troops just on the other side of that border in terms of the boring me end of things former president of south korea no one said serving military service was really kind of a waste of time and since then as preciously liberal administrations here in south korea have tried to find ways of reducing the terms of service and making it a little bit easier for conscripts to serve here at some incredible statement from south korean politicians there how much public support is there from military service then and it sounds like from your report that enough people are comfortable with exemptions for example i'm thinking of mandatory military service in israel and how trying to get out of it is really not socially acceptable but it seems like in south korea that's different. raul it's not that different if you're trying to get out of it the public is quite strongly against that type of thing what it is interested in at about the 60 percent level is providing exemptions for people that 'd are you know doing extraordinarily in the name of the country i give the example of the athlete son who men during the report there it's also extended to classi

700000 troops just on the other side of that border in terms of the borini end of things former president of south korea no one said serving military service was really kind of a waste of time and since then specially liberal administrations here in south korea have tried to find ways of reducing the terms of service and making it a little bit easier for conscripts to serve here at some incredible statement from a south korean politician is there how much public support is there from military service then and it sounds like from your report that enough people are comfortable with exemptions for example i'm thinking of mandatory military service in israel and how trying to get out of it is really not socially acceptable but it seems like in south korea that's different. raul it's not that different if you're trying to get out of it the public is quite strongly against that type of thing what it is interested in at about the 60 percent level is providing exemptions for people that 'd are you know doing extraordinarily in the name of the country i give the example of the athlete son who men during the report there it's also extended to classi

have the right and i want to be clear about this, you have every single right to set your own terms of service and to interpret them and make decisions about violations, but given the disparity of who gets censored on your platforms, it seems that you are either not enforcing your terms of service equally, or alternatively, you are writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints. you have the right to operate your own platform but you have to be transparent about your actions at least in the sense that you can't promise certain corporate behavior and deceive customers through contradictory actions. that's just blatant contradiction as you stated as your policy. dorsey,erberg and mr. if facebook is still a platform for all ideas and of twitter does not use political ideology to make decisions, then do you state before this committee for the record that you always apply your terms of service equally to all of your users? our principle is to stand for free expression and be a platform for all ideas. mr. zuckerberg: i don't think we have an -- any intentional examples where we are trying

you know, every person, every account, every organization that signs up to twitter agrees to terms of services of service is -- >> the media outlets must obey your dictates if they wish to be able to communicate with readers, is that right >> no, not at all. we recognized an error in this policy and specifically the enforcement. >> you're still blocking their post you're still blocking their post, right now today you're blocking their post. >> we're not blocking the post anyone can tweet. >> can the "new york post" post on their twitter account >> if they go into their account -- >> no is your answer to that unless they agree with your dictates let me ask you something, you claimed it was because of hacked materials policy i find that facially highly dubious and clearly employed in a deeply partial way did twitter block the distribution of "the new york times" story a few weeks ago that purported to be based on copies of president trump's tax returns? >> we didn't find that a violation of our terms of service and this policy in particular, because it was reporting about the material it wasn't

we want to label it. >> did they violate your terms of service mr. dorsey? >> we did not find those to violate our terms of service, we consider them -- which is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries. speech against our own people or countries own citizens we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm. >> very telling information. >> senator cantwell you are recognized. >> we are referring to a colleague senator peters because of the timing and situation for him. >> senator peters are you there? >> i am here, you are recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member cantwell appreciate your deferral and we certainly appreciate the consideration a great deal, i also want to thank each of our panelist here today for coming forward and being a witness and appreciating your schedule so we can have this hearing my question is for mr. zuckerberg and i want to start off by saying how much i appreciated our opportunity last night to speak at length on a number of issues and i told you last ni

greased through terms of service you're still like me right now you're blocking the post this senate hearing as you can see was pretty intense you saw the republicans and democrats interrogate the heads of twitter facebook and google and it really exposed this deep distrust in the power of silicon valley to police the web now this isn't the 1st time that r.t. has received a twitter label those who follow us on the platform will know that our count has been branded as state affiliated media tell us about that you write your twitter has previously labeled artie's editor in chief margarita simonyan as russian language twitter account as russia's state affiliated media which struck many as a little bit unfair considering that other news groups that are also state finance such as the b.b.c. and n.p.r. were not given similar titles facebook has also labeled artie's account of state affiliated media again failing to do the same for other foreign state media such as the voice of america or al-jazeera facebook's position back then is stated was to provide greater transparency into publishers t

korean troops just on the other side of that border in terms of the borini end of things former president of south korea no one said serving military service was really kind of a waste of time and since then as preciously liberal administrations here in south korea have tried to find ways of reducing the terms of service and making it a little bit easier for conscripts to serve here at some incredible statement from south korean politicians there how much public support is there from military service then and it sounds like from your report that enough people are comfortable with exemptions for example i'm thinking of mandatory military service in israel and how trying to get out of it is really not socially acceptable but it seems like in south korea that's different. raul it's not that different if you're trying to get out of it the public is quite strongly against that type of thing what it is interested in at about the 60 percent level is providing exemptions for people that 'd are you know doing extraordinarily thrones in the name of the country i give the example of the athlete son who men during the report there it's also extended t

