on facebook. again artificial intelligence algorithm. and what facebook tries to do by business model is to have people not leave the site and just sort of go away because they have their ads. i've noticed over the years it seems to prioritize things that that are eous, things very cuddly and cute. lots of baby pictures, engagements, like like like. and things people are really mad at. and a lot of misinformation get mad. ople it's get mad. it's exciting, it's novel. so the business model isn't here's the small amount of information you need. it is how do i increase engagement. and unfortunately misinformation does not seem to decrease engagement. people engage it. even if you oppose it, it's like somebody's engaging it. as long as you're there, even if you're getting mad, facebook can keep serving you ads. so this is the problem with the siness model is that they're selling us to whom ever is paying them to give us messages. right? facebook you go to it and you say send this message and then you target people. you can target them one by

whether something is hateful not just in english but the majority of people on facebook use it in languages that are different across the world. can trust that for example with an area like finding terrorist propaganda which we've actually been very successful at deploying ai tools on already today as we sit here ninety nine percent of the isis and al qaeda content that we take down on facebook our ai systems flag before any human sees it so that's a success in terms of rolling out ai tools that can that can proactively police and for safety across the community hate speech i am optimistic that over a five to ten year period we will have a i tools that can. get into some of the nuances the linguistic nuances of of of different types of content to be more accurate and flagging things for our systems but today we're just not there on that so a lot of this is still reactive people flag it to us we we have people look at it we have policy used to try to make it as not subjective as possible but until we get it more automated there's a higher error rate than i'm happy with and considered rhinest

many countries facebook and its products simply on the internet. some employers and landlords demand to see facebook profiles, and the increasingly vast swaths of public and civic life from volunteer groups to political campaigns, two marches and protests that are accessible or organized only via facebook. >> guest: this is is not the reason we need oversight and legislation. the issue here is during the hearings, mark zuckerberg was asked hoosier competitor? he kind of struggle to enter. he just couldn't come up with a quick competitor. that's because there isn't in an effective competitive facebook. like i'm a college professor, there are so many activities on college but only on facebook. i know school districts that put their messages including important alerts only on facebook. congressional campaigns that don't have a facebook page. things like the women's march, it was organized in facebook. so even if you find which q make it with all your friends and family, there's a lot of political and civic things on facebook. there's also something cal

texting to somebody else off facebook on an android phone? ng that facebook needs to understand in order to offer the service but if you are using google or you're using some texting app, unless you specifically opt in that you want to share the texting app information, facebook would not see that. has it a lwa ys facebook would not see that. has it always been that way or is that a recent addition to how you deal with those other ways that i might communicate? senator, my understanding is that is how the mobile operating systems are architected. you don't have bundled permissions for how i can agree to what devices i may use that you may have co nta ct what devices i may use that you may have contact with? do you bundled a permission or i might able to individually say what i am willing for you to watch and what you may have to watch? and i think we may have to watch? and i think we may have to watch? and i think we may have to take that for the record based on everyone else's time. thank you very much, mr chairman. mr zuckerberg, would you b

on. right? okay. facebook collecting massive amounts of data from consumers including content, networks, contact lists, device information, location, and information from third parties. yet your data policy is only a few pages long and provides consumers with only a few examples of what is collected and how it might be used. the examples given emphasize benign uses such as connecting with friends, but your policy does not give any indication for more controversial issues of such data. my question. why doesn't facebook disclose to it users all the ways the data might be used by facebook and other third parties and what is facebook's responsibility to inform users about that information? >> mr. chairman, i believe it's important to tell people exactly how the information that they share on facebook is going to be used. that's why every single time you go to share something on facebook whether it's a photo in facebook or a message in messenger, every single time there's a control right there about who you're goin

