elections. mr. zuckerberg testified before a joint hearing of the senate judiciary and commerce committees. here's a portion of that hearing started with judiciary committee chair senator chuck grassley. >> the history and growth of facebook mirrors that of many of our technological giants founded by mr. zuckerberg in 2004, facebook has exploded over the past 14 years big facebook currently has over 2 billion monthly active users across the world, over 25,000 employees and offices in 13 u.s. cities and various other countries. like their expanding user base the data collected on facebook users has also skyrocketed. they have moved from schools lights and relationship statuses today facebook has access to dozens of data points ranging

from ads that can be clicked on come events you have attended and your location based upon your mobile device. it is no secret that facebook makes money off of data to advertise revenue although many seemed canve used by or altogetr unaware of this. facebook generates $40 billion in revenue in 2017 with about 90% coming from advertising across facebook and instagram. significant data collection is also occurring at google, twitter, apple and amazon and an ever expanding portfolio of products and servicesdu offeredy these companies granted endless opportunities to collect increasing amounts of information on their customers. as we get more free or extremely low cost services the trade-off

for the american consumer is to provide more personal data. the potential for furtherot groh and innovation based on collection of data is limitless. however the potential for abuse is also significant. while the contours of the cambridge analytica situation are still coming to light there was clearly a breach of trust and the likely improper transfer of data. the judiciary committee will hold a separate hearing exploring cambridge and other data privacy issues. more importantly though these events havegh ignited a larger discussion on consumers expectations and the future of data privacy in our society. it has exposed that consumers may not fully understand or

appreciate the extent to which their data is collected, protect it, transferred, used and misused. data has been used in advertising and political campaigns for decades. the amount and type of data obtained however has seen a very dramatic change. campaigns including president bush, obama and trump all use these increasing amounts of data to focus on microtargeting and personalization over numerous social media platforms and especially facebook. in fact, president obama's campaign developed an app utilizing the same facebook feature as cambridge analytica to capture the information of not just the app users but millions of their friends. the digital director for that campaign for 2012 described the

data app is something that would quote wind up being the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for this campaign end of quote. so the effect of ms. of these social media to ask can be made that their use over the past years over the political spectrum and their increased significance cannot be ignored. our policy towards data privacy and security must keep pace with these changes. data privacy should be tendered to consumer needs and expectations. now at a minimum consumers must have the transparency necessary to have an informed decisionor about whether to share their data and how it can be used. consumers ought to have clear information not opaque policies and complex click through

consent pages. the tech industry has an obligation to respond to widespread and growing concerns over data privacy and security and to restore the public's trust. the status quo no longer works. moreover congress must determine if and how we need to strengthen privacy standards to ensure transparency and understanding for the williams of consumers who utilize these products. senator nelson. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg good afternoon. let me just cut to the chase. if you want other social media companies do not get your act in order, none of us are going to have any privacy anymore. that is what we are facing. we are talking about personally identifiableso information thats

not capped by the social media companies from fast--theft of value we have in america teen our personal privacy, we won't have it anymore. it's the advent of technology and of course all of us are part of it. from the moment that we wake up in the morning until we go to bed we are on those handheld tablets and on line companies like facebook are tracking our act to the these and collecting information. facebook has a responsibility to protect those personal information. we had a good discussion yesterday. we went over all of this. you told me that the company had failed to do so.

it's not the first time that facebook has mishandled its users information. the ftc found that facebook's privacy policies had deceived users in the past and in the present case we recognize that cambridge analytica and an ad developer lied to consumers and lied to you and lied to facebook but did facebook watch over the operations? we want to know that. and why didn't facebook notify 87 million users that their personally identifiable information had been taken? and it was being also used, why were they not informed for unauthorized political purposes?

so only f now, and i appreciate our conversation, all may now facebook has pledged to inform those consumers whose accounts were compromised. i think you are genuine. i got that sense and conversing with you. you want to do the right thing. want to enact reforms. we want to know if it's going to be enough and i hope that will be in the answers today. now since we still don't know what cambridge analytica has done with thiss data you heard chairman thune say as we have discussed we want to haul cambridge analytica and to answer these questions at a separate hearing. i want to thank chairman thune for working with all of us on

scheduling a hearing. there's a obviously a great deal of interest in the subject. i hope youma can get to the botm ofri this and if facebook and other on line companies will not or cannot fix the privacy invasions, then we are going to have to week, the congress. how can american consumers trust folks like your company to be caretakers of their most personal and identifiable information. and that is the question. thank you. >> thank you my colleagues and senator nelson. our witness today is mark zuckerberg, founder, chairman, chief executive officer of facebook. mr. zuckerberg's launched facebook february 4, 2004 at the of 19 and at that time he

was a student at harvard university. as i mentioned previously his company now has over 40 billion dollars in annual revenue and over 2 billion monthly active users. mr. zuckerberg along with his wife also established the chance that groberg initiative for philanthropic causes. now i turn to you. welcome to the committee and whatever your statement is orally if you have a longer one that will bee included in the record so proceed sir. chairman grassley chairman thue ranking member feinstein and ranking member nelson and members of the committee we think a number of important issues around. as a safety and democracy. you rightfully have some hard questions for me to answer before i talk about the steps we are taking to address them i want to talk about how we got

here. facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. for most of our existence we have focused on all the good that connecting people can do and is facebook has grown people everywhere have gotten a powerful new tool foror staying connected to the people they love for making their voices heard and foror building communy and businesses. just recently we have seen the #me too movement at the march for our lives organized at least in part on facebook right after hurricane harvey people came together to raise more than $20 million for relief and more than 70 million small businesses use facebook to create p jobs ad grow. but it is clear now that we didn't do enough to prevent these tools are being used for harm is well and that goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections as well as developers data. we didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibilities and that was a big mistake.

it was my mistake and i am sorry i started facebook. i run it and i'm responsible for what happens. now we have to go through all of our relationships with people and make sure we are taking a broad enough view of our responsibility. it's not enough to connectio people, we have to make sure that those connections are positive. it's not enough just to give people a voice. we need to make sure that people aren't using it to harm other people or to spread misinformation. it's not enough to give people control over their information. we need to make sure developers they share with protect their information too rate across-the-board we have a responsibility to not just build tools that make sure they are used for good. it won't take some time to work for all the changes we need to make across the company but i'm committed to getting this right. this includes the basic

responsibility of protecting people's information which we failed to do that cambridge analytica. here are a few things we are doing to address this and to prevent it from happening again. first, we are getting to the bottom of exactlym what cambride analytica did an telling everyone affected. what we know now is cambridge analytica improperly accessed information about millions of facebook members by buying it from eight--that information information--this was information that people generally share publicly on their facebook pages like names and the pages they follow. when we first contacted cambridge analytica they told us they deleted the data. about a month ago we heard new reports that suggested that was not true and now we are working with governments in the u.s. and the uk and around the world to do a full audit of what they have done to make sure they get rid of any data they may still

have. second, to make sure no other ad developers are misusing data we are now investigating every single ad that have access to a large amount of information the past and if we find someone improperly used the data we will ban them from facebook and tell everyone affected. third to prevent this from ever happening again going forward we are making sure developers can not access as much information now. the good news is we have already made changes to our platform in 2014 that would have prevented this specific situation with cambridge analytica from occurring again today. there is more to do and you can find more details in my written statement. my top priority has always been our social mission of connecting people, building community and bringing the world together. advertisers and developers will never take priority over that as long as i'm running facebook.

i started facebook when i was in college. it's come a long way since then. we now serve within 2 billion people around the world and every day people use our services to stay connected to the people that matter to them the most. i believe deeply in what we are doing and i know that when we address these challenges we wily look back and helping people correct--connecting giving more people a voice as a positive force in the world. i realize the issues are just facebook issues and are committed to their issues and challenges for all of us in america. thank you for having me here today and i'm ready to take your questions. >> i will remind members that maybe weren't here when i have my opening comments that we are operating under the five-minute rule and that applies--the five-minute rule and that applies to those ofg us who are chairing the committee as well.

let's start with you. facebook handles an extensive amount of personal data. a significant amount of that data is shared with third-party users who utilize your platform. as of w early this year you did not actively monitorou whether that data was transferred by such developers to other parties. moreover your policy only prohibits transfers bytes developers to party seeking to process such data. number one besides professor kogan's transfer and now potentially--do you know of any instances where use a data was improperly transferred to third party in breach of facebook's terms? hasim that'sy times happened and was facebook only made aware of that transfer by some third-party?