you have every single right to set your own terms of service and to make decisions about violations but given that this tier there at and practice to get censored on your platforms seems that you leave are either not enforcing your terms of service equally or alternatively you are writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints. you certainly have the right to operate your own platform but you also have to be transparent about your actions at least in the sense that he can't promise certain corporate behavior and then -- customers are contradictory actions as you've given azure corporate policy. mr. zuckerberg or mr. dorsey if facebook is a platform for all ideas and of twitter does not use but ideology to make decisions tend to use state before this committee and for the record that uis apply your terms of service equally for all of the user's? >> senator our principle was to stand for free expression and that should be a platform for all ideas. i certainly don't think we have any intentional examples where we are trying to enforce our policies in a way that is anything other

do they violate your terms of service, mr. dorsey? e did not find those to violate our terms of service. because we considered them sabre-rattling, which is, is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries. speech, against our own people, our countries own citizens we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm. >> very telling information, mr. dorsey. thank you very much. senator cantwell, you're recognized. >> -- colleague, senator peters, just because of the timing and situation for him. >> all right, senator peters, are you there? >> i am here. i am here. >> rush ended for seven minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator cantwell, i appreciate your deferral to me. i certainly appreciate that consideration a great deal. i want to thank each of our panelists here today for coming forward and being a witness and appreciate all of you accommodating your schedule so that we can have this hearing. my first question is for mr. zuckerberg. i want to start off saying how much i appreciated our opportunity

literate consumers in terms of reading the terms of service in terms of trying to make sense technically the mystic language i think that gives me hope. that people can become more active consumers and participants think that it's really fortunate for us as we're thinking about the issues that they're pushing teas and challenges the technology presents to remember that human beings. and human nature is very it's very true and it's very repetitive we've actually been here before with other forms of communications technology we think about radio and the role that radio played for example in the 2nd world war when you think about the launch of television and beam of the fears around advertising in the fields around how. television would change society if these are all conversations that are actually happened in the past and so for me the big lesson is let's learn from what has already happened in the past let's not be afraid to look back there's nothing radical so radically different about internet technology that human beings haven't really grappled with before. november. who will be the n

you announced that you took a stake in mgm resorts even in the face of all of this upset in terms of servicesstate and, you know, going out, restaurants. you're here taking a 12% stake in mgm. what was behind that? >> i have to believe -- maria: was this valuation, barry? >> no, no. look, i have to believe that just like we did when 9/11 happened, which was just the moment we bought exe media, travel stopped completely, and -- expedia, and somebody in the room when we were thinking whether we would stay in that transaction or exercise an out clause, somebody said if there's life, there's travel. and i heard it, but i said, yeah, true. we closed mgm. until there is clarity of some kind, probably is not going to come until we have a vaccine certain or we get through this flu season or this winter season and it's not a catastrophe, i don't expect -- i think after the first of the year i really thought it was going to be labor day, but that was not to be. maria: barry, i want to ask you about new york city. iac heatedquartered there -- headquartered there. you've done something great for our city

fox news, breitbart, gateway pundit, all those websites every day in their terms of service reserve the to remove content that they find objectionable, including racist content and offensive content that the administration would declare out of bounds of the protections of section 230. this is not about somehow conservatives getting what they already expect on the internet. rather this is turning the internet into something like gab. i'm not sure if you will thank me for this suggestion, spend an hour looking at it, and you will see what this administration wants the internet to look like. it is the most heinous content out there imaginable. it is limited to a small audience of the worst people in america. there has been an alternative developed popular among conservatives called parlor, used by ted cruz. you will notice they have censored some of that content. you will not find the n-word, but plenty of anti-semitic content including pro holocaust content. even this conservative site wants to moderate some content that the administration would deny them the ability to moderate and be pr

all of them in their terms of service reserve the right to remove content they find objectionable. g racist content and other offensive content that the administration would declare to be out of bounds for the protections of section 230. so this is not about conservatives getting what they arty expect today on the internet. rather this is about turning the internet into something like a gab. if you've never been a gap, i am not sure you'll thank me for this section. but spend an hour looking at it. you will see what this administration looks like. it's the most heinous content out there imaginable. at gap has been limited to a very small audience of frankly terrible, the worst people in america. there is but an alternative that has developed, it's been conservative it's called parlor used by some people like ted cruz and so on. you will notice they have censored some of that contents. you will not find the n word used as a # there. it will find plenty of anti-semitic content including pro holocaust content. so even the conservative site on the one hand, was to moderate some of the c

