字幕表 動画を再生する
>>> THIS IS AN NBC NEWS SPECIAL
REPORT.
HERE'S LESTER HOLT AND SAVANNAH
GUTHRIE.
>> GOOD DAY, EVERYONE.
WE'RE COMING ON THE AIR ON A
VERY BUSY NEWS DAY TO TELL YOU
WE HAVE MARK ZUCKERBERG ABOUT TO
TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS.
HE WILL LIKELY FACE VERY TOUGH
QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS COMPANY'S
ABILITY TO SAFEGUARD THE
PERSONAL DATA OF TENS OF
MILLIONS OF FACEBOOK USERS,
INFORMATION IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
BY THE DATA COMPANY CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA.
>> AND THE 23-YEAR-OLD UNDER
INTENSE PUBLIC SCRUTINY, LESS
TRUST WITH THE THIRD LARGEST
INDUSTRY, LESTER.
>> THE CANCELLATION OF THE
PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULED FIRST TRIP
TO SOUTH AMERICA THIS WEEK AND
FALLOUT FROM THE FBI RAID
YESTERDAY ON THE OFFICES OF THE
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER
MICHAEL COHEN.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE A LOT
OF MOVING PARTS, A LOT OF THINGS
WE'RE WATCHING.
WE'RE MONITORING ALL OF THAT.
WE'LL BRING YOU DEVELOPMENTS AS
THEY WARRANT.
>> MEANWHILE ON CAPITOL HILL,
YOU SEE MARK ZUCKERBERG SET TO
MAKE HIS OPENING STATEMENT IN
JUST A FEW MOMENTS.
THIS IS THE JOINT COMMITTEE, ONE
OF THE MOST EAGERLY ANTICIPATED
HEARINGS IN RECENT MEMORY.
NO FEWER THAN 43 U.S. SENATORS
SET TO QUESTION MARK ZUCKERBERG.
NBC'S JOLENE KENT COVERS THIS
FOR US.
SHE'S BEEN FOLLOWING FACEBOOK'S
STORY.
JO, WE EXPECT TO HEAR THE WORDS
"I'M SORRY" HERE TODAY.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, THE SEVENTH
RICHEST PERSON IN THE WORLD, WE
EXPECT HIM TO SEVER PERSONAL
TIES.
HE WILL BE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY
AND ISSUING A NEW LEVEL OF
ACTION AND ADDRESSING THE
PRIVACY CONCERNS THAT COME IN
THE AFTERMATH OF THE CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA SCANDAL THAT MAY HAVE
IMPACTED UP TO 87 MILLION
FACEBOOK USERS, MOST OF WHOM
LIVE IN THE U.S.
HIS TESTIMONY, WHICH HE HAS NOT
YET SPOKEN JUST YET, BUT HE'S
EXPECTED TO ADDRESS NOT ONLY THE
SENATORS BUT USERS OUT THERE WHO
HAVE BEGUN LEAVING FACEBOOK AND
DELETING THIS PARTICULAR APP AND
MIGRATING TO OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA.
SO WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO HEAR
IS NOT JUST AN APOLOGY BUT
SOLUTIONS.
LAWMAKERS HERE ON CAPITOL HILL
ARE TELLING ME THEY ARE NOT
SATISFIED NECESSARILY WITH WHAT
ZUCKERBERG HAS PUT FORTH SO FAR.
HE'S ALREADY ROLLED OUT SOME
PRIVACY CHANGES WHERE
CENTRALIZATION OF YOUR PRIVACY
SETTINGS, BUT THERE LIKELY WILL
BE SOME REGULATORY SCRUTINY HERE
AS WELL, SAVANNAH.
>> LET'S BRING IN THE CO-FOUNDER
AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE
EXECUTIVE TECH SITE RECODE AND
HAS BEEN FOLLOWING FACEBOOK
CLOSELY.
TARA, WE KNOW HE'S GOING TO
APOLOGIZE, WE KNOW THERE IS A PR
ASPECT TO THIS, BUT FROM A
BUSINESS STANDPOINT, WHAT ARE
THE GOALS THAT ZUCKERBERG FACES
HERE?
>> HE THINK HE HAS TO STAUNCH
THE CRITICISM AND AT LEAST HAVE
SOME ANSWERS THAT THEY'RE GOING
TO FIX THE PROBLEMS THEY
CREATED.