everybody thinks their data is not sufficiently attended to on facebook. these people cannot accept that they are not unduly discriminated against. in fact there is evidence that facebook has done things in the opposite direction institutionally. emily: now on the issue of regulation, as i said earlier, zuck has said over and over again it is not a question of if, but what kind of regulation. take a listen to what he had to say today. mark i think that it is : inevitable that there will need to be some regulation. so my position is not that there should be no regulation, but i also think you have to be careful about what regulation you put in place. emily: so ben, what happens now? he has said he is supportive of regulation. he has given some indication of the general principles he would be supportive of. but when it comes to turning it into law and getting facebook to support it, what is really next? ben: two things i think our are next. yesterday zuckerberg promised they would bring some regulatory or legislative proposals, which is pretty interesting, un

in other words, i always fear that people -- you know, they'll go on facebook. they don't necessarily know what's happening or what's going on with their data, so to the extent that we can pass legislation, which i think that we need, you said we probably should have some legislation, i want that legislation to give people the right to know, to empower them, to provide more transparency i guess is the best way to put it. i'm looking at everything through that sort of lens. just let me ask you three quick questions. answer yes or no because of the time. yes or no, is facebook limiting the amount or type of data facebook itself collects or uses? >> congressman, yes. we limit a lot of the data that we collect and use. >> see, i don't see that in the announcements you've made. you've made all these announcements in the last few days about the changes you're going to make, and i don't really see how that -- how those announcements or changes limits the amount of type of data that facebook uses in an effective way. let me go to the second one. again, this is my concern

congress on tuesday facebook c.e.o. mark zuckerberg managed to walk a fine line as he came under fire from lawmakers he apologized for a range of problems that have be set the social media giant including the lack of data protection but didn't promise to support new regulations zuckerberg is being questioned by u.s. congress committee members over two days he has to answer questions on how his company handled data in the wake of a massive users privacy breach we'll get to our guests in just a moment but first alan fischer has our report from washington was the ditcher use fifty great two shirts for a suit this was a polish to facebook c.e.o. with a performance to much. apologize for the massive data breach that impacted fifty seven million users worldwide eight 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 them senator this should be a wake up call for the tech community. we want to hear more w

we've all been on facebook the last few weeks and they deserve it. one of the things that i've noticed youtube doing is if you go on youtube and type something whatever you type very also their recommendation algorithm recommends something more extreme. if you start watching donald's rallies as i did during the election i got recommended white supremacist off. maybe this is a correlation and i should look into it but it's nonpartisan. if you go and watch hillary clinton and bernie sanders content as i did during the run-up, i got recommended with conspiracies. it's not politics. if you watch zuckerberg being a vegetarian what about being begin. it kept recommending and very often there are studies now that are showing this it will recommend conspiracy theories to you. you have all sorts of i heard from tons of parents whose kids started a science video and the next day they were arguing the moon landing had never happened because they got lost in youtube's conspiracy theories but what is happening is the youtube business model and they have declared a

on, right? okay. facebook collects massive amounts of data from consumers, including content, networks, contact lists, device information, location and information from third parties, yet your data policy is only a few pages long and provides consumers with only a few examples of what is collected and how it might be used. the examples given emphasize benign uses such as connecting with friends, but your policy does not give any indication for more controversial issues of such data. my question -- why doesn't facebook disclose to its users all the ways the data might be used by facebook and other third parties and what is facebook's responsibility to inform users about that information? >> mr. chairman, i believe it's important to tell people exactly how the information that they share on facebook is going to be used. that's why every single time you go to share something on facebook, whether it's a photo in facebook or a message in messenger and what's app, every single time there's a control right there abou

you know how many points of data that facebook has on the average non-facebook user? mr. zuckerberg: i do not off the top of my head but i can have my can get to you afterwards. >> you collect data points on non-average users. my question is, can someone who does not have a facebook account up out of facebook's involuntary data collection? mr. zuckerberg: anyone can turn off and opt out of any data ds, whether they use services or not. but scripting public information, which again, the search feature you brought up on the bottom of public information. nonetheless, we don't want people aggregating public information. we need to know if someone is repeatedly trying to access our services. weit may surprise you haven't talked about this a lot today, said everyone controls data, but you are collecting data on people have never signed up to facebook, and you are collecting their data. it may surprise you that when you go to facebook's page, i do not have and facebook accounts -- an addiction to a form that says go to your facebook page, and you can download your data. you are d