you see and what you hear when jack dorsey says well everyone who uses twitter signs up for terms of service they don't agree to have you decide whether or not people can think things about them and by the way every time one of those reports is labeled misleading untrue untruthful or essentially a lie that's actually libel against the journalist who's publishing it in the 1st place any content that has that has a whiff of controversy it comes across our t. is interpreted by twitter by facebook who are taking their lead from the cia from the f.b.i. from the n.s.a. who have publicly said that russia is interfering in the u.s. election the irony is that even the head of twitter is said twitter's capable of influencing the u.s. election so this has everything to do. heavily anti russian stance of the united states and nothing to do with the actual content. it's been it's been since if you want to look for logic in twitter's decision making venue can compare it to somebody being chased by a gigantic flop. of b.s. they aren't they have been running away from the idea that in 2016 they were a charg

out every organization that stands up to twitter agrees to its terms of service you're still blocking their post right now to do your blocking their post now this senate tearing saw democrats and republicans grill the heads of twitter facebook and google which people are saying really highlights the deep distrust that people have when it comes to silicon valley policing the web. yeah i mean there was a private company so the argument being they can do what they want that are not obliged to be independent of the huge argument still to unravel they always have a little bit of a thing for or something about our reporting because as i understand we've been labeled before while it is not the 1st time to it have come down on our t.v. the last time was there when it labeled artie's editor in chief margarita simonyan russian account as russian state affiliated media media which came to a cross to some people is a little bit unfair because when it came to other news groups that are state finance such as the b.b.c. or n.p.r. they didn't get the same treatment but it's not just twitter facebook

twitter says such post wishing for the death of anyone are a violation of their terms of service and could result in accounts getting suspended. >>> senate majority mitch mcconnell says today he is delaying a plan to senate meeting after three gop senators tested positive for the virus. despite that, the senate judiciary committee said heari amy coney barrett will continue as planned for the panel will begin four days of confirmation hearing on october 12 senators mike lee of utah, thom tillis of north carolina, and ron johnson's of wisconsin had tested positive of the coronavirus in the past 24 hours. others like senator james lankford of oklahoma have gone into quarantine despite testing negative. >>> one of the drugs president trump is being treated with, regeneron is the subject of a study at stanford. fox's aisha hosni has a therapeutics prescribed for the president.. >> reporter: president trump has received an aggressive treatment today, and that we know he has also received the remdesivir therapy as medical experts caution the next 72 hours are critical. before the president

breitbart, gateway pundit, all of the sites that conservatives read every day, all of them in the terms of service reserve the right to remove content that they find objectionable, including racist content and other offensive content that the administration would declare out of bounds for the protections of section 230. this is not about somehow conservatives getting what they already expected it on the internet. rather, this is about turning it in that into something like gab. if you've never been on gap i'm not sure you will thank me for this suggestion but spent an hour and you will see what this administration actually wants to end it to look like. it is the most heinous content out there and imagine will. gab has been limited to a very small audience of frankly terrible, the worst people in america. there has been an alternative that is developed, very popular among some conservatives called partner that is used by some people like ted cruz and so on and when you look at partner you will notice that they have censored some of the content. you won't find the inward used as a hashtag but you'll

accusations were plainly false what they mostly have done is taken away material which violates their terms of service in this case they had a rule about hacked materials but that rule actually doesn't make a lot of sense because it's pretty common for journalists even to report on hacked materials now if the hacker him or herself had tweeted it then clearly twitter probably should shut shut it down but the fact that some things out there were how regard less of how it's been obtained and of course there's a dispute whether it was in fact hacked at all it's still material and the post i think had a right to post it even away whether you agree with it or not shouldn't be the issue the issue is did they have a right to share that information and twitter i think made a mistake and they realize they did and eventually back down they could ban some in from misinformation especially if it's harmful for example covert 19 misinformation or misinformation about voting that could lead someone to not vote that that would be bound by twitter's policy but there's a lot on twitter that's wrong and twitter is not th

have the right, i want to be very clear about this, you have every single right to set your own terms of service and to interpret them and to make decisions about violations. but given the disparate impact of who gets censored on your platforms, it seems you are either one, not enforcing your terms of service equally, or alternatively, two, you are writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints. you certainly have the right to operate your own platform. but you also have to be transparent about your actions at least in the sense that you can't promise certain corporate behavior and then deceive customers through contradictory actions that just blatantly contradict what you stated as your corporate business model or as your policy. mr. zuckerberg and mr. dorsey, if facebook is still a platform for all ideas and if twitter does not use political ideology to make decisions, then do you state before this committee that for the record that you always apply your terms of service equally to all of your users? >> senator, our principle is to stand for free expression and to be a platform for a

to a computer right now and it is very common to violent terms of service to a website, online social media site, you have to tell the truth when you log into facebook and give your real name, a dating service, you have to give your real age. the government's theory lays out the theory that if the government is right, although those acts are federal crimes and the statute is criminalizing everyone and everything -- a little bit of an exaggeration, but not much. this will be coming to the supreme court to figure out what this law means an answer, how we people, as they use computers, are filing this criminal statute and could be arrested and prosecuted. the court has the opportunity to interpretationinterpr about hacking or a broad interpretation. it will come back to congress to come up with answers depending on what the supreme court's interpretation is. robert: let me play editor for a second. do you know if this is the only thing he was charged with, this officer? orin: he was charged with another offense print he was charged with wire fraud. it was a services fraud. robert: