybe more than just a little somewhat to the left of where our overall community is, where the community basically stands almost wide variety of people across society. so i do think that means that we need to be careful and intentional internally to make sure that bias doesn't seep into decisions that we make. although, i would point out a couple of things. one is that people have a lot of diff

mr. zuckerberg or mr. dorsey from taking even more responsible action by threatening cuts to section 230. chen sorship is really a misnomer. what you've done is to label and fact check to avoid amplifying misinformation, and to, in effect, impose those labels to alert people that what they are consuming may misinform them. and facebook took down ads for biden in michigan and the aclu in colorado for mistaken information about voting. in short, there was action that affected both sides. i have fought for section 230 reform for 16 years, from my time as connecticut's attorney general, when i took on the scourge of registered sex offenders looming children on facebook and my space with senator portman. i have led passage of the only successful revision so far to section 230, the stop enabling sex traffickers act, known as sesta, and chairman graham and i have authored the only reform to section 230 that has actually moved out of a committee. the earn it act, passed this committee unanimously. change is going

mr. zuckerberg and mr. dorsey, you have built terrifying tools of persuasion and manipulation with power far exceeding the robber barons of the last guilded age. you have profited hugely by strip mining data about our private lives and promoting hate speech and voter suppression. you have an immense civic and moral responsibility to ensure these instruments of influence do not irreparably harm our country. i recognize the steps. they're really baby steps that you've taken so far. the destructive incendiary misinformation is still a scourge on both your platforms and on others. in fact, google has been given a pass from today's hearing. it's been rewarded by this committee for its timidity, doing even less than you have done to live up to its responsibilities. the recent actions you have taken in fact are simply to check the truth of what appears on platform. often it is voter suppression and incendiary malicious misinformation. and you've tried to slow its insidious spread. that's not censorship, that's mor

mr. zuckerberg. mr. dorsey? >> yeah.ou know, this is obviously not something we interview for and given an understanding of what people are in the company. and with that understanding, we intend to make sure that both our policy and our enforcement is objective. and i realize that it looks rather opaque and certainly the outcomes might not always match up with that intention with our intention. ands perception of those outcomes may not match up. that's why i think it's so important that we are not just transparent around our policies. but, the actual operations of our content moderation. if people don't trust our intent, if people are questioning that that's a failure. and that is something that we need to fix and intend to fix. and i think it would benefit the industry as well. but i do, again, point back to something i said earlier on the testimony which is a lot of these decisions are not being made by humans anymore. they are being made by algorithms. enforcement decisions around what you see and what you don't see.

mr. zuckerberg? >> senator, one of the points in the discussion that i find interesting is people ask if thy regulatory models should be more like the news industry or telecos. t but from my perspective, these platforms are a new industry and should have a different regulatory model that is nt distinct from either of those rl other atwo.inct f i think it is not the case thata we'ret like a teleco-and that there are clearly some t categories of content, whether it's terrorism or child exploitation that peopleorism et us toat moderate and address. but we're also clearly not likee a news publisher in that we don't create the content, and we don't choose up front what we publish. we give people a voice to t publish things. i do think that we have responsibilities and it may make sense for there to be liabilityw for some ofe the content that i on the platform. but i don't think the analogiese to these other industries that have been created previously will ever be kind of fully the right way to look at th

mr. zuckerberg. mr. dorsey? >> you know, this is obviously not something we interview for and even have an understanding of when people are in the company. and wi that underanding, we intend to make su our enrcement and our policy is objective. i realize it looks rather oque, and certainly the outcomes might not alws match up with at intention, with our intention, and the perception of those outcomes may not match up, but that's why i think it's so important at we're notust transparent around our policies, but the actual operations of our content moderation. if people don't trust our intent, if people are questioning that, that's a failure, and that is something that we need to fix and intend to fix. and i think it would benefit the industry as well. but i do, again, point back to something i said earlier in the testimony, which is a lot of these decisions are not being made by humans anymore, they're being made by algorithms. that's around enforcement decisions but also to the things you see and don't see. that