, you control the data that you post on facebook. you said optimistic things about privacy and data wnership, but it's the reality that facebook is a for-profit entity that generated $40 billion in ad revenue last year by targeting ads. in fact, facebook claims that advertising makes it easy to find the right people, capture their attention an get results and you recognize that an ad-supported service is, as you said earlier today, best aligned with your mission and values but the reality is there's a lot of examples where ad targeting has led to results that i think we would all disagree with or dislike or would concern us. but you've 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 role in the election here in the united states. just today "time" magazine posted that wildlife photographers are being used for trafficking illegal animal parts. like diet pill manufacturers targeting teenagers who are strug

it is not enough for the 2 billion facebook users. one reason so many are worried about this incident is what it says about how facebook works. the idea that for every person who decided to try and app, information about 300 other people was great from your services, to put it mildly, disturbing. the fact that 87 million people consented making data available doesn't make most people feel any better. the recent revelation that malicious actors were able to utilize facebook's privacy settings to match email addresses and phone numbers found on the so-called dark web, to public facebook profiles, potentially affecting all facebook users, only adds fuel to the fire. itbining these two incidents doesn't appear to because by negligence that allows typical data breaches to happen. they both appeared to be the result of people exploiting the very tools you created to manipulate users information. i know facebook has taken several steps and tends to take more to address these issues. nevertheless, some have warned that the actions facebook has ta

on, right? okay. facebook collects massive amounts of data from consumers including content, networks, contact lists, device information, location and information from third parties. yet your data policy is only a few pages long and provides consumers with only a few examples of what is collected and how it might be used. the examples given emphasize benign uses such as connecting with friends, but your policy does not give any indication for more controversial issues of such data. my question: why doesn't facebook disclose to its users all the ways the data might be used by facebook and other third parties, and what is facebook's responsibility to inform users about that information? >> mr. chairman, i believe it's important to tell people exactly how the information that they share on facebook is going to be used. that's why every single time you go to share something on facebook whether it's a photo in facebook or a message in messenger or what's app, every single time there's a control right there about wh

trish: 2 billion users on facebook. >> 73% of online ads are google and facebook alone. at is pretty big, enormous number. trish: they are quite big. >> almost sovereign countries at this point. trish: being floated about, amazon one would think you have to include facebook and google, alphabet in that list. in terms of the ability to continue earnings stream, look at the stock trading higher. deirdre, chris makes a good point. this is company that makes money off of data. if it has to protect the data, not willing to sell it easily whoever comes along, well that presents a very different earnings scenario in the future, does it not? >> it certainly does. points to center profit margins as you and our guests have been speaking about. we heard mark zuckerberg saying instead of having 10,000 engineers on board who are safety and security going through and looking for fake news and looking for bot activity, they will double that amount, trish. so they are hiring an additional 10,000 engineers before this year is up. 20,000 in total just on that team. so yes, of course, human

does in terms of the right to know in other words they always fear that people you know the go on facebook they don't necessarily know what's happening what's going on with their data and so to the extent that we could pass legislation which i think we need and you said that we probably should have some legislation i want that legislation to give people the right to know to empower them to. to you know provide more transparency i guess is the best way to both so i'm looking at everything through that sort of lens so just let me issues three quick questions i'm going to guess could answer yes or no because the time yes or no is facebook limiting the amount or type of data facebook itself collects or uses congressman yes we limit a lot of the data that we collect and use this see i don't see that in the announcements you made like you've made all these announcements away as heat is about the changes you're going to make and i don't really see how that how those announcements or changes limit the amount or type of data that facebook collects or uses in an effective way but let me go to the se

if it is happening on facebook it will be happening on twitter as well. n facebook and twitter stay ahead of this? can they really keep up? dick: it is an arms race like spam was in the past. like phishing and these other kind of challenges. the difference now is that there are state actors involved on the other side. not just a few people trying to hack into an account. when you've got state actors that have enormous amounts of resources, it will be a real battle keeping up with them and going after their new attack vectors. they will never attack in the same way the way they have attacked in the past. keeping up with that will be a real challenge for these platforms. emily: some of my conversation with dick costolo. google could owe oracle for using its java programming code. the court said it violated oracle's copyrights. the case was first filed in 2010 and then remanded to a federal court in california to determine how much the alphabet unit should pay. google said it is considering all of the next steps in this case. coming up, apple announces a new