IT'S A GIANT MESS, AND SAYING
I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY
PROBABLY WON'T CUT IT HERE, BUT
HE'LL PROBABLY SAY I'M SORRY IN
HIS OPENING STATEMENT.
THERE ARE SOME POLITICIANS
ASKING QUESTIONS, AND THERE ARE
SOME THAT ARE PRETTY HOSTILE
TOWARD WHAT FACEBOOK HAS DONE.
>> HE'S BEEN NOTED AS A GUY WHO
IS NOT NECESSARILY COMFORTABLE
IN FRONT OF CROWDS, CERTAINLY
CAMERAS, AND THERE IS A LOT OF
ATTENTION ON HIM NOW.
DOES THAT PLAY IN HIS FAVOR IN
SOME WAYS IN TERMS OF
PERCEPTIONS?
>> I GUESS.
I WROTE HIS COLUMN TODAY SAYING
THESE ARE BOYS UNDER SCRUTINY
AND IT'S REALLY HARD FOR HIM.
HE'S A MAN RUNNING A MAJOR
COMPANY.
HE'S A BILLIONAIRE.
HE STARTED ONE OF THE MOST
POWERFUL COMPANIES ON THE
PLANET.
HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT,
AND IF HE CAN'T HANDLE IT, HE
SHOULDN'T BE CEO OF FACEBOOK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ZUCKERBERG IS NOW BEING
INTRODUCED IN OPENING STATEMENTS
OF THE CHAIRMAN AND RANKING
MEMBERS OF THESE TWO COMMITTEES.
THIS IS THE SCIENCE AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
CHUCK GRASSLEY INTRODUCING MARK
ZUCKERBERG.
>> AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY,
HIS COMPANY NOW HAS OVER 40
BILLION OF ANNUAL REVENUE AND
OVER 2 BILLION MONTHLY ACTIVE
USERS.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, ALONG WITH HIS
WIFE, ALSO ESTABLISHED THE
CHAN-ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE TO
FURTHER PHILANTHROPIC CAUSES.
I NOW TURN TO YOU.
WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE, AND
WHATEVER YOUR STATEMENT IS
ORALLY, IF YOU HAVE A LONGER
ONE, IT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD.
SO PROCEED, SIR.
>> CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY, CHAIRMAN
THUNE, RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN
AND RANKING MEMBER NELSON AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, WE
FACE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT
ISSUES AROUND PRIVACY, SAFETY
AND DEMOCRACY.
AND YOU WILL RIGHTFULLY HAVE
SOME HARD QUESTIONS FOR ME TO
ANSWER.
BEFORE I TALK ABOUT THE STEPS
WE'RE 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
FOCUSED ON ALL OF THE GOOD THAT
CONNECTING PEOPLE CAN DO.
AND AS FACEBOOK HAS GROWN,
PEOPLE EVERYWHERE HAVE GOTTEN A
POWERFUL NEW TOOL FOR STAYING
CONNECTED TO THE PEOPLE THEY
LOVE, FOR MAKING THEIR VOICES
HEARD AND FOR BUILDING
COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES.
JUST RECENTLY, WE'VE SEEN THE
#METOO MOVEMENT AND THE MARCH
FOR OUR LIVES ORGANIZED AT LEAST
IN PART ON FACEBOOK.
AFTER HURRICANE HARVEY, PEOPLE
CAME TOGETHER TO RAISE MORE THAN
$20 MILLION FOR RELIEF.
AND MORE THAN 70 MILLION SMALL
BUSINESSES USED FACEBOOK TO
CREATE JOBS AND GROW.
BUT IT'S CLEAR NOW WE DIDN'T DO
ENOUGH TO PREVENT THESE TOOLS
FROM BEING USED FOR HARM AS
WELL.
THAT GOES FOR FAKE NEWS, FOR
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
ELECTIONS AND HATE SPEECH AS
WELL AS DEVELOPERS AND DATA
PRIVACY.
WE DIDN'T TAKE A BROAD ENOUGH
VIEW OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND
THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE.
AND IT WAS MY MISTAKE.
AND I'M SORRY.
I STARTED FACEBOOK, I RUN IT,
AND I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT
HAPPENS HERE.