>> mr. chairman, thank you. as i mentioned we are now conducting a full investigation into every single app that hasn't access to a large amount of information. therefore we locked down platforms and prevent authors from accessing this information 2014. believe we will be investigating many apps, tens of thousands of apps andnd if we find suspicious that to be we will conduct a full audit of those apps to understand how their using their data. if they are doing anything improper we will ban them from facebook and tell everyone affected but as for past activity i don't have all the examples but if you would like i can have my team follow up. >> have you ever required an audit to ensure that the mission of improperly transferred data and if so how many times? >> mr. chairman, yes we have. i don't have the exact figure on how many times we have but

overall the way we have enforced their platform policies in the past is we have looked at patterns of how apps user api and access their information as well as look into reports of people have made about people doing sketchy things. going forward will take a more proactive decision on this and do much more regular spot checks and reviews of apps as well as increasing the amount of audits that we do and again i can make sure that her team follows up with you on anything about the specific past stats that would be interesting. >> i was going to assume sitting here today you have no idea and if i'm wrong on that and you were telling me that you were able to supply those figures to us at least as of this point. >> mr. chairman nye will have my team follow up with you on what information we have. >> okay but right now you have no certainty on how much of that

is going on, right? facebook collects massive amounts of data from consumers including content, networks, contact lists, device information, location information from third parties get your data l policies are ony 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 emphasized 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 those 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 exact to help information that they

share on facebook is going to be used. that's why everyw single time yu go to share something on facebook whether it's a photo on facebook or a message in messenger what's app every single time if there's a control about who you'll be sharing it with whether it's your friends or the public or specific group a control that in-line. your broader point about the privacy policy this gets into an issue that i think we and others in the tech industry have found challenging which is that policies are very confusing if you make it long and spell out the details you'll make it acceptable--unacceptable to them to the things we have to struggle with overtime is to make something as simple as possible so people can understand it as well as giving them control of the product taking into account they don't

expect most people will want to go through and read a full legal document. >> senator nelson. >> thank you mr. chairman. yesterday when we talked i gave a relatively harmless example that i am communicating with my friends on facebook and indicate that i love a certain kind of chocolate and all of a sudden i start receiving advertisements for chocolate. what if i don't want to receive those commercial advertisements? so your chief operating officer ms. sandberg suggested on the nbc today show that facebook users who do not want their personal information used for advertising might have to pay for that protection, pay for it

that youg actually are considering having facebook users pay for you not to use that information? >> senator people have the control over how their information is used in ads in the products today so if you want to have an experience where your ads aren't targeted using all the information we have available you can turn off third party information. what we have found t is that evn though some people don't like ads, people really don't like ads that aren't relative and while there is some discomfort for sure with using information in making ads more relevant the overwhelming feedback we get from our community is people would rather have us show relative content there than not. control that you are referencing. some people use it.

not the majority of people on facebook. i think what cheryl was saying in order to not run ads at all we still have a business model. >> and that is your business model so i take it that, and i use the harmless example of chocolate but if it got into more personalt things communicating with friends, and i want to cut it off i am going to have to pay you in order not to send o me using my personal information something that i don't want. that's in essence is what i understood ms. sandberg to say. is that correct? >> yes senator though to be clear we don't offer an option for people to not show ads. we think offering ads is the most aligned with the mission of

trying to connect everyone in the world because we want to offer a free service that everyone can afford. that's the only wayig we can reh billions of people. >> so therefore you consider my personally identifiable data the company's data, my--not my data. it said that? >> no, senator. the first lines of our service say you can control and all the information and conduct you put on facebook. >> the recent scandal is obviously frustrating not only because it affected 87 million but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years so back in 2011 it was a settlement with the ftc and now we discover yet another instance where the data was failed to be protected.

when he discovered cambridge analytica had fraudulently obtained all of this information why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> what we learned in 2015 had thought data from an app anveloper on facebook the people and shared it with we did take action. we took down the app and we demanded the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect it was clearly a mistake to believe them and we should have followed up and done a full audit than and that is not a mistake we will make. >> yes you did that and you apologized for it but you didn't notify t them and do you think that you haven't ethical obligation to notify 87 million facebook users?

>> senator when we heard back from cambridge analytica that they m had told us they weren't using the data and delete a bit we considered it a closed case. a retrospect that was clearly a mistake and we shouldn't have taken their word for it and we have updated our policy and how we would operate a company to make sure we don't make that mistake again. >> didta anybody notify the ftc? >> no senator for the same reason. we considered it a closed case. >> mr. zuckerberg would you do that different today i presumaby in response to senator nelson's question? >> yes. >> this may be her first appearance before congress but is it's not the first time that facebook has faced toughth questions about its privacy policies. "wired" magazine recently noted you have a 14 year history of apologizing for it would rise decisions regarding user privacy not unlike the one you made just

now on your opening statement. after more than a decade or promises to doni better how is today's apology different and why should we trust facebook to make the necessary changes to ensure user privacy to give people a clearer picture of your privacy policies? >> thank you mr. chairman. we have made a lot of mistakes in running the company. think it's pretty much. impossible i believe to start a company in your dorm room and grow it to the scale we are at now without making some mistakes and because our service is about helping people connect that information those mistakes have been different and we try not to makee the same mistake multiple times but in general a lot of mistakes are around the--just because the nature of the service. overall we arebe going for broar philosophical shifts. for the first 10 or 12 years of

the company i viewed our responsibility is primarily a building tool and if we could put those tools in peoples hands that would empower people to do good things. what i think we havee learned nw across a number of issues not just data privacy but also fake news and foreign interference in elections is we need to take a more correct roll in broader view of our responsibility. we need to make sure they are used for good and out means we need to now take a more at if you and policing the ecosystem and in watching and looking out and making sure all of the members of our community are using these tools in a way that will be good and healthy. at the end of the day this is going to be something where people will measure uss by our results. it's not that i expected to necessarily change people's view but i'm committed too getting this right and i believe over the coming years once we work all these solutions throughte people will see evidence.

>> i am glad you all have gotten that message. as we discussed in my office yesterday the line between legitimate clinical discourse and hate l speech can sometimese hard to identify especially relying on artificial intelligence and other technology y through discovery. can you discuss what steps facebook currently takes in making these evaluation's and challenges you face in examples where you may draw the line between what is and what is not hate speech? >> yes mr. chairman. i will talk about hate speech and then i will talk about enforcing our policies moreat broadly. h actually if you're okay with that i will go in the other way. from the beginning of the company in 2004 i started it in my dorm room, me and my roommate. we didn't have the technology that looked at content people were sharing so we basically had

to enforce our content policy reactively. people could share what they wanted and then have someone in the community found it to be offensive or against our policy we would look at reactively. now increasingly we are developing ai tools that can identifywo certain classes of bd it to the proactively and fly get to our team at facebook. by the end of the year by the way we will have 20,000 people working on security and content review. when content flags as those people look at it and we take it down. some problems lend themselves more easily to ai inclusion than others. hate speech is one of theem hardest because determining if something is hate speech is very linguistically nuanced but you need too understand what is a slur and whether something is

hateful not just in english but the majority of people on facebook uses it in languages that are different across the world. contrast that with an area like finding terrorist propaganda which we have been very successful at deploying ai tools on already. today as we sit here 99% of the data content we have picked up on this book ai is full flags. that is success in terms of rolling out ai tools that camp proactively police and enforce safety across the community. hate speech i am optimistic that over a fiber tenure period we will have aii tools that can get into the nuances and linguistic nuances of different types of content and flagging things for system but today we are just not there on that. people fly get to us and we have people look at it. we have policies but until we

get a more automated there's a higher errore rate and i'm happy with. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg what is facebook doing to prevent foreign actors from interfering in u.s. elections? >> thank you senator. this is one of my top priorities and 2018 is to get this right. one of my greatest regrets in running the companies that we were slow in identifying the russian informationeg operations in 2016. we expected them to do a number of more traditional cyber attack's which we can identify and notify the campaigns if they were trying to hack into them but slow in identifying the type of new information operation. >> when did you identify new operations?s. >> it was right around the time of the 2016 election itself. since then, 2018 is an incredibly important year for us not in just the u.s. midterms

are around the world there are important elections in india brazil mexico pakistan and hungary and we want to make sure we do everything to protect the integrity of those elections. i have more confidence that we will get this right because since the 2016 election there've been several important elections around the world or we have had a better record prepares the french election the german election the special senate election in alabama last year. we deployed new ai tools that do a better job of identifying fake accounts that may be trying to interfere in elections or spread misinformation. between those three elections we were able to proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts that the four they could create significant harm. .. people in russia whose job it is is to try 20 exploit our systems and

other internet systems as well sochlt this is an arms race. they are going to keep on getting better at this and we need to invest at getting better at this too. which is why one of the things i mentioned before we'll have more than 20,000 people by the >> what about automated bots that spread disinformation. what are you doing to punish those that exploit your platform in that regard? >> you are not allowed to have a fake account on facebook. your content has to be authentic. we build technical tools to identify when people are making large networks of fake accounts to remove the content. after the election our top priority was protecting the integrity about their elections run the world. we also had a parallel effort to trace back to russia the ira

activity that part of the russian government did this activity in 2016. last week we determined a number of russian media organizations were sanctioned by the regular were operated and controlled by the internet research agency. we took a big step last week in taking down sanctioned news organizations to remove 270 fake accounts and pages those not targeting international interference. let me correct that. primarily targeting misinformation in russia and certain russia speaking neighboring countries pgh so, and accounts of this type of be taken down? >> the ones that we have gone back to the ira, we can identify 470 in the american elections in

270 in russia last week. others that are systems catch are more difficult to attribute specifically to russian intelligence. the number would be in the tens of thousands of fake accounts. we can follow-up the that would be helpful. >> please do. if you knew in 2015 that came rich analytic a was using information of professors, i didn't facebook ban cambridge in 2015? why did you wait. >> great question. they were not using our services in 2015 as far as we can tell. it's one of the questions i asked is why did we wait until he found out the reports last month. the time we learned about their activity they weren't an

advertiser or running pages. we had nothing to ban. >> thank you. i know senator hatch. >> this is the most intense public scrutiny i have seen for a tech related hearing since the microsoft hearing i shared in the 1990s. the recent stories about cambridge analytical and data mining raise serious concerns about consumer privacy. naturally i know you understand that. these touch on the foundation of the internet economy in the way the websites make money. some say they're shocked that companies like facebook and google share user data with advertisers. did they ask why facebook and google don't charge for access?

nothing in life is free. if you want something without having to pay money for it you have to pay for it in another way. that's what we're seeing here. these websites that don't charge for access they extract value in other ways. there's nothing wrong with lance there out front with what they're doing. the issue is transparency and consumer choice. to be users understand what they're agreed to or with the terms of service? our websites up front on how they abstract data. two consumers have the information they need to make a case choice. to my mind these are questions we should ask or be focusing on. i remember your first visit to

capitol hill in 2010. he spoke to the republican task force which i chair. he said then facebook would always be free. is that still your objective? >> yes. there will always be a free version of facebook. it's our mission to help connect others. we believe we need to offer service everyone can afford. >> how do you sustain a business model where users don't pay for service? >> we run ads. >> whenever controversy arises there's a danger that the responses to step in and over regulate. that's the experience in my 42 years. what legislative changes would help solve the problems that the story has revealed and what

changes would not help resolve the issue? >> there a few categories of legislation that makes sense to consider. around privacy there's a few principles that it would be useful to discuss and codify into law. one is having a simple and practical set of ways to explain what you're doing with data. around the complexity of a privacy policy it's hard to say if people understand it if it's in the long legal document. needs to be where consumers can understand it. can also capture nuances of how the services work that's not overly restrictive. that's one.

the second is giving people complete control. this is most important principle. every piece of content to share you own and have complete control over who sees it and how you share. you can remove it at any time. about a hundred billion times a day people come to the services i neither post a photo or send a message. they know they have that contr control. that control is important and should apply to every service. the third point is around enabling innovation. some of these cases are very sensitive like face recognition. i know there's a balance that's important to strike where you obtain special consent for special features like face

recognition but we still need to make it so american companies can innovate or will fall behind competitors and others who had different regimes for different features. >> to you know who paul -- it. >> i do some people have referred to them as stanford analytical. do you agree? >> i have not heard that. >> do you think they taught cambridge analytical? on how to do these tactics? >> senator, i don't know. >> to think they have ever scrape data from facebook? >> i am not aware of that. >> do you think during the 2016

campaign as cambridge analytical was running support to the trump campaign under project alamo, with their facebook people involved in that sharing of technique and information? >> we provided support to the trump campaign similar to what we provide to any advertiser or campaign who asked for. >> so, that's a yes? >> can you repeat the specific question. >> during the 2016 campaign cambridge analytical worked with the trump campaign to refine tactics and were facebook employees about that? >> i don't know if they were involved with cambridge analytical. we did help out the trump campaign overall the same as we do with other campaigns.

>> they may have been involved in? maybe that's something investigation will find out. >> i can have my team get back to on specifics i don't know. >> have you heard of total information awareness. >> no, i do not. >> total information awareness was 2003, john asked others doing similar things behind this. geopolitical forces trying to influence a process. when i look at what they're doing and that what sap and where you are from the 2011 consent decree and where you are today, i'm wondering if this guys outfoxing the foxes are

going along with a major tread in the information age. my question to you is, do you see those applications on those companies will fall into the same situation that you have just fallen into over the past several years? >> senator, i am not sure specifically. overall, i think the issues around information access are challenging. to the specifics about those not that familiar with what they do. what sap collects very little information. and is less likely to have issues because of the way the issues are architected. these are broad issues across the tech industry. >> given the track record of where facebook is people might say they did not act boldly and

the fact that people like john bolton was basically an investor in a new york times article earlier maybe last month that they were obsessed with how america was becoming spineless and wanted research and messaging for security issues. there are a lot of people interested in the larger effort. what my constituents want to know is if it was discussed at your board meeting and what are the applications and interest that are being discussed without putting real teeth into this. i believe you have the talent, my question is have the will to help us solve the problem.

>> data privacy end for an interference in elections are topics we discussed at the board meetings. their big issues we have faced. we face a huge responsibility to get these right. >> to think european regulation should be a plied in the u.s. >> i believe everybody deserves good security protection. regardless if we implement the same regulation of guessing it would be a little different. we are committed to rolling out the controls and affirmative consent on the special controls around sensitive technology like face recognition that are required. it's worth discussing if we should have something similar.

we are going to go forward and implement it regardless. >> thank you for being with us. my question will be a follow-up on what senator hatch was talking about. let me agree with his advice that we do not want to over regulate to the point were stifling innovation and investment. i understand with regard to suggested rules for legislation at least two schools of thought outsider. one is the isp, the internet service providers who are advocating for privacy protections for consumers that apply to all online entities

equally across entire ecosystem. facebook is an edge provider. many edge providers may not support that effort because they have different business models than the isps and should not be considered like services. do we need consistent privacy protections for consumers across the internet ecosystem based on the type of user information used or shared regardless of the entity doing the collecting? >> this is an important question. i would differentiate between isps which are the pipes of the internet and the platforms like facebook google or twitter that

are the apps or platforms on that. in general the expectations people have are different from the platforms. there could be areas where there needs to be more regulation specifically on the pipes, an important issue that we face and debated. >> when you say pipe seemingly isps. >> not neutrality has been a hotly debated topic. one reason i have been out there saying it should be the cases i look at my own story when i was getting started building facebook at harvard. i only had one option for an isp. if i had to pay extra to make it semi- app could be seen then we would be here today.

>> will have to follow up on this but i think we agree it will be a major item of debate if we have to do this from a governmental standpoint. is it true is as recently publicized that facebook collects the call and text histories of its users they use android phones? >> we have an app called messenger for sending messages to your facebook friends. that has an option to sink their text messages into the messaging app and make it see have one app with both your text and your facebook messages in one place. >> can you opt in or out of the. >> it is often.

you have to say that you want to think that information. >> unless you opt in you don't collect that call and text history. >> that's correct. >> is this done with minors or to make an exception for those age 13 - 17? >> i don't know. we can follow up. >> there's been reports that facebook can track your facebook browser activity even after you have logged off of the facebook platform. can you confirm if that is true? >> i want to make sure this is accurate. >> i know people uses cookies on the internet and you can correlate activity between sessions. we do that for reasons including

security and measuring ants to make sure that experiences are the most effective. >> it back to me. also let us know how facebook discloses its users that engaging in this tracking gives us that result. >> thank you. i assume facebook has served subpoenas for special counsel women's office, sacred? >> have you or anyone been interviewed by the special counsel's office? >> yes i have not. >> others have.

>> i want to be careful because that our work with the special counsel is confidential and i want to make sure in an open session i'm not revealing something confidential. >> i just want to make sure that you have been contacted and have subpoenas. >> i'm not aware of a subpoena. there may be. >> six months ago general counsel promised us you are taking steps to prevent facebook for -- but these unverified pages on facebook today. they look like a lot like a russian agency use this propaganda during the 2016 election.

are you able to confirm if there russian created? >> about those specifically? >> last week we announced a major change to our policies that will verify the identity of every advertiser. >> i'm not familiar with those content specifically. >> if you decided this policy a week ago you could verify them? >> we will verify the identity of any advertiser running the ad and were following that. also do that for pages. >> find out the answer and get back to me.

>> it's worth adding we will to the same verification of the identity and location of advance running large pages. even if they won't buy ads will make it harder for russian interference effort or other it in. >> six months ago asked general counsel about facebook's roles for hate speech. against the refugees. recently you were investigated and blame facebook for inciting genocide in miramonte. this is the type of content reported. it calls for the death of a muslim journalists.

the threat one straight through your detection system and spread quickly and then it turned attempt after attempt newborn to get you to remove it. why can of it been removed within 24 hours? >> was happening in the in mars a terrible tragedy. >> we agree with that. but investigators claim facebook were playing a role in the genocide. we all agree it's terrible. how can you dedicate resources to make sure such hate speech is taken down within 24 hours. >> there are three things were doing.

were hiring dozens of more burmese language content reviewers. hate speech is hard to do without those who speak the language. working with civil society and me and my to identify specific hate figures to take down their accounts and third. >> on ask about chinese censorship. i want to know you will do about chinese censorship when they come to. >> senator graham is up next. >> are you familiar with andrew

boswell? >> yes i am. >> he said so we connect more people, maybe someone dies senators terrorist attack the ugly truth is we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connects people more often is no good. do you agree with that? >> i do not. as boz wrote that as an internal note, we have a lot of discussion internally and i disagreed with it at the time. >> they did a poor job communicating your displeasure as if he understood where you're at it would have never set it to begin with.

>> we try to run our company where people can discuss opinions internally. >> this is disturbing. who's your biggest competitor can i give a bunch? there are three categories to focus on. one is the other tech plaque form google, microsoft to make sure they overlap. >> to they provide the same service? >> if i buy a ford and it don't work well i can buy chevy. if i'm upset with facebook with the equivalent product i can sign up for? >> the second category. >> i'm not talking about categories. a real competition you face.

car companies have a lot of competition. and then alternative to facebook in the private sector. >> yes, the average american uses a different apps to communicate and stay in touch ranging from. >> we provide a number of different. >> is twitter the same? >> it overlaps. >> you don't think you have a monopoly? >> it's really doesn't feel like had to me. >> it doesn't? instagram, why did you buy instagram? >> they are very talented app developers making good use of our platform.

>> my point is, one way to regulated companies through competition, through government regulation. will go to a taller constituents given what has happened, why we should let you self regulate. but would you tell people given what we discovered that it's a good idea for us to allow you to regulate your business practices. >> my position is not that there shouldn't be regulation. >> i think the real question is internet becomes more important this was the right regulation. >> to welcome regulation. >> if it's the right one. >> to think your parents had it right? >> i think they get things right. >> which you work with us in terms of what regulations you think is necessary. >> absolutely. >> would you submit to us some some proposed regulations? >> yes. i'll have my team write

something up. >> when you sign up for facebook you sign up for terms of servi service, it says the terms governing the use of facebook and everything we offer except when we state that separate terms and that these apply. have no idea what that means. when you look at terms of service this is what you get. does the average consumer understand what they sign it for? >> i don't think the average person likely reads that document. there's different ways to communicate that. >> degree that you better come up with different ways could this is not working. >> in certain areas that's true but in other areas of the core part of what we do at the most basic level, people come to

these apps about 100 billion times a day to share content or message with a set of people. that basic functionality people understand and given the volume of the activity what people tell us are getting i think that control seems to be working well. we close to better. services are complex and there's more to just pushing a photo. for the core of the service is quite clear. >> thank you. >> i think we agree that what happened was bad. you acknowledge it's a brief of trust. i explained that if someone breaks into my apartment with a crowbar and take my stuff it's

just like if the manager gave them a key, it's still a breach. it's still a break in. i believe we need laws and rules sophisticated as the brilliant products you've developed. we haven't done that yet. i focused on the election. i appreciate the support you and twitter have given to the on the stats act has we work to pass the sauce we had rules in place to have the same as for tv and radio and disclaimers that you will take early action us in his june so people can view these ads including issue ads. >> that's correct. i want to thank you for your leadership on this.

important area for the industry to board. the specific things are doing, one is run transparency. now you can go click on any advertiser in cvs they are running. that brings advertising online to a higher standard than what you have on tv because there's nowhere you can see all the tv ads someone is running. you cannot see them on facebook whether this campaigner third party is saying different messages to different people. that's important element. the others about verifying every advertiser clouds. >> i have called google and other platforms to do the same. we have to get this done or we will have a patchwork of ads.

will be working with us to pass the spell. >> on the subject of cambridge analytic a, were these people concentrated on certain states? can you figure out where their front? >> i don't have that information with me but we can follow up with your office. >> we know the election was close and when others only thousands of votes in certain states. have you determined whether any people with the same facebook users whose data was shared with cambridge analytic a? >> were investigating it now. we believe it's possible there's a connection.

>> former cambridge analytic a employee said the data it improperly obtained from facebook users could be stored in russia, do you agree that's a possibility? >> are you asking if cambridge analytic data could be stored in russia? >> i do not have any specific knowledge that would suggest that, one thing we need to do is go to a full audit to understand what they're doing to make sure they remove all their data. that audit we have temporarily ceded that to let the u.k. government complete their investigation. work committed to completing this audit so we can have more

answers. >> he stated publicly in here you would support privacy rules so everyone playing by the same rules. you also said you should have notified customers earlier. we you support a rule to notify your users of a breach within 72 hours? >> that make sense to me. i think we should have our team follow-up to discuss details. >> think part of this is people don't even know their data is breached it's a huge problem. thank you. we look for to passing this bill. we would love to pass it before the election. looking forward to better disclosure.

>> thank you mr. chairman. it's nice to see. when i saw you not too long after i entered the senate i told you in a semi- business cards to be printed they came back from the print shop with a message is the first business card they ever printed a facebook address on. there are days when i have regretted the there's days when i wonder if some things are a little misstated. the platform you have created is important. my son charlie whose 13 is dedicated to instagram. he would want to make sure i mention that. i think we have that ask account as well. the information is an important commodity. it's what makes your business

work. however i wonder about the collection efforts and may be we can go through more expansive discussions. do you collect user data through cross device tracking? >> i believe we link people's accounts between devices to make sure their experiences can be synced. >> and that would include off-line data tracking that's not necessarily linked to facebook but some device they went through facebook. >> i want to get this right. i have my team follow-up. >> that doesn't seem that complicated. maybe you can explain why that's complicated.

do you track devices that an individual uses facebook has that's connected to the device they use for their facebook connection but not necessarily connected to facebook. >> i'm not sure the answer. >> really? >> there may be some data necessary to provide the service we do but i do not have that sitting here today. >> the ftc flaked cross device tracking is a concern. generally that people are tracking devices like the users of something like facebook don't mother being tracked. how do you disclose your collection methods is that all in this document i would see and agree to?

>> there's two ways. we tried to be exhaustive in the legal documents. more importantly we try to provide in-line controls in plain english for people to understand. they their go to settings or go to the top of the up so they understand all the controls and settings i have and can configure their experience the way they were. >> people now give you permission to track specific devices in their contract. is that a new addition to what you do? >> in my say it's okay for you to track what i'm saying on facebook but i don't want you to track what i'm texting to someone else off facebook on an android.

>> yes, in general facebook is not collecting data from other apps you use. there might be specific things about a device or using that we need to understand. but if you're using google or some texting at, unless you opt in that you want to share the texting app information, 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 we might communicate. >> that's how the mobile operating systems are architected. >> so you do not have bundled permissions for how i can agree to what devices i may use that you may have contact with.

>> do bundle that permission? or can i individually say what i'm willing for you to watch a what i don't watch you watch? i think we might have to take that for the record. >> mr. zuckerberg, would you share with us the name of the hotel you stayed in leslie? >> , no. >> if you message somebody this seat week which is share the names of the people you messaged. >> now, i would probably not choose to do that public here. >> i think that might be what this is about. your right to privacy, the limits of your right to privacy, and how much you give away i

modern america in the name of connecting people around the world. a question of what information facebook is collecting, who there sending it to and if they asked me in advance. is that a fair think for a user to expect? >> i think everyone should have control oveir information is use. i think it's laid out in some documents but you also want to get people control in the product itself. most importantly this happens is every day people choose to share photos or messages. when they choose to control it. >> you certainly know within the facebook pages for their friends are, but you may not know in the

past that sometimes that information is going beyond their friends and sometimes people made money off of sharing that information. >> here referring to our developer platform. it might be useful to talk about how to set that up. >> maybe you can do that for the record. you recently announced there's something called messenger kids, facebook created an app the for kids between the ages of six and 12 to show video and messages. they have cartoonlike stickers to appeaeal to little kids, first-graders think the gardeners. on january 30 the child development organizations warned

facebook implanted to research talking about all this social media is harmful and argued that children are not ready to handle social media accounts at age six. there's concerned about data being gathered. there certain limits which is the online privacy protection act. what guarantees can you give us that no data from messenger kids is or will be collected or shared with those who could violate the law? . . here. the background on messenger kids is we heard feedback from thousands of parents that they want to be able to stay in touch with their kid and call them, use apps like facetime when they are working late and not around with their kids and want to have complete control over, that so i think we can all agree when your kid is 6 or 7, even if they have

access to a phone a minimum amount of information that is necessary to operate the service. for example messages that people send. it is something we collect in order to operate the service. in general the data is not going to be shared with third parties. it is not connected to the broader facebook -- >> excuse me i picked up on the word or phrase, in general. he seems to suggest in some circumstances it will be shared with third parties. >> no, it will not. >> would you be open to the idea of someone having that age growing up with messenger kids should be able to delete the data you have collected? >> senator, yes! as a matter fact, when you become 13 which is our legal limit. we cannot allow people under the age of 13 to use facebook. you do not automatically go from having a messenger kid

account to a facebook account. you have to start over and get a facebook account. it is a good idea to consider making sure all that information is deleted. general schedule will be starting over when they get there facebook or other account. >> illinois has a biometric information privacy act. our state does. which is commercial use of facial, voice, fender and iris scans and the like. we are now in debate on that. i'm afraid facebook has come a down to a position trying to carve out exceptions to that. hope you will fill me in on how that is consistent with protecting privacy. thank you. >> thank you senator, senator cornyn. >> thank you for being here. up until 2014, the mantra or model of facebook was moved fast and break things. is that correct? >> i do not know when we changed it. but the mantra is currently

moved fast with able infrastructure. which is a much less sexy mantra. >> sounds much more boring. my question is, during the time they was facebook mantra or motto to move fast in great things. do you think some of the misjudgments, perhaps, mistakes that you have admitted to here, were a result of that culture or that attitude? particularly with regards to personal privacy and information of your subscribers? >> senator, i do think that we made mistakes because of that. but the broadest mistakes that we made here are not taking a broad enough view of our responsibility. and while -- the move fast cultural value is more tactical around whether engineers can ship things and different ways that we operate. i think the big mistake that we have made looking back on this is during our responsibility as just building tools rather than viewing our whole responsibility is making sure

that those tools are used for good. and i appreciate that. because previously, or earlier, in the past we have been told that platforms like facebook, twitter, instagram, or neutral platforms and the people who own and run those, for profit. i'm not criticizing doing something for profit in this country. but they bore no responsibility for the content. do you agree, now that facebook and other social media platforms are not neutral platforms but bear some responsibility for the content? >> i agree we are responsible for the content. and i think that one of the big societal questions i think we will need to answer is, the current framework that we have, is based on this reactive model that assumes there were not ai

tools that could proactively tell whether something was terrorist content or something bad. so it naturally relied on requiring people to flag for a company and the company y takin reasonable action. in future we will have tools that are going to be able to identify more types of bad content and i think that there are moral and legal obligation questions that i think we will have to wrestle with as a society about when we want to require companies to take action proactively on certain things. >> i appreciate that. i have two minutes left. to ask you questions. interestingly, the terms of the, the terms of service is a legal document which discloses to your subscribers, how the information will be used, how facebook is going to operate. and but you concede that you doubt everybody reads or understands that terms of

service. is not to suggest that the consent that people give subject to that terms of service is not informed consent? in other words, they may not read it. and even if they read they may not understand it? >> i just think we have a broader responsibility than what the law requires. >> i appreciate that. what i'm asking about in terms of what your subscribers understand in terms of how their data is going to be used. but let me go to the terms of service under paragraph number two. he said that you own all the content and information you post on facebook. that is is here today. a number of times. so if i choose to terminate my facebook account, can i are facebook or any third parties from using the data that i have previously supplied for any

purpose whatsoever? >> yes, senator. if you delete your account we should get rid of all of your information. >> you should or you do? >> we do. >> how about third parties that you ouhave contracted with to u information two perhaps to target advertising for themselves. you can't, do you called back that information as well? or does that remain in their? >> this is actually very important question and i think there is a misconception that we sell data to advertisers. and we do not. >> you rent it. >> what we allow eggs for advertisers to tell us who they want to reach and we do the placement. if an advertiser comes and says all right, i am a ski shop and i want to sell skis to women. then we might have some sense because people shared skiing

related content or so they were interested in that. they shared whether there every woman and that we can show the ads three people without that data ever changing hands and going to the advertiser. it is a a very fundamental part of how our model works and often misunderstood. i appreciate that you brought it up. >> thank you, senator. we indicated early on that we would take a couple of breaks to give the witness an opportunity. i think we've been going out for just under two hours. so i think we will do. >> we can do a few more. >> do you want to keep going? >> maybe 15 minutes? >> okay we will keep going. senator blumenthal is up next. we will commence. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today, mr. zuckerberg. you have told told the world t facebook was deceived by alexander cogan when he sold user information to cambridge analytica, correct?

>> yes. i want to show you the terms of service that alexander cogan an provided to facebook. and note for you, that in fact, facebook was on notice that he does so that information. have you seen these terms of service before? >> i have not. who facebook was responsible for saying those terms of service that put you on notice? that the information could be sold? >> senator, our review team would be responsible for that. >> has anyone been fired on the review team? >> senator, not because of this. class doesn't that term of service conflict with the ftc

order? that facebook was under at that very time that this term of service was in fact, provided to facebook and we will note that the ftc order specifically requires facebook to protect privacy. isn't there a conflict there? appears that we should have been aware that this app developer submitted a term that was in conflict with the rules of the platform. >> what happened here, was in effect, willful blindness. it was heedless and reckless, which in fact, amounted to a violation of the ftc consent decree. would you agree? >> no, senator. my understanding is that it is not this is a violation of the consent decree. as i said a couple of times i

think we need to take a broader view. -- interrupting e for but my time is limited. we have seen the apology tour as before. you have refused to acknowledge even an ethical obligation to have reported this violation of the ftc consent decree. and we have letters, we have had contacts with facebook employees and i will submit a letter for the record from sandy --, with your permission. it indicates not only a lack of resources but lack of intention to privacy. and so, my reservation about your testimony today, is that i don't see how you can change your business model unless there are specific rules of the

road, your business model is to -- maximize this and unless there's rules and requirements enforced by an outside agency, i have no assurance that these kinds of commitments are going to produce action.i want to ask you a couple of very specific questions. and they are based on legislation that i have offered in my data app. legislation that one of the senders is introducing a pretty consent act which i enjoy. don't you agree that companies ought to be required to provide users with clear, plain information about how their data will be used and specific ability to consent to the use of that information?

>> senator, i do generally agree with what you are saying. and i have laid them out earlier when i talked about what -- >> would you agree to an opt in as opposed to an opt out? >> senator, i think that certainly makes sense to discuss anything the details around this matter a lot. which i agree that -- >> uses should be able to access all of their information. >> senator, yes, of course.>> all of the information you collect as a result of purchases from data brokers as well as tracking them. >> senator, we have already a download your information tools allows people to see and take out all of the information bth facebook, that they have put into facebook or that facebook knows about them. so yes, i agree about that. i already have that. >> i have another specific request that you agree to support as part of legislation.

think legislation is necessary, the rules of the road have to be a result of congressional action. t we have facebook has participated recently in the fight against the scourge of sex trafficking and the bill that we just passed that will be signed into law tomorrow, it's to stop exploiting sex trafficking act as a result of our cooperation. i hope that we can cooperate on this kind of measure as well. >> senator, i look forward to having my teamwork with you on this. >> thank you. >> tsenator cruz. >> thank you mr. zuckerberg fo being here. does facebook consider itself a neutral public forum? >> senator, we consider ourselves to be a platform for all ideas. >> let me ask the question again.we consider itself to be neutral with form and representatives of your company have given conflicting answers

on this. you are expressing your views or you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak? >> senator, here is how we think about this. i do not believe that -- there is certain content we clearly do not allow. hate speech, terrorist contents, nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community.from that perspective, that is what we generally tried to refer to what we do as a platform -- >> time is constrained. it is just a simple question. the predicate section 230 immunity under the cda is that you are a neutral public forum. do you consider yourself a neutral public forum are you engaged in political speech which is your right under the first amendment? >> senator, our goal is not to engage in political speech. i'm not familiar with the specific legal language caof th law that you speak to. so i would need to follow-up with you on that. i'm just trying to lay out how

broadly i think about this. >> mr. zuckerberg i will say that there are a great many americans who i think are deeply concerned that facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship. there have been numerous instances with facebook in may 2016 where they reported that facebook had purposely removed stories including about cpac and romney and the lowest learner irs scandal including stories about glenn beck. in addition they have shut down the chick-fil-a appreciation day page as blocked opposed to a fox news reporter. they have blocked over two dozen catholic pages and most recently, blocked trump supporters -- after determining content and groundwork quote - unsafe to the community.

a great many americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. do you agree with this? >> let me say a few things about this. first, i understand where the concern is coming from because facebook and the tech industry are in silicon valley which is an extremely left-leaning place. this is a concern i have and i tried to root out in the company as making sure that we do not have any bias in the work that we do. i think it is a fair concern that people would -- >> let me ask hithis. are you aware of any ad or page that has been taken down from planned parenthood? >> senator, i am not. but let me just -- >> how about moveon.org? how about any democratic candidate mofor office? >> i'm not specifically aware. i am not sure.

>> in your testimony say that you have 15 to 20,000 people working on security and content review. do you know the political orientation of those 15 to 20,000 people engaged and content review? >> no, senator. we do not generally ask people about their political orientation when they are joining the company. >> as ceo have your men hiring or firing decisions based on political decisions or candidates they supported? >> no request why was palmer lucky fire? >> that is a specific personnel matter this is that you will be inappropriate. >> made a specific representation you did i make decisions based on political views. >>i can commit that was not because of a political view . >> dino of the 15 to 20,000 people engaged in content review, how many, if any, have ever supported financially a republican cocandidate for office? >> senator, i do not eknow tha. >> your testimony says it is not enough that we just connect people.

we have to make sure the connections are positive. it says we have to make sure that people are not using their voice to hurt people or spread misinformation. we have a responsibility not just to build tools, to make sure the tools are used for good. mr. zuckerberg, do you feel it is your responsibility to assess users whether they are good and positive connections or ones that the 15 to 20,000 people deem unacceptable or deplorable? >> senator, you're asking me personally? >> facebook. >> senator, i think there are a number of things we would all agree are clearly -- for an interference in elections, terrorism, self-harm. >> i'm talking about censorship. >> i think you would probably agree you should remove terrorist propaganda from the service. that i agree, i think it is clearly bad activity. we want to get that down and were generally proud of how we deal with that. what i can say, and i do want to get this in before the end. i am very committed to making

sure that facebook as a platform for all ideas. it is a very important founding principle of what we do. we are part of the discourse and different ideas people can share on the service. that is something that as long as i'm running the company, i will be committed to making sure that is the case. >> thank you. thank you senator cruz. >> would you like to break now? or would you like to keep going? >> sure! that was pretty good. >> we have senator whitehouse up next. if you would like to take a five minute break right now. we have now been going a good two hours. >> thank you. >> we will recess for five minutes and reconvene. [inaudible conversations]

>> before a call on senator whitehouse, senator feinstein has permission to put letters and statements in the record and without objection, they will be put in from the aclu, the electronic privacy information center, the association for computing machinery public policy consult and public knowledge. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. >> i would like to correct one thing that i said earlier in response to a question from senator leahy. he had asked if, why we did not

ban damage unlit at the time we learned about them in 2015. i answered that what my understanding was that they were not on the platform, were not a developer or advertiser. when i went back with 19 afterwards, they let me know that cambridge analytica actually did start as an advertiser later in 2015. so we could have in theory, band them then here we made a mistake in not doing so. but i wanted to make sure i i misspoke t because or got that wrong earlier. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. welcome back mr. zuckerberg. on the subject of bans, i would like to explain what they mean. facebook has done considerable damage by the association with alexandra -- alexandra cogan

and cambridge analytica. which is why you're having this afternoon with a superior -- has he also been banned? >> yes. >> if you were to open up another account under a name and you are able to find it out, that would be taken or closed down? >> senator, i believe we are preventing them from building anymore naapps. >> does he have a facebook account still? >> i believe the answer is no but i can follow up afterwards. >> okay.with respect to cambridge analytica your testimony is that first you require them to formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data. where did that formal certification take place? it sounds kind of like a quasi-

official thing to certify. what did that entail? >> senator, first, the sentencing email notice from their chief data officer telling us they did not have this data anymore. they deleted it and were not using it. later, he followed up with i believe a full legal ycontract where they certified that they had deleted the data. >> and a legal contract? >> yes, i believe so. >> okay. and then you also be said you have banned cambridge analytica. who actually has been banned? what if they opened up a different corporate forum, same enterprise? where'd that enterprise also be banned? >> senator, that is certainly intent. cambridge analytica actually has a parent company. we have banned the parent company and recently also banned a firm called a iq which i think is also associated with

them. we find other firms associated with them we will block them from the platform as well. >> or individual principles of the firm also banned two -- principals. >> my understand is we are blocking them on the platform but i do not believe we are blocking peoples personal accounts. >> okay. can any customer amend your terms of service? or the terms of service, is it a take it or leave it service for the average customer? >> the terms of service are what they are. but it is really defined by people.ar because you get to choose what information you share whole services about what friends you connect to, -- >> mike question is related to senator graham holding up --

later turn out to be of consequence and all he wanted to establish with you is that a document senator graham held up, that is not a negotiable thing with individual customers. that is a take it or leave it proposition for customers to sign up to or not use your service. >> center that is right on the terms of service although we officer a lot of controls. so people can configure the experience how they want. >> last question on a different subject having to do with the authorization process that you are undertaking for entities that are putting up political content or so-called issue add content. he also that they have to go through an authorization process before they do it. you said here they are verifying the identity. how do you look beyond a shell corporation and find who is really behind it through your

authorization process? do you need to look iobehind shell corporations in order to find out who is really behind the content being posted and if you may need to look behind a shell corporation, how we go about doing that? how will you get back to the true, what lawyers recall beneficial owner of the site that is putting out the political material? >> senator, are you referring to the verification of political and issue ads? >> yes. and before that political ads. >> we are going to do is require a valid government identity and gwe are going to verify the location. so we are going to do that so that way someone sitting in russia for example, could not say they are in america and therefore able to run an n'election at. >> with a regular corporation domiciled in in delaware you would not know they were actually a russian owner?

>> senator, that is correct. >> thank you. my commute expired. i appreciate the courtesy of the extra seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. esther zuckerberg, i would like to follow up on stephanie shortly before the break. a few minutes ago. he said there were some categories of speech, types of content that facebook would never want to have any part of. and it takes active steps to avoid disseminating. including hate speech, nudity, racist speech, i assume that you also meant terrorist acts, threats of physical violence and things like that. beyond that, would you agree te that facebook ought not be putting his thumb on the scale with regard to the content of speech? assuming it fits out of one of those categories that is prohibited? >> senator, yes. there are t tgenerally two categories of content that we are very worried about. one are things that could cause

real-world harm. terrorism, self-harm, election interference would fit into that. those are the types of things that we, i didn't really consider there to be much discussion around whether those are good or bad topics. >> i am not disputing up once you get beyond those categories of things that are prohibited, and should be, is a faceless position that should not be putting his thumb on the scale? you should not be favoring or disfavoring speed based on content, based on the viewpoint of that speech? >> senator, general that is our position. one of the things that is really important is that in order to create a service where everyone has a voice, we also need to make sure that people are not bullied or physically intimidated or the environment feels unsafe. >> okay. we say in general, that is the exception that you are referring to. the exception being that if someone feels bullied, even if

it is not a terrorist act, bnudity, terrorist threats or racist speech or anything like that, you might step in there. beyond that, would you step in and put your thumb on the scale as far as the viewpoint? of the content being posted? >> senator, no. in general, our goal is to allow people to have as much expression as possible. >> subject to the exceptions that we discussed you would stay out of that. me ask you this. isn't there a significant free-market incentive that is social media, a company including yours has in order to safeguard the data of your users? don't you have free-market incentives? >> senator, yes. >> your interests align with those of us here who want to see data safeguarded? >> tabsolutely pure. >> you have the technological means available at your disposal to make sure that does not happen and to protect say, and app developer from

transferring basement data to one third party? >> senator, a lot of that we ,do. and some of that is outside of our systems and we require new measures. for example, what we saw here was people chose to share information with and app developer. that worked according to how the system was designed. that information was then transferred out of our system to servers that this developer, alexander cogan, had to that person chose to go sell the data to cambridge analytica. that is going to require much more active intervention and icauditing firm is to prevent going forward because once it is out of our system is a lot harder for us to have a full understanding of what is happening. >> from what you've said today and from previous statements made by you and other officials at your company, data is at the center of your business model. it is how you make money.

your ability to run your business effectively you do not charge your users. is based on monetizing data. the real issue, it seems to me, really comes down to what you tell the public. what you tell users of facebook about what you're going to do with the data. about how you are going to use it. can you give me a couple of examples of ways in which data is collected by facebook? in a way that people are not aware of? two examples, types of data that facebook collects that might be surprising to facebook users? >> senator, i hope that what we do with data is not surprising to people. >> and has been at times? >> senator, i think in this case people certainly do not expect this developer to sell the information to cambridge analytica.

in general, there are two types of data that facebook has. the vast majority and the first category is content people chose to share on the service themselves. that is all of the photos that you share, plus any maker we think of the facebook service. that, everyone has control every single time they go to share that. they can delete the data anytime they want. full control the majority of the data. the second category is around specific data that we collect in order to make the advertising experiences better and more relevant and work for businesses. those often revolve around -- if you are shown in ad and you click through endless months we can see that you actually, the ad worked. it helps make the experience more relevant and better for people who are getting more relevant ads and better for the businesses because they perform better. he also control completely to turn off the ability for facebook to collect data but

you don't want to do that. but you have complete control. >> senator. >> you, mr. chairman. i wanted to follow-up on the questions around terms of service. your terms of service or about 3200 words with 30 lengths. one is to the data policy which is about 2700 words with 22 things. i think the point has been well made that people have no at the idea what they are signing up for an i understand that at the present time is legally binding but i'm wondering if you can explain to the billions of users, in plain language, what are they signing up for? >> senator, that is a good and important haquestion here. in general, he signed for facebook. you get the ability to share the information that you want with people. that is what the service is. you can connect with the people you want and you can share whatever content matters to you. whether it is photos or links

or posts and you get control over who you share it with. you can take it down if you want. you do not need to put anything up in the first place if you do not want. >> what about the yothings peop are worried about, not the fun part? >> what's that? >> the part that people are worried about is that there data will be improperly used. people are trying to figure out, are your dm's -- if you click on something or you say you have a favorite movie or something i think that is fair game and people understand that. what we don't understand exactly both as practice and not being able to decipher the terms of service and privacy policy, what do you do with the data and do you draw a distinction between data

collected in the process of utilizing a platform and that which we clearly volunteered to the public to present ourselves to other facebook users? >> senator, i'm not sure i fully understand this. in general, people come to facebook to share content with other people. we use that in order to also inform how we rank services -- >> if i am emailing does it inform your advertisers?>> no, we do not see that content because it is fully encrypted. >> but is there an algorithm that spits out some information to your ad platform and say dlet's say i am emailing about black panther. do i get a black panther banner ad? >> senator, we do not, facebook systems and as to the content of messages being transferred

over there. >> that is not what i'm asking. i'm asking about whether the systems talk to each other that a human being touching it enough. >> senator, i think the answer to your specific question is if your message someone about that they were not informed any ad. >> i would like to follow-up on the question of ownership of the data. i understand it is a matter of principle. you are saying we want our customers to have more rather than less control over the data. i cannot imagine it is true as a a legal matter that i actuall own my facebook data because you are the one monetizing it. do you want to modify that to express that as a statement of principle or aspirational goal? would it does not seem to me that we own our own data or we will be getting a cut. >> senator, you own it in the sense that you choose to put it there. you can take it down anytime and you completely control the terms under which it is used. when you put on facebook you

are granting us a license to be able to show it to other people. that is necessary in order for u the service to operate. >> so your definition of ownership as, i sign up, i voluntarily, and i may delete my account if i wish. but that is basically it. >> senator, i think the control is much more granular than that. you can choose each photo you want to put out or each message.and you can delete those. did i need to delete the whole account. your specific control. you can share different posts with different people. >> in the time i left there like to propose something to you for the record. i read an interesting article this week by professor jack -- at yale. april was the concept of an information fiduciary. people think of fiduciary primarily in the economic sense but this is really about a trust relationship like doctors and lawyers. tech companies should hold in trust our personal data. are you open to the idea of

information fiduciary enshrined in statute? >> senator, i think it is certainly an interesting idea. and jack is very thoughtful in this space. i do think it deserves consideration. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. zuckerberg for being here today. i appreciate your testimony. the full scope of facebook use activity can print very personal picture i think and additionally, you have those 2 billion users that are out there every month and so, we all know that is larger than the population of most countries. so how many data categories do you store? the space bookstore? on the categories that you collect? >> senator, can you clarify what you mean by data categories? >> he reports that have been out there that indicate that facebook collects about 96 data

categories for those 2 billion active users atthat is 192 billion data points that are being generated i think at any time. from consumers globally. so, how many does facebook store out of that? do you store any? >> senator, i'm not actually sure whatthat is referring to . >> on the points that you collect information. if we call those categories. how many do you store of information that you are collecting? c >> senator, the way i think about this is there are two broad categories. this doesn't line up with whatever the specific report that you are seeing is and i can make sure that we follow-up with you afterwards to give you the information you need on that. the two broad categories i think about our content that a