mr. zuckerberg. you have started to censor content. why not have both mr. biden and mr. trump able to say whatever they want to on your platform as long as they don't threaten, bully, incite violence or commit a crime? i am not justifying the use of twitter or facebook to hurt. mr. zuckerberg, what are your thoughts on my suggestion? get out of the censorship business other than the exceptions i talked about. >> senator, in principle, i agree with what you are saying. although i think there are more categories of arm than just the ones you mentioned. but i think the basic principle behind what you are saying is a definition of free expression that says that people should be able to share their opinions broadly, except if it's going to cause imminent or irrepable harm to another person. even ardent first amendment supporters agree you should not be able to yell fire in a crowded theater because that puts people in imminent hard. you mentioned child exploitation as harm. the debate is what are other fo

mr. zuckerberg and mr. dorsey, , thank you both for being here w with us today virtually. and for improving your platforms serving people across the t country. there has been a lot of talk b today, many of us have been listening from our offices or online about the censorship of ideas, and news on your platforms. these are the thingss thatpla h been at the forefront of american's minds in the leadup n to the election, as well as the weeks since our 2020 general election. and, you know, the people that , hear from, of course, believe that conservatives were onser wrongfully being silenced while those on the left were given basically free rein of your platforms. give of y and one of the points. oft contention that is often brought up is that you do recruit up heavily from california which he leads to your employee base leas skewing quite heavily to the b left. so, my first question is for f both of you. do you have concerns about yours ability to monitor disinformation on both sides of the political aisle, equally, t given that the majority of your employees typically do lea

mr. zuckerberg and mr. darcy, you have terrifyin tools of persuasion and minute elation with power far exceeding the last and profited usually by strip mining data about our privateives and promoting hate speech and voter suppression . evident mets civic and moral responsibility to ensure these instrunts of influence do not irrerably harm our count. recognize the steps literally baby steps, and been taken so far, the desuctive and misinformation, is sti on both your platform and another's. in fact google has been given a task from today's hearing. is been rewarded on this committee for its information do you been lesson you have done to livep to its responsibility. there is no action you've taken in fact, are simply to check the truth of what appears on platform. often it is voter suppression and incendiary malicious and misinformation and is trying to slow this insidious spread . at is not csorship. that is moral and civic responsibility. now i believe and hope chairma believes the series of hearings on bi

mr. zuckerberg?> senator, i think there is a role forbe regulation in the process even if not spine content on content bas. one area i have advocated for regulation around transparency. that goes beyond just about wha the policies are and what the proces is also gs toward results. as an example, every quart fabook releases the community andard enforcement report, a transparency report that breaks down each category of potentially harmful content we track. terrorism to child exploitation content, incitement of violence, pornogray -- >> yes, i don't mean to interrt but who sets the community standards, how are they separate the company? >> we have a policy that consult with a number of different stakeholders and outsideroups to make sure we get feeack -- >> is publicly known? >> i believe s our head of content policy has testified publicly multiple tes. >> when it comes to fact checking, would you get a list of the people accused to fact check? >> senator, yes. >> we work with a c number of independent

mr. zuckerberg? >> yes, you may.mr. if you want more, that would be okay. uld >> mr. zuckerberg, at the recent hearing before the senate erg, commerce committee, you said ok that facebook has a, quote, policy in place that prevents any candidate, end quote, from, quote, trying to deal legitimize the result of the election, end quote. but the hashtags stealthevote and voterfraud garnered more than 300,000 interactions on your platform in the hours after president trump declared victory. here's the question. do you believe facebook did you enough to prevent trump's enoug efforts to delegitimize the election result?electi if so, why have you reached thau conclusion? >> senator, i believe that we - have -- we have taken some very significant steps in this area.. not just the adding additional context to specific posts and making it so that when people search for different hashtags wt show additional information, but we also took the unprecedented step of putting the voter information center at the top of facebook and instagram for able everyone in the u.s. that showed them

mr. zuckerberg and mr.ools of persuasion and manipulation with power far exceeding the robber barons of the last gilded age. you have profited of strip mining data and voter suppression and you have an immense civic and moral responsibility to insure these instruments of influence do not irrepably harm our country. i recognize the steps, baby steps, that you've taken so far, the destructive, incendiary misinformation is still a scourge on both your platforms and on others. in fact, google has been given a pass from today's hearing. it has been rewarded by this committee for its timidity doing even less than you have done to live up to its responsibilities. the recent actions you have taken in fact are simply to check the truth of what appears on platforms, often it is voter suppression and incendiary, malicious misinformation and you have tried to slow its insidious spread. that's not censorship. that's moral and civic responsibility. now i believe and i hope the chairman agrees that a series of hearings on

mr. zuckerberg and thank you, senator peters. senator gardner has also asked to go out of order in senator thune has graciously deferred to him, senator gardner, you are recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, senator thune for sharing your time or at least differing your time to me and thank you mr. zuckerberg, i thank you very much and i think you mr. dorsey for being here, mr. dorsey i'm going to address these questions to you, do you believe the holocaust really happen, yes or no. >> yes. >> so you would agree someone who says the holocaust may not have happened spreading misinformation, yes or no. >> yes. >> i appreciate your answers on this, they surprised me and probably a lot of americans after all they have done exactly this, questioning the holocaust and yet his tweets remain unclogged on twitter's platform, you and i agree that moderating your platform makes sense in certain respects we don't want the next terrorist finding information on twitter or any platform for that matter but you al

mr. zuckerberg, but on thursday you reportedly told facebook employees that bannon had not violated enough policies that he should be banned from facebook. my question to you, how many times is steve bannon allowed to call for the murder of government officials before facebook suspends his account? >> senator, as you say, t content in question did violatet our policies ande we took not automatically mean your content -- your account gets taken down and the number of an strikes varies depending on the amount -- the type of offense. so, people are posting terrorist content or child exploitation content, then the first time they do it, then we will take down their account. for other things, it's multiple. i'd be happy to follow up ltiple afterwards. we try not to disclose these --e >> you took down his account? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear that.>> >> will you commit to taking cm down that account, steve that bannon's?bannon' >> senator, no. that's not what our policies would suggest we should do. in this case.record >> according to the internal records that are on record now,f leaked by nbc ne

mr. zuckerberg, very quickly, please what did you hear?hat there are issues around content moderation as well as other areas and frankly i'm optimistic from the statements that we may be able to move forward and hopefully update some of the rules for the internet around these areas. i've been encouraging and hoping that we would do this for a couple of years and from your opening statements it sounds like there may be now enough common ground on views that real progress can be made here. >> so, from my point of view the question for us is when it comes time to flag content as being reliable or not reliable, do either one of you believe that the government should do that? is that a solution where the government sets a regulatory scheme that talks about what should be up and what should be down >> i don't believe so. i think that would be very challenging. >> okay. do you agree with that, mr. zuckerberg >> senator, for certain types of illegal content i think it may be appropriate for there to be clear rules around that. but i would side --

mr. zuckerberg had trouble getting on the head of facebook so don't worry. >> that happen, i want to first ask you shana broussard we talked about this over the phone as i did with the other two nominees, the disclaimer and disclosure rules on online political ads, we know in 2016 there were ads paid for by rubles unfortunately the companies have changed some of their policy so that has gone better but i asked mr. zuckerberg about this yesterday, we continue to have issues with ads and including ads that aren't looked at by human beings and then get through are not true, i have this honest ads act which is bipartisan legislation by senator gran that graham with tv, radio and. , can you talk about your views on this and if you think the fec could take care of this, i would think it's important to look at it is not just candidate ads, it's also issue ads. ashley: thank you the honest ads act would increase or expand the definition of public munication as to the online political spending, i see there's an opportunity to increase the act but also prevent the director and directive spending a f

mr. zuckerberg had trouble getting on. don't worry. >> yes, what happened. >> so, i want to ask you, we talked about this over the phone as it did with the other nominees. the disclaimer and disclosure rules on the online political ads, we know in 2016, this was, there were add, some of the companies have changed their policies so that has gotten better but i ask mr. zuckerberg about this yesterday, we continue to have issues with ads including ads that are looked at by humans and then get through and are not true. so i have this honest ads act which is legislation with senator graham that would apply the same disclosure and disclaimer rules and political ads we have for tv, radio and print. can you talk about your views on this? if you think the ftc could take this. it's important to look at it's not just candidate ads, it is also issue ads. >> thank you. this act was obviously the definition of public communication to the online spending. see this as opportunity but also prevent and directed entities to our literal disco