SO NOW WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL
OF OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEOPLE
AND MAKE SURE WE'RE TAKING A
BROAD ENOUGH VIEW OF OUR
RESPONSIBILITY.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST CONNECT
PEOPLE.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE
CONNECTIONS ARE POSITIVE.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST GIVE
PEOPLE A VOICE, WE HAVE TO MAKE
SURE PEOPLE AREN'T USING IT TO
HARM OTHER PEOPLE OR TO SPREAD
MISINFORMATION.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH JUST TO GIVE
PEOPLE CONTROL OVER THEIR
INFORMATION.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THE
DEVELOPERS THEY SHARE IT WITH
PROTECT THEIR INFORMATION, TOO.
ACROSS THE BOARD WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT JUST BUILD
TOOLS BUT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE
USED FOR GOOD.
IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO WORK
THROUGH 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 WITH CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA.
SO HERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT WE
ARE DOING TO ADDRESS THIS AND TO
PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
FIRST, WE'RE GETTING TO THE
BOTTOM OF EXACTLY WHAT CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA DID AND TELLING
EVERYONE AFFECTED.
WHAT WE KNOW NOW IS THAT
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA IMPROPERLY
ACCESSED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT
MILLIONS OF FACEBOOK MEMBERS BY
BUYING IT FROM AN APP DEVELOPER.
THAT INFORMATION -- THIS WAS
INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE
GENERALLY SHARE PUBLICLY ON
THEIR FACEBOOK PAGES, LIKE NAMES
AND THEIR PROFILE PICTURE AND
THE PAGES THEY FOLLOW.
WHEN WE FIRST CONTACTED
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, THEY TOLD
US THEY HAD DELETED THE DATA.
ABOUT A MONTH AGO, WE HEARD NEW
REPORTS THAT SUGGESTED THAT
WASN'T TRUE.
NOW WE'RE WORKING WITH
GOVERNMENTS IN THE U.S., THE
U.K. AND AROUND THE WORLD TO DO
A FULL AUDIT OF WHAT THEY'VE
DONE AND TO MAKE SURE THEY GET
RID OF ANY DATA THEY MAY STILL
HAVE.
SECOND, TO MAKE SURE NO OTHER
APP DEVELOPERS OUT THERE ARE
MISUSING DATA, WE'RE NOW
INVESTIGATING EVERY SINGLE ACT
THAT HAD ACCESS TO A LARGE
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION IN THE
PAST.
IF WE FIND THAT SOMEONE
IMPROPERLY USED DATA, WE'RE
GOING TO BAN THEM FROM FACEBOOK
AND TELL EVERYONE AFFECTED.
THIRD, TO PREVENT THIS FROM EVER
HAPPENING AGAIN GOING FORWARD,
WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT
DEVELOPERS CAN'T ACCESS AS MUCH
INFORMATION NOW.
THE GOOD NEWS HERE IS WE ALREADY
MADE BIG CHANGES TO OUR PLATFORM
IN 2014 THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT
THIS SITUATION WITH CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA FROM OCCURRING TODAY.
BUT THERE IS MORE TO DO, AND YOU
CAN FIND MORE DETAILS ON THE
STEPS I'M TAKING IN MY WRITTEN
STATEMENT.
MY TOP PRIORITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN
OUR SOCIAL MISSION OF CONNECTING
PEOPLE, BUILDING COMMUNITY AND
BRINGING THE WORLD CLOSER
TOGETHER.
ADVERTISERS AND DEVELOPERS WILL
NEVER TAKE PRIORITY OVER THAT AS
LONG AS I AM RUNNING FACEBOOK.
I STARTED FACEBOOK WHEN I WAS IN
COLLEGE.
WE'VE COME A LONG WAY SINCE
THEN.
WE NOW SERVE MORE THAN 2 BILLION
PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, AND
EVERY DAY PEOPLE USE OUR
SERVICES TO STAY CONNECTED WITH
THE PEOPLE THAT MATTER TO THEM
MOST.
I BELIEVE DEEPLY IN WHAT WE'RE
DOING, AND I KNOW THAT WHEN WE
ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES, WE'LL
LOOK BACK AND VIEW HELPING
PEOPLE CONNECT AND GIVING MORE
PEOPLE A VOICE AS A POSITIVE
FORCE IN THE WORLD.
I REALIZE THE ISSUES WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY AREN'T JUST
ISSUES FOR FACEBOOK IN OUR
COMMUNITY, THEY'RE ISSUES AND
CHALLENGES FOR ALL OF US AS
AMERICANS.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY AND I'M READY TO TAKE YOUR
QUESTIONS.