what i'm texting to somebody else off facebook on an android? >> oh, okay. yes, senator. jeb, facebook is not collecting data from other apps that you use. there may be some specific things about the device that you are using, that facebook needs to understand in order to offer the service, but, if you are using google or you are using some texting app. unless you specifically opt in that you want to share the texting app. information, facebook wouldn't see that. >> has it always been that way or is that a recent addition to how you deal with those way that's might communicate? >> senator, my understanding is that is how the mobile operating systems are architected. >> so you don't have bundled permissions for how i can agree to what devices i may use that you may have contact with? >>with? do you bundle that permission or do i have to individually say what i'm willing for you to watch and what i don't want to you watch? i think we may have to take that for the record based on everybody else's time. >> thank you, senator blunt. next up senator du

allow it, then don't allow it, that's my point. >> every time someonechooses to share something on facebook , go to the app, right there is says who do you want to sharewith? when you sign up for a facebook account it starts off sharing with your friends. if you want to share publicly you have to change that setting to be acshared publicly . >> i'm about out of time. i actually use facebook and i know if you take the time, you can go to your privacy and click on that and go to your settings and click on that. you can pretty well set up your facebook account to the almost totally private, but you have to really work at it and my time is expired. hopefully we can do some questions as a follow-up. >> the chairman recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mister ross for four minutes. >> thank you mister chairman.mister zuckerberg, welcome. in the 1960s, our government passing through the fbi and the local police maliciously issued individuals participating in something called cointelpro which was a counterintelligence program sharing information about civil rights activists, their political, rel

on. it's bigger than any country. facebook is a global colossus. it's one of the world's most valuable corporation over four hundred billion dollars. mark zuckerberg is an international power broker in his own right. he's like a king right he's like a monarch he's making decisions about your life on facebook what the rules are and he's a benevolent dictator. you can't say that this is accountable governance or participatory governance. in any particular way. but almost two billion users still isn't enough for facebook. mark zuckerberg is aiming for the next billion. there's a limit to how much they can grow in established markets like north america and australia but the thirty three year old businessman sees huge potential in the developing world. there's a term that's being used by folks connected to facebook and google called the last billion where they're basically trying to figure out a way to spread internet access but the internet that they're going to spread is an internet that's shaped by facebook and facebook's agendas that's actually part

on average, how many data points does facebook have on each facebook user? >> i do not know off the top of my head. >> so the average for non-facebook platforms is 1500. it's been reported that facebook has as many as 29,000 data points for an average facebook user. do you know how many points of data facebook has on the average non-facebook user? >> congressman, i do not off the top of my head. i can have my team get back to you afterwards. >> i appreciate that. it's been admitted by facebook that you do collect data points on nonusers. my question is, can someone who does not have a facebook account opt out of facebook's involuntary data collection? >> congressman, anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not. but in order to prevent people from scraping public information, which again, the search feature you brought up only showed public information, people's names and profiles and things they'd made public. nonetheless, we don't want people aggregating even public information. so we need to know whe

on facebook, everything you share, you have control over. you can say i don't want this information to be there. you are full access to understand every piece of information facebook might know about you and you can get rid of all of it. i don't know if any surveillance organization in the world that operates that way which is why i think that comparison just isn't apt. >> do you think you are a victim? >> no. >> do you think facebook as a company is a victim? >> no, i think we have a responsibility to protect everyone in our community from anyone in our ecosystem who is going to potentially harm them and i think we haven't done enough historically. we need to step up and do more. >> you consider the 87 million users, do you consider them victims? >> senator, i think yes, i mean, they did not want their information to be sold to cambridge analytica by a developer. that happened. it happened on our watch. even though we didn't do it, i think we have a responsibility to be able to prevent it and take action sooner. we are committing to make sur