mr. zuckerberg about this just yesterday. we continue to have issues with ads and including ads that aren't looked at by human beings, and then get through and are not true. so i have this honest ads act, which is bipartisan legislation with senator graham, that would apply the same disclosure and disclaimer rules on political ads that we have for tv, radio and print. could you talk about your views on this, and if you think the fec could also take care of this? and i think it's important to look at, it's not just candidate ads, it's also issue ads. ms. broussard. >> thank you, so the honest ads act would increase the definition of public communication to the online political spending. i see this as an opportunity to make these two increase transparency ads, the honest ad act, but also prevent the direct or indirect spending of foreign entities into our political discourse, which would provide a greater transparency to the american people. as it relates to the fec, if congress enacts this law it would be, of course, the respo

mr. zuckerberg said today that there needed to at,more specificity in th which is exactly what we are doingewpoint diversity act. we are going to clarify the utilizations for liability protection and preserve it for new market entrants and smaller bing, parlor in the social media space, all these new interests, and be more specific in the language of objectionable content, and the reasonableness standard that will have an application through the legislation, then also quite a bit of discussion today over who was a publisher, who was a content creator, who is a new outlet. and what is social media supposed to be? they are supposed to be the new public square. we are going to define a content creator in the legislation and hopefully it will help them to stay within the guardrails that they are given, it will help them to be able to explain why they are taking down certain posts. why they are blocking, why they are putting notes on posts and questioning the validity of posts. you know, if this is something that was equally applied to liberals and democrats, you could say that is their business

mr. zuckerberg was saying it is about transparency and he is in favor of some government regulation of transparency. to see ainteresting trend in the direction of social media companies supporting government regulations. that is because they have felt like they've been under intense criticism for a long period of time when they tried to moderate content and they would like rules of the road to help them understand exactly what government once out of them. you saw both companies calling today for regulation. a better appeals process, more transparency, they would like to see regulation that would make that possible. for instance, in order for companies to be able to share more information with researchers and others, companies will need to have protections once they share that information. facebook might share data with the researcher at cambridge ended up in a massive scandal that resulted in significant fines and changes to the company's business practices. in order to facilitate sharing data with researchers, lawmakers need to make that possible and there might be more momentum in that direction.

mr. zuckerberg and dorsey who censored new york post stories or throttled them back even wanted any evidencehat "the new york post" story is part of russian disinformation or that those e-mails aren't authentic mr. dorsey. >> we don't. >> finally, twitter unlocked new york post account on friday. this was probably because twitter stock price took a massive hit this week. money talks doesn't it? but the week got even better for the president. a cascade of endorsements from cultural icons. golf legend jack nicholas nfl hall of fame quarterback bret favre that should definitely help there in wisconsin. and five time grammy award-winning hip-hop artist lil wayne trust me, he's big. the polls are tighter than they've ever been in the battleground real clear politics average it is a dead heat in florida north carolina, and arizona. and trump is within margin of error in pennsylvania and within striking distance in michigan, wisconsin, and minnesota. now personally, i believe trump is looking even better in the battle grounds since mainstream media polls show. i don't believe a lot of these polls.

mr. zuckerberg how many pages have been visited and shut down through sentra. >> senator, i do not know becauseot actually familiar with the name of that tool. i'm sure that we have tools that help us with our platform and community integrity work. but i am not familiar with that name. >> do you have a tool that does exactly what i described and that you can see here over my shoulder or are you saying that that doesn't exist? >> senator, i'm saying that i'm not familiar with it. >> tucker: i'm not familiar with it, senator. but, hold on a second, mark zuckerberg. you run the company. you started it. and sentra sounds is unlike a pretty big deal. are you saying that sentra doesn't exist? well, no. it turns out that's not what they are saying. just hours ago a facebook spokesperson admitted to fox news that sentra is indeed real. and according to that spokesperson sebaali that is used to quote centralized and aid in investigations into complex subjects is unlike coordinated inauthentic behavior. end quote. coordinated inauthentic behavior, hard to pronounce. you may not have heard of it. otherwis