>> I'LL REMIND MEMBERS THAT
MAYBE WEREN'T HERE WHEN I HAD MY
OPENING COMMENTS THAT WE ARE
OPERATING UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE
RULE AND THAT APPLIES TO THOSE
CHAIRING THE COMMITTEE AS WELL.
I START WITH YOU.
FACEBOOK HANDLES EXTENSIVE
AMOUNTS OF PERSONAL DATA FOR
BILLIONS OF USERS.
A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THAT
DATA IS SHARED WITH THIRD-PARTY
DEVELOPERS WHO UTILIZE YOUR
PLATFORM.
AS OF EARLY THIS YEAR, YOU DID
NOT ACTIVELY MONITOR WHETHER
THAT DATA WAS TRANSFERRED BY
SUCH DEVELOPERS TO OTHER
PARTIES.
MOREOVER, YOUR POLICIES ONLY
PROHIBIT TRANSFERS BY DEVELOPERS
TO PARTIES SEEKING TO PROFIT
FROM SUCH DATA.
NUMBER ONE, BESIDES PROFESSOR
COGAN'S TRANSFER AND NOW
POTENTIALLY CUBE VIEW, DO YOU
KNOW ANY INSTANCES WHERE
TRANSFERRED TO THIRD PARTY IN
BREACH OF FACEBOOK'S TERMS.
IF SO, HOW MANY TIMES HAS THAT
HAPPENED AND WAS FACEBOOK ONLY
MADE AWARE OF THAT TRANSFER BY
SOME THIRD PARTY?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU.
WE'RE NOW CONDUCTING A FULL
INVESTIGATION INTO EVERY SINGLE
ACT THAT HAS ACCESS TO LARGE
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION.
BEFORE WE LOCK DOWN PLATFORM TO
PREVENT DEVELOPERS FROM
ACCESSING THIS INFORMATION
AROUND 2014.
WE BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE
INVESTIGATING MANY APPS, TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF APPS.
IF WE FIND ANY SUSPICIOUS
ACTIVITY WE'RE GOING TO CONDUCT
A FULL AUDIT OF THOSE APPS TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THEY ARE USING
THEIR DATA.
IF WE FIND THEY ARE DOING
ANYTHING IMPROPER, WE WILL BAN
THEM FROM FACEBOOK AND TELL
EVERYONE AFFECTED.
I DON'T HAVE ANY EXAMPLES OF
APPS WE HAVE BANNED HERE.
IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN HAVE MY
TEAM FOLLOW UP.
>> HAVE YOU REQUIRED AN AUDIT TO
ENSURE THE DELETION OF
IMPROPERLY TRANSFERRED DATA AND
IF SO, HOW MANY TIMES?
>> YES, WE HAVE.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT FIGURE ON
HOW MANY TIMES WE HAVE.
OVERALL, THE WAY WE ENFORCED OUR
PLATFORM POLICIES IN THE PAST,
IS WE HAVE LOOKED AT PATTERN OF
HOW APPS HAVE USED OUR APIs AND
ACCESSED INFORMATION AS WELL ADD
PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE REPORTS.
GOING FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE A MORE PRO-ACTIVE POSITION
AND DO MUCH MORE REGULAR SPOT
CHECKS AND REVIEWS OF APPS AS
WELL AS INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF
AUDITS WE DO AND I CAN MAKE SURE
OUR TEAM FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON
ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PAST
STATS THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASSUME THAT
SITTING HERE TODAY YOU HAVE NO
IDEA AND IF I'M WRONG, YOU'RE
TELLING ME YOU'RE ABLE TO SUPPLY
THOSE FIGURES TO US, AT LEAST AS
OF THIS POINT?
>> I'LL HAVE MY TEAM FOLLOW UP
ON WHAT INFORMATION WE HAVE.
>> RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE NO
CERTAINTY OF WHETHER OR NOT, HOW
MUCH OF THAT'S GOING ON, RIGHT?
FACEBOOK COLLECTS MASSIVE
AMOUNTS OF DATA FROM CONSUMERS
INCLUDING CONTENT, NETWORKS,
CONTACT LIST, DEVICE
INFORMATION, LOCATION AND
INFORMATION FROM THIRD POLICIES.
YOUR DATA POLICY IS ONLY A FEW
PAGES LONG AND PROVIDES
CONSUMERS A FEW EXAMPLES OF WHAT
IS COLLECTED AND HOW IT MIGHT BE
USED.