person has chosen to share and that they have complete control over. they get to control when they put it into the service, when they take it down, who sees it. the other category are data that are connected to making the apps relevant to your complete control over both. you can turn off the data related ads, you can choose not to share any content or control exactly who sees it or take on the content in the form of categories. >> does facebook store any of that? >> yes. >> how much do you store of that? all of it? everything that we click on? is that is stored somewhere? >> senator, we store data about what people share on t the service. and information that is required to do ranking better to show you what you care about in the newsfeed. >> do you store text history, user content, activity, device

locations? >> senator, some of that content with people's permission, we do store.>> do you disclose any of that? >> yes, senator in order to, for people to share information with facebook, i believe almost everything you just said would be opt in. >> privacy settings it is my understanding that they limit the sharing of that data with other facebook users? is that correct? >> senator, yes. every person just to control who gets to see their contents. >> is also limit the availability for ndbusiness to collect and use it? >> senator, yes. there are controls that determine what facebook can do as well. for example, people have control about face recognition. people do not want us to be able to help identify when they

are in photos that their friends upload, they can turn that off. and then we will not store that kind of template for them. >> and there was some action taken by the ftc in 2011. and you are a facebook post at the time, on a public page on the internet that it used to seem scary to people but as long as they could make their page private, they felt safe sharing with their friends online. control is key. and you just mentioned control. senator hatch asked you a question and you responded edthere about complete control. so, you and your company have used that term repeatedly and i believe you use it to reassure users, is that correct? they do have control and complete control over this information? >> senator, this is how the

service works. the court thing that facebook is, that all of our service is, instagram, messenger. >> is this then a question of facebook is about feeling safe? or are users actually safe? is facebook being safe? >> senator, i think facebook is safe. i use it, my family's it and all the people i love and care about use it all the time. these controls are not just to make people feel safe. exactly what people want in the product. the reality tis that, thinking about how you use this yourself. you do not want to share, to be ticket voting when we sent it to the same people. sometimes you want to text to one person. sometimes you may send it to a group. but if you have a page you probably want to put some stuff out there publicly so you can communicate with constituents. they are all different groups of people that someone might want to connect with. those controls are very important in practice for the operation of the service.

not just to build trust although i think that providing people with control also does that. but actually, in order to make it so people can fulfill their goals of the service. next senator. >> thank you, chairman and thank you mr. zuckerberg for joining us today. i think the whole reason we are having this is because of two basic principles you made up your first you said about the data users post on facebook, 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 struggling with their weight or allowing a liquor distributor to target alcoholics or gambling organization to target those with gambling problems. i will give you one concrete example i'm sure you are familiar with. in 2016 they highlighted facebook less advertisers exclude users by race. in real estate advertising. there was a way that you could say that this particular ad, i only want to be seen by white

folks. not by people of color. that clearly violates the fair housing laws and a basic sense of fairness in the united states. he said that was a bad idea and you change the tools and an assistant to spot and detect discriminatory as. a year later a follow-up story has said that those changes had not fully been made. it was still possible to target housing advertisements in a way that was racially discriminatory.and my concern is that blthis practice of maki bold and engaging promises about changes in practices and then anthe reality of how facebook has operated in the real world, are in persistent tension. >> several different senators asked today about the 2011 consent decree that required facebook to better protect users privacy. and asthere are a whole series examples where there ain't been things brought your attention when facebook has apologized and said we will change practices and policies and yet,

there does not seem to have been as much follow-up as can be called for. at the end of the day, policies are not worth the paper they are written on if facebook does not enforce them. and i will close with a question that is really rooted in experience i had today. as an avid facebook user. i woke up this morning and was notified by a group of friends across the country asking if i had a new family or if there was a fake facebook post about chris coons. i went to the one you suggested and that a different middle initial and my print and that was my picture with another family that is not mine. by the way he has a very attractive family. ot>> we will put that for the record, mr. chairman. he[laughter] >> friends brought this to my attention include people went to law school with and her own attorney general. unfortunately, i have great folks that work in and i brought it to their attention. they pushed facebook and it was taken down by midday. but i am left worried about

what happens to people from delaware that do not have these resources? it is still possible to find russian trolls operating on the platform, hate groups drive in some areas abates but even the policies prohibit hate speech and have taken strong steps against extremism and terrorists. but, is a person not in the senate going to get the same response? i had a president said they have had trouble getting a positive response when they brought to the attention facebook a patient is ugly, clearly violating your principles. my core question is, is it facebook job to better protect its users? and why do you shift the burden to users to flag inappropriate content and make sure that it is taken down? >> senator, there are a number of important points in there. i think it is clear that this is an area, content policy enforcement that we need to do a lot better on overtime. the history of how we got here

is we started off in my dorm room with not a lot of resources and not having the technology to proactively identify a lot of this stuff. because of the sheer volume of content, the main way that this works today is that people report things to us and them we have our team review that. and as i said before, by the end of this year will have more than 20,000 people at the e'company working on security a content review because this is important. over time, we will shift increasingly to a method where more this content is flagged upfront by ai tools that we develop. we have prioritized the most important types of content that we can build ai tools for today. like terror related content were mentioned earlier that our systems that we deploy are taken down 99 percent of the isis and al qaeda related content we take out before a

person even flags them to us. if we fast forward five or 10 years i think will have more ai technology that can do that in more areas. and i think we need to get there as soon as possible. which is why we are investing in that. >> i couldn't agree more i just think we cannot wait five years. with housing discrimination and personally offensive materials to get off of facebook. >> i agree. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, thank you for being here. -- i like spoons a lot. with his own family or with dan sullivan family. both are great photos. i want to ask mark sets of questions on the other side. i think the conceptual line between -- tech company and an actual contents company and it is really hard. i think regulation over time, you can make policies that may be less than first amendment.

you're embracing in my view.t but i worry about that. i worry about a world where, when you go from violent groups to hate speech in a hurry in one of your responses to the open questions, you may decide or facebook may decide it needs to police a whole bunch of speech. that i think america might be better ooff not having policed by one company that has been really big and powerful platform. can you define hate speech? >> senator, i think is a very hard question. and i think is one of the reasons why we struggle with it. there are certain definitions that we have around calling for violence or -- >> let's just agree on that. >> that should not be there. i'm worried about the psychological categories around speech. use language of safety and protection early. see this happen on college campuses across the country. it is dangerous. 40 percent of americans under

age 35 say they think the first amendment is dangerous because you might use your freedom to say something that hurts someone else's feelings. guess what? there are some really passionately held views about the abortion issue on this panel today. can you imagine a world where you might decide that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion views on your platform? >> i certainly would not want that to be the case. >> but it might really be unsettling to people who have had an abortion to have a open debate about that. wouldn't it? >> it might be, but i do not think that would -- would fit any of the definitions of what we have. i do generally agree with the point you're making. as were able to technologically shift towards, especially having ai, proactively look at content. i think that will create massive questions or society about what obligations we want to require companies to fulfill. and i do think that is a question that we need to

struggle with as a country because i know other countries are. and they are putting laws in place. and i think america needs to figure out and criticism principles we want american companies to operate under. >> thanks. i would not wait till he gets and think there is a unified view in the congress they should be moving toward policing more and more speech. i think violence has no place on your platform. sex traffickers and human traffickers have no place on your platform. but vigorous debates, adults need to engage in vigorous debates. i will have only a little less than two minutes after i was shift gears. you are a dad, let's talk a little bit about social media addiction. he studied her, that i talked about how facebook is and was founded as an optimistic company. we have had conversations separate from here. i don't want to put words in your mouth and think is you have aged you might be a little less idealistic and optimistic than you were when you started facebook. as a dad, do you worry about

social media addiction for a problem for america's teens? >> asmy hope is that we can be idealistic but have a broad view of our responsibility. to your point about teens, this is certainly something i thing a parent thinks about. how much do you want toyour kid using technology? at facebook, specifically, i view our kresponsibility is not just building services that people like the building services that are good for people and good for society as well. we study a lot of effects of well-being of our tools and broader technology. like any tool, there are good and bad uses of it. what we find in general, is that if you are using social media in order to build a relationship or relationships, your sharing contact with friends and interacting. that is associated with all the long-term measures of well-being that you would intuitively think of your long-term health, happiness, feeling connected, less lonely. but if you're using the internet and social media

primarily to just passively consume time and do not engage with other people, that doesn't have the positive effect and it could be negative. >> we are almost out of time so let's ask when will produce -- do social media companies -- >> no, son. that is not how we talk about this or how we set up our product. we want our product to be valuable to people and if they are valuable then people choose to use them. >> are you aware that their social media companies that hire such consultants? >> not sitting here today. thank you. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to senator blumenthal pointed questions, you refuse to answer whether facebook should be required by law to obtain clear permission from users before selling or sharing the personal information. so, i'm going to ask one more

time. yes or no, should facebook get clear permission from users before selling or sharing sensitive information about your health, finances, your relationships? >> should you have to get their permission. that is essentially a consent decree with the federal trade commission. that you signed in 2011. you have to get permission and should the consumer have to opt in? senator, we do require permission to use the system and to put information in there and for all of it. i want to be clear we do not sell information. regardless of whether we can get permission to do that, it is just not anything we will go do. >> would you support legislation, i have a bill, senator blumenthal referred to a comedy consent act that would just put on the books a law

that says facebook and any other company that gathers information about americans, has to get their permission, affirmative permission before it can be reused for other purposes. when you support that legislation to make it a national standard? not just for facebook but all the other companies out there. some of them are bad actors. would you support that legislation? >> senator, in general, i think the principle is exactly right and i think we should have a discussion around -- >> would you support legislation to back that general principle? that opt in? getting permission. we do support legislation and make it the american standard. europeans have passed that as a law. facebook will live with that will begin on may 25. would you support that as the law in the united states? >> senator, as a principal, yes i would. i think the details matter a lot. >> but assuming we work out stt

details, you do support opt in as the standard. getting permission affirmatively as the standard for the united states? is that correct? >> senator, i think that is the right principal. 100 million times a day in our services where people share content, they share what they want to share with affirmatively. >> you can support a law that enshrines that as the promise that we make to the american people that permission has to be obtained before information is used. is that correct? >> senator, yes. i think it makes sense. the details matter and i look forward to having our teamwork with you on working that out. >> the next subject, because i want to -- again, want to ensure that we drill down here. earlier, in reference to the child online privacy. 1999. which i am the author. so that is the constitution for child privacy protection online in the country.