mr. zuckerberg, jack dorsey, you have built terrifying tools of persuasion and manipulation. >> we will makeakes. >> those mistakes happen a lot more on one side of the political spectrum on the other. >> answer the yes or no or i don't know. >> senator, i don't know. >> it is time we took action against these modern-day robber barons. >> mark zuckerberg facebook and certainly jack dorsey up twitter. they are both getting grilled on both sides. the democrats saying they are not doing a laugh on hate speech and the like an republicans saying they are doing too much to stamp out conservative thought and they want to put an end to it. the business and technology law attorney much, much more. this was a fair and balanced a beating for these guys. how did they hold up? >> they are like piÑatas. they keep getting dragged up on video feed and keep taking right and left hooks by republicans and democrats alike. this is an ongoing war on d.c. and big tech. temporarily diverge in terms of what their basic complaints are imputed they are in rare units in together in of the bottom line that chairman lin

but mr zuckerberg defended facebook‘s action on a post by president trump's former adviser steve bannon twitter banned him, but facebook only froze his page. the content in question did violate our policies and we took it down. having a content violation does not automatically mean your account gets taken down and the number of strikes varies depending on the type of offence so if people are posting terrorist content or child exploitation content then the first time that they do it then we will take down their account. for other things it's multiple. james clayton has been following the hearings — pressure and scrutiny coming from both sides of the political spectrum. that is right. republicans we re very spectrum. that is right. republicans were very much going on phyllis donald trump tweets. twitter very, very happy to label all lot of the states particularly around voter this information now. president trump has said a lot of things about mass voter fraud. that's trump has said a lot of things about mass voterfraud. that's not actually true but twitter exercise that right to enable a

mr. zuckerberg knows he has the tools to track this but he either doesn't remember or won't commit to letting us see it. i submit to you that this is both totally unacceptable and totally predictable. because it is exactly what these tech companies have done to the american people and to congress for years now, which is why it is time we took action against these modern day robber barons. reporter: both zuckerberg and ceo of twitter, djack dorsey, sy there is mistakes in what has been censored. senator mike lee saying funny how these mistakes always come down on conservative voices. some say there needs to be a greater crackdown on information flowing through social platforms. saying there was styilence from the social media platform. the ceos acknowledged section 230 of the communications decency act that gives immunity needs to be changed. both of them say there needs to be more transparency about what is censored and the decisions about how censorship is made. no concrete steps came out of this hearing, just the ceos on notice that congress is watching. back to you. liz: okay. modern day r

here's what mr zuckerberg had to say.platform to organise any violence or civil unrest, and that was the basis under which we took down that group, because there were a number of members who were posting potentially viole nt or encouraging violent comments that violated our policies. let's talk now to the bbc‘s technology reporter james clayton, who's in san francisco. it sounds like senators were quite cross with the tech gods, do you think regulation is coming their way? 0h, think regulation is coming their way? oh, it's definitely coming their way. bothjack way? oh, it's definitely coming their way. both jack dorsey and mark zuckerberg said that they wanted to be regulated, there is a key thing code section 230, which basically stops these big companies from getting sued for the things that people post, it is essential for them, buta people post, it is essential for them, but a lot of democrats and all republicans basically say it should be taken down, this key section, and today about zuckerberg and jack dorsey said,

mr. zuckerberg and mr. dorsey are competent c.e.o.'s who know their businesses inside and out and it's time for them to get down to the knity gritty, explain what happened, how is it that their content moderation practices are still so full of holes as to allow a content moderator, a singling individual to put their opinion in front of a post, to panic and blast list and admittedly essential but certainly -- sen but certainly newsworthy story, without any evidence that it contained misinformation or hacked information or false or defamatory information. they did it because they could. they just did not like the story. the ensuing scramble to walk back that decision is an indictment of their internal moderation processes. whether it is algorithms or individuals, it is subjective. the people who are responsible for this owe us answers and we hope that the hearing tomorrow will help lead to those answers. it bears repeating that these companies are not just entertainment or social media companies. they have an inordinate amount of control

mr. zuckerberg himself has a tensions for - >> neil, i'm good have to cut you off, what is your second questionieves it entered believe it is wise for the president to sit in the corporate boards . >> thank you so there. corporate influence in politics jill: the colors referring to an interview that i did for the chronicle of higher education which i did recently and i made remarks about corporate influence on universities. i can practically, publicly disagree with them . and very vocal about it. and i realize there are people involved with the service. by the way facebook, i think they're tremendously people that work facebook . they have every good intention. they would like to not be destroying several communities and institutions. but infected is. i think the companies probably going to need to be dismantled to find a way forward piece. so quite strong views about that. >> we have a minute left. and keep you can answer this question on time in florida. read you regularly in the new yorker. never disappointed. and reminded me somehow if something that you wrote over a year ago.rl the lingeri

he presses mark zuckerberg for more censorship. you do mr.orsey have policies against deep fakes or manipulated media against covid-19 misinformation, against things that violate civic integrity but not a misinformation policy, why not, helping to disseminate climb gnat denial liz many. it extends one of the greatest existential threats to our world. chris coons points was simple. people who disagree with chris coons are a threat to our world. they must be silent. who are the people chris coons doesn't believe should be allowed to speak in public? legitimate scientists who might have questions. chris coons is a lawyer who spent the last 20 years in government. everything he knows about climate he learned from an issue of atlantic magazine he picked up in the airport. he is a non-expert. you should the standard he demanded today in congress the social media experts sensor anyone who questions his shallow silly views on one of the most complex views of known science. that is not a moderate stance that is censorship. it doesn't simply kill expre

who saw his personal fortune go up by $15 billion, overtaking mark zuckerberg as the third richest person in the world. also this week, mrcket company spacex sent four astronauts into space. robot vacuum cleaners could be accessed remotely to eavesdrop in the home, even without a microphone on board. lidar sensors were hacked on the xiaomi roborock vacuum by researchers at the university of maryland, picking up acoustic signals from the room. and finally this week, we saw how a magnetic spray could turn everyday objects like pills into mini robots. a team from city university of hong kong show the uses of the m—spray, such as guiding a catheter inside the body or distributing medicine. the object's locomotion is controlled by manipulating the magnetic field around it. the spray can be absorbed or excreted by the body, making targeted drug delivery possible. this week, i've been putting four of the latest smartphone cameras to the test to see how they stack up. the iphone 12 pro max, the google pixel 5, the huawei mate a0 pro and the iphone 12. i have been using the mini version, but it has the exact same camera as the re

mr. trump falsely declared victory. >> in one heated exchange, senator josh hawley pressed mark zuckerberg about new allegations that facebook sometimes coordinates with google and twitter, zuckerberg insisted they do coordinate on some security measures but not on anything related to content moderation. >> bret: more than 166,000 new covid-19 cases were recorded over the recent 24-hour period, johns hopkins university says that brings the total in the u.s. into more than 11 and a quarter million. at the longest-serving republican in the senate says he has tested positive for the virus. iowa's chuck grassley did not say how he was exposed to covid-19, the 87-year-old has not missed a boat since 1993. michigan's governor insist she has the authority to issue a second stay at home order to curb the spike in coronavirus governor gretchen dominic gretchen whitmer's latest goes into effect tomorrow. >> tonight could very well be the last time joey armadillo's bowling alley opens that door's. >> in my whole life i never thought my government would tell me i have to close. >> bowling alleys, casinos, and theaters all close when mic

mr. oh sullivan. what else are you hearing from the fact checkers about this? >> yeah, kate. controversially, facebook does not fact check politicians. they can fact check anybody else, but mark zuckerbergted policy here is we do not fact check trump. we don't fact check any politician. that means that politicians, if they want, and that have, can spend millions of dollars on ads on facebook targeting voters with misinformation. but everything else the third party fact checkers have what one described to me as the nightmare facebook feed. it's a customized feed with all the misinformation circulating or a lot of it on facebook, and they're fact checking it. that fact checker we spoke to is a former cnn employee, but we also spoke to another fact checker who also works with facebook. and both of them said at the me moment, there is more misinformation on the right than the left. and one of them said a big reason for that is because of president trump. president trump puts so much misinformation out there, so much lies and mistruths that a lot of that gets echoed and parroted by his supporters and other people on the eco system. that's contributing to a lot of the false information on the