you say, why is that happening on facebook? e facebook often has information that advertisers have shared with them. i do think that an internet bill of rights would stop that from happening. emily: you said that we cannot leave the security of our elections up to an internet entrepreneur. facebook says it is working on new tools that will be in place before the midterm elections to prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again. do you believe them, and if not, how concerning is that and what can congress do -- isn't it on facebook at this point to make sure it doesn't happen again? ro: i do believe they are acting with good intent, but think about this, emily. they have grown from a platform of a few thousand people to 2 billion people in 12-14 years. it is really an extraordinary platform and an extraordinary problem. i do not think we could just rely on facebook's word. congress needs to do two things, we need to significantly fund the national science foundation, m.i.t., carnegie mellon research university, so that we c

on average how many data points does facebook have on each user? >> i do not know off the top of my head. >> the average for for non-facebook platforms is 1500. it has been reported that facebook has as many as 29,000 data points for average facebook user. do you know how many points of data has on the average non-facebook user? >> congressman, i do not off the top of my head but i can have our team get back to you afterwards. >> i appreciate that. it has been admitted by facebook that you do collect data points on non-average users. so my question is, can someone who does not have a facebook account opt out of facebook's involuntary data collection? >> congressman, anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not. but in order to prevent people from scraping public information, which again the search feature that you brought up only showed public information, people's names and profiles, things they made public nonetheless we don't want people aggregating public information so we block that we nee

on average, how many data points does facebook have on each facebook user? >> i do not know off the top of my head. >> so the average for non-facebook platforms is 1500. it's been reported that facebook has as many as 29,000 data points for an average facebook user. do you know how many points of data facebook has on the average non-facebook user? >> congressman, i do not off the top of my head. i can have my team get back to you afterwards. >> i appreciate that. it's been admitted by facebook that you do collect data points on nonusers. my question is, can someone who does not have a facebook account opt out of facebook's involuntary data collection? >> congressman, anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not. but in order to prevent people from scraping public information, which again, the search feature you brought up only showed public information, people's names and profiles and things they'd made public. nonetheless, we don't want people aggregating even public information. so we need to know whe

but unlikely to be enough for the two billion facebook users. one reason that so many people are worried about this incident is what it says about how facebook works. the idea that for every person who decided to try an app, information about nearly 300 other people was scraped from your services, to put it mildly, disturbing. and the fact that those 87 million people may have consented to making that data available doesn't make most people feel any better. the recent revelation that actors use the default privacy settings to match email addresses and phone numbers found on the so-called dark web to public profiles potentially affecting all facebook users only adds fuel to the fire. what binds these two incidents is they don't appear to be caused by the negligence that allow breaches to happen. instead, they appear to be the result of people exploiting the fools you created to manipulate users' information. i know facebook intends to take steps to address these issues. nevertheless, some have warned that the actions facebook is taking to ensure that

facebook has. they have tremendous amount of power on two million americans on facebook. to make sure they are not selling data on the open market in ways that compromise the integrity of that data and of the platform and they also have to be paying attention to the add advantavant could be taken of facebook by advi advisers and political advisers and far and interest they need to find ways to protect of that kind of experience and meddling. those are the kinds of issues we'll be asking. >> either one of you define facebook as a media company? >> facebook is many things and it is not just a harmless hang out or a clubhouse for your friends. it is one of the largest data brokerage firms in the world it is a political ad blaplatform and it is a communication company in many respects it needs to understand that there is going to be scrutiny when you have that kind of power. >> i will go so far to say that there are a media company and they have made those decisions themselves to become a media company. they determine what kind of news feeds or which news feeds of a particular

i've reported things on facebook and what facebook does they will slow down your own post so they don't want you complaining. but a lot of people in congress, they don't use facebook and understand how it works. so the whole thing was a joke. if i'm mark zuckerberg he controlled the circus with answers. and whole thing him ended up him explaining how facebook works. waste of time. >> obviously a lot of reaction. this from edgar junior who says, saying if you don't like it don't use it is simplifying complex issue. it's more about a broader issue of privacy and how companies manipulate your data in unintended ways. and beck which posts we are upset that you censor us. don't pass the buck. we are upset that you zealous. kathy is on oklahoma on republican line. what did you hear from mark zuckerberg, kathy. >> caller: i'll tell you it made me nauseous. i watched yesterday and today. i agree wholeheartedly. only positive thing i heard was from chris collins. mr. zuckerberg was not able to answer questions. i think it was a circus. it was a zoo. it was absolutely nauseating and disgusting. a

on just about everybody. yes, we understand the facebook users proactively sign in on part of that platform, but you're following facebook users even after they log off of that platform and application and you are collecting personal information on people who do not even have facebook accounts. isn't that right >> congresswoman, i believe -- >> yes or no >> congresswoman, i'm not sure -- i don't think that's what we're tracking. >> no, you're collecting -- you have already acknowledged that you are doing that for security purposes and commercial purposes so you're collecting data outside of facebook. when someone goes to a website and it has the facebook like or share, that data is being collected by facebook, correct >> congresswoman - >> yes or no >> that's right that we understand in order to show which of your friends -- >> so for people who don't even have facebook, i don't think that the average american really understands that today something that fundamental and that you're tracking everyone's online activities their searches you can track what people buy, correct? >> congresswoman - >> you're collecting

facebook is pretty extraordinary. more than one billion people use facebook every month. 1.4 billion people use it every day. more than the population of any country on earth except china, and more than four times the population of the united states. it's also more than 1,500 times the population of my home state of south dakota. in many respects, facebook's incredible reach is why we're here today. we're here because of what you, mr., zuckerberg have scribed as a breach of trust. a quiz app used by 300,000 people led to information about 87 million facebook users being obtained by the company, cambridge analytica. there are plenty of questions about the behavior of camerabri analyt analyti analytica. as you've said this is not likely to be an isolated incident. a fact demonstrated by facebook's suspension of another firm this past weekend. you promised that when facebook discovered over apps that had large amounts of user data, you will ban them and tell those affected. that's appropriate. but it's unlikely to be enough for the tw

facebook is pretty extraordinary. more than one billion people use facebook every month. 1.4 billion people use it every day. more than the population of any country on earth except china, and more than four times the population of the united states. it's also more than 1,500 times the population of my home state of south dakota. in many respects, facebook's incredible reach is why we're here today. we're here because of what you, mr., zuckerberg have scribed as a breach of trust. a quiz app used by 300,000 people led to information about 87 million facebook users being obtained by the company, cambridge analytica. there are plenty of questions about the behavior of camerabri analyt analyti analytica. as you've said this is not likely to be an isolated incident. a fact demonstrated by facebook's suspension of another firm this past weekend. you promised that when facebook discovered over apps that had large amounts of user data, you will ban them and tell those affected. that's appropriate. but it's unlikely to be enough for the tw

whether something is hateful not just in english but the majority of people on facebook use it in languages that are different across the world. can trust that for example with an area like finding terrorist propaganda which we've actually been very successful at deploying ai tools on already today as we sit here ninety nine percent of the isis and al qaeda content that we take down on facebook are ai systems flag before any human sees it so that's a success in terms of rolling out ai tools that can that can proactively police in and for safety across the community hate speech i am optimistic that over a five to ten year period we will have ai tools that can. get into some of the nuances the linguistic nuances of of of different types of content to be more accurate and flagging things for our systems but today we're just not there on that so a lot of this is still reactive people flag it to us we we have people look at it we have policies to try to make it as not subjective as possible but until we get it more automated there's a higher error rate that i'm happy with and he senator feinstei

, you control and own the data that you put on facebook. yes it some optimistic things about data ownership but it is also the reality that facebook is a for-profit entity that generated $40 billion in ad revenue last year by targeting as that facebook claims advertising makes it easy to find the right people, capture their attention and get results. and you recognize an ad supported service is as you said earlier today, best aligned with your mission or values. but the reality is there's a lot of examples where ad targeting has led to results i think we would all disagree with swho -- you said they allowed russians to target users based on anti-muslim or anti-immigrant rules and it could have played a significant role in the next is predestinate "time magazine" processors and while the traffickers are continuing to use facebook tools to advertise a legal sales and 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 st

i was googling earlier and getting on my facebook application, i found one of your facebook presence, it was the same one on march 30, you posted a picture, further down you listed the facts since the new platform was released in 2007, it was a timeline. start with 2007 then you jump to the cambridge analytica issue. i think that we need to fully examine what cambridge analytica did. the either broke a code of conduct as they break any other rules or agreements with you all, i hope they suffer the consequences. the timeline needs to be updated. it needs to go back, i have read a series of articles that were published in the mit technology with human 2012. it talks about how 12 the obama campaign was of splitting data on facebook in the 2012 campaign. somebody asked you earlier if it made you mad about what cambridge analytica did and he said yes. i think you should be equally mad when a former campaign direct of the obama campaign probably tweeted, facebook was surprised, we were able to set out the whole social ground. they did not stop us once they realized that is what we were doin

sarah: the first thing we have to note is that the facebook budget spent on lobbying in d.c. so much smaller than the companies that have been doing it for years -- google, microsoft, apple. facebook is pretty slow to join this party. in the past, they didn't have a very competitive relationship with washington. they grew up in barack obama's presidency. now they are realizing that they need to make nice, they need to figure out how to get in on these issues before they come to a head, and most of all, how to explain their product to congress and lawmakers, because a lot of them don't understand some of the fundamental ways it works, like the fact that most ads are not purchased through human sales, they are purchased through this automatic advertising system. these are all things that have become very clear in the last few months, but like the general public, congress has a lot they want to educate. emily: and the controversy continues to swirl. we are learning new layers to the broader cambridge analytica story, and there's a whistleblower who worked as a contractor at camb

how many ask you, facebook like buttons are there on non-facebook webpages? mr. zuckerberg: i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. >> is the number over 100 million? >> i believe we observed the like button on pages more than that. i don't know the number of pages that have the like button on actively. >> how many share buttons are there on non-facebook webpages? mr. zuckerberg: i don't know the answer to that exactly off the top of my head. that is something we can follow up with you on. >> do we think that is over 100 million? likely. how many chunks of facebook pixel code are there on non-facebook webpages? mr. zuckerberg: you are asking some specific steps that i don't know off the top of my head. >> can you commit to get back to the committee that the european union is asking for 72 hours on transparency? mr. zuckerberg: i will talk to my team and we will follow up. >> i know you are still reviewing -- do you know now whether there are other parties that have access to the data from someone other than dr. komen? or is this something we will f

that you are public pages on facebook and gearing towards those people to gain support is one thing. stealing information is entirely different. when zuckerberg is offering these licenses. he is putting in a bunch of red tape to make it confusing for the lay-person to understand what they're offering. i think that was really obvious in how he answered his questions and stirred a lot of issues today. >> we will hear more tomorrow. thank you for that call. thank you for all your calls this evening. after tomorrow's hearing, mark zuckerberg back on capitol hill in front of the commerce committee and live on c-span 3. and on the radio app. the nominee to be the next secretary of state, mike pompeo, will testify at the committee hearing, foreign relations thursday, 9:30 a.m. eastern live on c-span 3 as well. i want to take you back to the beginning of today's hearing. and remind you today's hearing airing on c-span. here is the opening statement from mark zuckerberg. >> we face a number of important issues around privacy, safety, and democracy. and you are rig

and meanwhile lebell's brother was on facebook writing that was broeth was dead. four survivors are still in critical condition in the hospital. >>> the focus on growers going chemical free in the bay area. >> and a cool and cloudy lunch hour right now. we are tracking our chance of light rain, not just today but tomorrow. i will explain it coming up. the san jose city council will decide if it supports a plan to requ >>> happening today, a vote for trance parnsy in -- transparency in your water bill. state law already requires electric and gas companies to post their petitions for the public online. the new legislation came in response to demand from silicone valley water customers. right now, van jose's water company only keeps petitions for a month. >>> a major decision on the delta tunnel project. the largest water district will decide whether to supert the -- support the immediate construction of two tunnels to deliver water from the sacramento delta. the governor long supported it but then two weeks ago, he delaid construction on one of the tunnels. but the g