and i'm very proud of it. but there are no protections additionally for a 13, 14 or 15 year old. they get the same protections a 30-year-old or a 50-year-old gets. i have a separate piece of legislation to ensure that kids under 16 absolutely have a privacy bill of rights and permission has to be received from their parents or the children before any of their information is reused for any other purpose other than that which was originally intended. would you support a child online privacy bill of rights for kids under 16 to guarantee that that information is not reused for any other purpose without explicit permission from parents or the kids? >> senator, i think is a

general principle i think protecting minors and protecting their privacy is extremely important and we do a number of things on facebook to do it already which i'm happy to -- >> i'm would you support a law to ensure kids under 16 have this privacy bill of rights? i had this conversation with you in your office seven years ago. on this specific subject. and i think that's really what the american people want to know right now. what is the protections of this book of the protections are going to be put on the books? especially for the children. when you support a policy bill of rights for the kids that opt in is the standard. yes or no? >> senator i think is important principal. i think that we should -- >> we need a law to protect the children. you nbelieve we need a lot to so? yes or no. >> and i am not sure if we need a lot but i think that this is certainly a thing that requires

a lot of discussion. >> i cannot disagree with you more. we are leaving these wichildren to the most locations commercial predators in the country. they will exploit these children also absolutely have a law on the books. and i think it is absolutely -- >> please give a short answer. >> senator, i look forward to having 19 follow-up with you on details of this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. zuckerberg. i'm sorry if i had to be away for a bit. myself and senator coons, peters and several others were in zimbabwe a few days ago. we met with opposition figures who talked about their goal is to be able to have access to state run media and in many

african countries. many around the world. the only traditional media is state run. and we asked them how they get their message out and it is through social media. facebook provides a very valuable service. in many countries for opposition leaders are others who simply do not have access unless maybe, just before an election to traditional media. so that is very valuable and i think we all recognize that. on the flipside we have seen an example of where the state can use similar data or use this platform to go after people. you talked about what you erare doing in that regard. hiring more traditional or local language speakers. what else are you doing in that regard to ensure that the states do not all governments

go after opposition figures are others? >> senator, there are three main things we are doing. and it will apply to the situations like that. the first is, hiring enough people to do local language support. tubecause the definition of hat speech or things that can be racially coded to incite violence are language specific. we cannot do that with just english speakers for people around the world. we need to grow that. the second is, in these countries there tend to be active civil society who can help us identify the figures who are spreading nhate and if we can work with them in order to make sure the figures do not have a place on our platform. the third is that there are specific product changes that we can make in order to, that might be necessary in some countries but not others. including things around news literacy. and encouraging people in

different countries about ramping up or down, things we might do around fact checking of content. specific product type things we want to implement in different places. i think that is something you will have to do in a number of countries. >> there are limits of native speakers you can hierarchical to have eyes on the page. part of this intelligence is to take the bulk of this. how, you know, how much are you investing working on that tool to do what really, we do not have or cannot hire enough people to do. >> senator, i hathink you're absolutely right. over the long-term, building ai tools is going to be the scalable way to identify and rule out this harmful content. we are investing a lot in doing that as well as jamming up the number of people for doing content review. one of the things i have mentioned this weyear were or t

last year we basically doubled the number of people during security and content review. you are more than 20,000 people working on security and content review by the end of this year. it is going to be coupling continuing to grow the people for doing will do in these places with building ai tools. which is, we are working as quickly as we can on that. some of the stuff is just hard. i think that will help us get to a better place eliminating this harmful content. >> thank you. give talked some about this. do you believe that russia and or chinese governments have harvested facebook data? and have detailed data sets on facebook users? as eyour friends, have they shown you gloves other than cambridge analytica downloaded this kind of data? >> senator, we have kicked off an investigation of every act that an extra large amount of people data before we locked on the platform in 2014. that is s underway.

i imagine will find some things and we are committed to telling the people who are affected when we do. i do not think sitting here today that we have specific knowledge of other efforts by those nationstates. but in general, we assume that a number of countries are trying to abuse our systems. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. zuckerberg, their proposed a new extreme vetting initiative which have renamed, visa s lifecycle vetting. it sounds scary. they've already held an industry data that they advertised on the federal contracting website to get input from tech companies on the best way to among other things, including i.c.e., exploit publicly available information such as media blogs, public hearings,

conferences, academic websites, social media websites such as twitter, website to extract pertinent information regarding targets. and basically, what they want to do with these targets is determined -- and again i am putting a document that is ice his own. they want process to determine to evaluate an applicant that targets probability of becoming a positively contributing member of society as well as the ability to contribute to national interest in executive orders. and then ice must also have a methodology that allows them to assess whether an applicant intends to commit terminal or terrorist acts after entering the united states. my question to you is, this basic plan should cooperate with this extreme vetting initiative? and help the trump

administration target people from deportation or other i.c.e. enforcement? >> senator time i did another we've had this specific conversations around that. >> you are asked to provide or cooperate with i.c.e. so they could determine whether someone is going to commit a crime for example. or become fruitful members of our society. would you cooperate? >> we would not proactively do that. we cooperate with law enforcement in two cases. one is if we become aware of an imminent threat of harm.we will proactively reach out to law enforcement. as we believe is our responsibility to do. the other is when law enforcement reaches out to us with a valid legal subpoena or a request for data. in those cases, if their request is overly broad or we believe it is not a legal request, we will push back aggressively. >> let's assume i.c.e. does not have, there is no law or rule

that requires that facebook incorporates to allow them to get this kind of information so that they can make this kinds of assessments. it sounds to me as though you would decline. >> senator, that is correct. >> is there some way that -- i know that you determine what kind of content would be deemed harmful. do you believe that i.c.e. can even do what they are talking about? namely through a combination of various kinds of information including information that they would help to obtain from entities such as yours? predictable commit crimes that problem.a national security do you think that is even doable? >> senator, i am not familiar enough with what they are doing to offer an informed opinion on that. >> well, you have to make t assessments as to what constitutes hate speech, that is pretty hard to do. you have to assess what elections interferences.these

are rather difficult to identify but wouldn't the -- try to predict if someone is going to predict a crime and a category is pretty difficult. to assess. >> is just difficult to meet senator. all of these things like you are saying are difficult. i do not know without having worked on it for thinking about it. >> i think i was retails it is pretty difficult and that is what they are trying to do. you are asked about discriminatory advertising and in february 2017, basement enough they were no longer allow certain types of add-ons that discriminated on a basis of race, gender, family status, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status. all categories bribed by federal law and housing. and yet, at the 2017, it was discovered that you could in fact basis kinds of ads.

-- have you followed through on your february 17 problem and is there way for the public to verify that you have or are we just expected to trust that you have done this? >> senator, those are important questions.it is against their positive ads that are discriminatory. >> he said he would not allow it but then, they can place ads even if you said you were no longer allowing these kinds of ads. so what kind of insurance to be happy me that this is going to stop? >> two things. one is that we have removed the ability to exclude ethnic groups and other sensitive categories from ad targeting for that is a feature that is even available anymore. some of the cases it may make

sense to target practically a group. enforcement today is still, we reviewed ads, we screen them up front. most of the enforcement today is still the arab community plans issues for us when they come up. if the community plans issues for us than our team has thousand people working on it. should take it down. we will make some mistakes but we try to make as few as possible. over time i think the strategy would to be developed more ai tools that can be more proactively identify those kinds of content and filter up front. >> facebook founder and founder mark zuckerberg testifying today. he took questions. you can watch more of this hearing tonight on c-span and on c-span.org. mr. zuckerberg is back on capitol hill tomorrow morning.

on the house side. go to questions from members of the energy and commerce committee. live coverage at 10 eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme court and public copolicy event in washington d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite an provider. >> china's president pledged to lower trade barriers in his country and enforce policies to protect foreign intellectual property. that is next on c-span2. and a look at epa regulations and the clean air act. after that conversation on counterfeit medicine and the illegal drug trade.

>> c-span washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. ... the more open economy by lowering

tariffs for automobiles and other products and enforcing the legal intellectual property. his remarks come after the u.s. and china announced punitive trade measures against each other. the chinese president's remarks come courtesy of the china global television network. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: the board of directors the distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends. the gentle breeze and form