THE EXAMPLES EMPHASIZE BENIGN
USES SUCH AS CONNECTING WITH
FRIENDS BUT YOUR POLICY DOES NOT
GIVE ANY INDICATION FOR MORE
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF SUCH
DATA.
MY QUESTION, WHY DOESN'T
FACEBOOK DISCLOSE TO ITS USERS
ALL THE WAYS DATA MIGHT BE USED
BY FACEBOOK AND OTHER THIRD
PARTIES AND WHAT IS FACEBOOK'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM USERS
ABOUT THAT INFORMATION?
>> I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO
TELL PEOPLE EXACTLY HOW THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY SHARE ON
FACEBOOK IS GOING TO BE USED.
THAT'S WHY EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU
GO TO SHARE SHOTGUN ON FACEBOOK
WHETHER IT'S A PHOTO OR A
MESSAGE AND MESSENGER.
EVERY SINGLE TIME THERE'S A
CONTROL RIGHT THERE ABOUT WHO
YOU'RE GOING TO BE SHARING IT
WITH WHETHER IT'S YOUR FRIENDS
OR PUBLIC OR SPECIFIC GROUP.
YOU CAN CHANGE THAT AND CONTROL
THAT IN LINE.
ABOUT PRIVACY, THIS GETS INTO AN
ISSUE THAT WE AND OTHERS IN THE
TECH INDUSTRY HAVE FOUND
CHALLENGING IS LONG PRIVACY
POLICIES ARE VERY CONFUSING.
IF YOU MAKE IT LONG AND SPELL
OUT ALL THE DETAIL THEN YOU'RE
PROBABLY GOING TO REDUCE THE
PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO READ IT
AND MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO THEM.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE STRUGGLED
WITH OVER TIME IS MAKE SOMETHING
AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE SO PEOPLE
CAN UNDERSTAND IT AS WELL AS
GIVING THEM CONTROLS IN LINE IN
THE PRODUCT IN THE CONTEXT OF
WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THEM.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT WE
DON'T EXPECT THAT MOST PEOPLE
WILL WANT TO GO THROUGH AND READ
A FULL LEGAL DOCUMENT.
>> SENATOR NELSON.
>> YESTERDAY WHEN WE TALKED I
GAVE THE HARMLESS EXAMPLE THAT
I'M A COMMUNICATING WITH MY
FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK AND INDICATE
THAT I LOVE A CERTAIN KIND OF
CHOCOLATE.
ALL OF A SUDDEN I START
RECEIVING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR
CHOCOLATE.
WHAT IN I DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE
THOSE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENTS?
YOUR CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
MS. SANDBURG 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.
ARE YOU ACTUALLY CONSIDERING
HAVING FACEBOOK USERS PAY FOR
YOU NOT TO USE THAT INFORMATION?
>> SENATOR, PEOPLE HAVE A
CONTROL OVER HOW THEIR
INFORMATION IS USED IN ADS IN
THE PRODUCT TODAY.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN
EXPERIENCE WHERE YOUR ADS AREN'T
TARGETED USING ALL THE
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE
AVAILABLE, YOU CAN TURN OFF
THIRD PARTY INFORMATION.
WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT EVEN
THOUGH SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE
ADS, PEOPLE REALLY DON'T LIKE
ADS THAT AREN'T RELEVANT.
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
RELEVANT CONTENT THERE THAN NOT.
WE OFFER THIS CONTROL THAT
YOU'RE REFERENCING.
SOME PEOPLE USE IT.
IT'S NOT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE
ON FACEBOOK.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD LEVEL OF
CONTROL TO OFFER.
I THINK WHAT CHERYL WAS SAYING
WAS THAT IN ORDER TO NOT RUN ADS
AT ALL, WE WOULD STILL NEED SOME
SORT OF BUSINESS MODEL.
>> THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS MODEL.
I TAKE IT THAT, AND I USE THE
HARMLESS EXAMPLE OF CHOCOLATE
BUT IF IT GOT INTO MORE PERSONAL
THING.
COMMUNICATING WITH FRIENDS, AND
I WANT TO CUT IT OFF, I'M GOING
TO HAVE TO PAY YOU IN ORDER NOT
TO SEND ME USING MY PERSONAL
INFORMATION SOMETHING THAT I
DON'T WANT.
THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD MS.
SANDBURG TO SAY.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
TO BE CLEAR WE DON'T OFFER AN
OPTION TODAY FOR PEOPLE TO NOT
PAY TO SHOW ADS.
WE THINK OFFERING AN AD
SUPPORTED SERVICE IS MOST
ALIGNED WITH OUR MISSION OF
TRYING TO CONNECT EVERYONE IN
THE WORLD.
WE WANT TO OFFER A FREE SERVICE
THAT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN REACH
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
>> YOU CONSIDER MY PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE DATA, THE COMPANY'S
DATA, NOT MY DATA?
IS THAT IT?
>> NO, SENATOR.
THE FIRST LINE OF OUR TERMS OF
SERVICE IS A THEY YOU CONTROL
AND OWN THE INFORMATION AND
CONTENT THAT 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.
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 YOU DISCOVERED THE
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA THAT
FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED ALL OF
THIS INFORMATION, WHY DIDN'T YOU
INFORM THOSE 87 MILLION?
>> WHEN WE LEARNED IN 2015 THAT
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA BOUGHT DATA
FROM AN APP DEVELOPER ON
FACEBOOK THAT PEOPLE SHARED IT
WITH, WE DID TAKE ACTION.
WE TOOK DOWN THE APP AND WE
DEMANDED THAT BOTH THE APP
DEVELOPER AND CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA DELETE AND STOP USING
ANY DATA THEY HAD.
THEY TOLD US THEY DID THIS.
IN RETROSPECT IT WAS BAD TO
BELIEVE THEM.
THAT'S NOT A MISTAKE WE WILL
MAKE.
>> YOU DID THAT AND APOLOGIZED
FOR IT.
YOU DIDN'T NOTIFY THEM.
DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN ETHICAL
OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY 87 MILLION
FACEBOOK USERS?
>> WHEN WE HEARD BACK FROM
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA THAT THEY
TOLD US THEY WEREN'T USING THE
DATA AND DELETED IT.
WE CONSIDERED IT A CLOSED CASE.
THAT WAS CLEARLY A MISTAKE.
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THEIR
WORD FOR IT AND WE UPDATED OUR
POLICIES.
>> DID ANYBODY NOTIFY THE FTC?
>> NO, SENATOR, FOR THE SAME
REASON.
WE CONSIDERED IT A CLOSED CASE.
>> SENATOR.
>> WOULD YOU DO THAT DIFFERENTLY
TODAY, PRESUMELY?
THE END RESPONSE TO SENATOR
NELSON'S QUESTION.
>> YES.
>> THIS MAY BE YOUR FIRST
APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESS BUT
IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT
FACEBOOK HAS FACED TOUGH
QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS PRIVACY
POLICIES.
WIRED MAGAZINE NOTED THAT YOU
HAVE A 14 YEAR HISTORY OF
APOLOGIZING FOR ILL ADVISED
DECISIONS REGARDING USER PRIVACY
NOT UNLIKE THE ONE YOU MADE JUST
NOW IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
AFTER MORE THAN A DECADE OF
PROMISES TO DO BETTER, HOW IS
TODAY'S APOLOGY DIFFERENT AND
WHY SHOULD WE TRUST FACEBOOK TO
MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO
ENSURE USER PRIVACY AND GIVE
PEOPLE A CLEARER PICTURE OF YOUR
PRIVACY POLICIES?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES
IN RUNNING THE COMPANY.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY MUCH
IMPOSSIBLE TO START A COMPANY IN
YOUR DORM ROOM AND GROW IT TO BE
AT THE SCALE WE'RE AT NOW
WITHOUT MAKING SOME MISTAKES.
BECAUSE OUR SERVICE IS ABOUT
HELPING PEOPLE CONNECT AND
INFORMATION, THOSE MISTAKES HAVE
BEEN DIFFERENT IN HOW -- WE TRY
NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE
MULTIPLE TIMES BUT IN GENERAL A
LOT OF THE MISTAKES ARE AROUND
HOW PEOPLE CONNECT TO EACH OTHER
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE
SERVICE.
OVERALL, I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE
GOING THROUGH A BROADER
PHILOSOPHICAL SHIFT IN OUR WE
APPROACH OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A
COMPANY.
FOR THE FIRST 10 OR 12 YEARS OF
THE COMPANY, I VIEWED OUR
RESPONSIBILITY AS BUILDING
TOOLS.
IF WE CAN PUT THOSE TOOLS IN
PEOPLE'S HANDS THEN THAT WOULD
EMPOWER PEOPLE TO DO GOOD
THINGS.
WHAT I THINK WE'VE LEARNED NOW,
ACROSS A NUMBER OF ISSUES, NOT
JUST DATA PRIVACY BUT FAKE NEWS
AND FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, IS WE
NEED TO TAKE AN ACTIVE VIEW.
IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO BUILD TOOLS.
WE NEED TO TAKE A MORE ACTIVE
APPROACH.
MAKING SURE THE MEMBERS ARE
USING THESE TOOLS IN A WAY THAT
WILL IF GOOD AND HEALTHY.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS
GOING TO BE SOMETHING WHERE
PEOPLE WILL MEASURE US BY OUR
RESULTS ON THIS.
IT'S NOT THAT I EXPECT ANYTHING
I SAY HERE TODAY TO NECESSARILY
CHANGE PEOPLE'S VIEW.
I'M COMMITTED TO GETTING THIS
RIGHT.
I BELIEVE THAT OVER THE M COING
-- THE COMING YEARS, PEOPLE
WILL SEE REAL DIFFERENCES.
>> I'M GLAD THAT YOU ALL HAVE
GOTTEN THAT MESSAGE.
AS WE DISCUSSED IN MY OFFICE
YESTERDAY, THE LINE BETWEEN
LEGITIMATE POLITICAL DISCOURSE
AND HATE SPEAK CAN BE HARD TO
IDENTIFY ESPECIALLY WHEN RELYING
ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR
THE INITIAL DISCOVERY.
CAN YOU DISCUSS WHAT STEPS
FACEBOOK TAKES AND WHERE YOU MAY
DRAW THE LINE OF WHAT IS AND
WHAT IS NOT HATE SPEECH?
>> YES.
I'LL SPEAK TO HATE SPEECH AND
THEN I'LL TALK ABOUT ENFORCING
OUR CONTENT POLICIES MORE
BROADLY.
MAYBE IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT,
I'LL GO IN THE OTHER ORDER.
FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE
COMPANY, IN 2004, I STARTED IT
IN MY DORM ROOM.
IT WAS ME AND MY ROOMMATE.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AI TECHNOLOGY
THAT COULD LOOK AT THE CONTENT
THAT PEOPLE WERE SHARING.
WE HAD TO ENFORCE OUR CONTENT
POLICIES REACTIVELY.
PEOPLE SHOULD SHARE WHAT THEY
WANTED AND IF SOMEONE IN THE
COMMUNITY FOUND IT TO BES OFFIVE
OR AGAINST OUR POLICIES, THEY
WOULD FLAG IT FOR US.
NOW INCREASINGLY, WE'RE
DEVELOPING AI TOOLS THAT CAN
IDENTIFY CERTAIN CLASSES OF BAD
ACTIVITY PROACTIVELY AND FLAG IT
FOR OUR TEAM.
BY THE TEND OF THIS YEAR WE'LL
HAVE MORE THAN 20,000 PEOPLE
WORKING ON SECURITY AND CONTENT
REVIEW WORKING ACROSS ALL THESE
THINGS.
WHEN CONTENT GETS FLAGGED, WE
HAVE THOSE PEOPLE LOOK AT IT AND
IF IT VIOLATES OUR POLICIES THEN
WE TAKE IT DOWN.
SOME PROBLEMS LEND THEMSELVES
MORE EASILY TO AI SOLUTIONS THAN
OTHERS.
HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THE
HARDEST.
DETERMINING IF SOMETHING IS HATE
SPEECH IS VERY LIGUISTICALLY
NUANCED.
CAN TRUST THAT WITH AN AREA LIKE
TIENDSING TERRORIST PROPAGANDA.
TODAY, 99% OF THE ISIS AND AL
QAEDA CONTENT THAT WE TAKE DOWN
ON FACEBOOK OUR AI SYSTEMS FLAG
BEFORE ANY HUMAN SEES IT.
THAT'S A SUCCESS IN TERMS OF
ROLLING OUT AI TOOLS THAT CAN
PROACTIVELY POLICE AND ENFORCE
SAFETY ACROSS THE COMMUNITY.
HATE SPEECH, I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT
OVER A FIVE TO TEN YEAR PERIOD
WE'LL HAVE AI TOOLS THAT CAN GET
INTO SOME OF THE NUANCES OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTENT TO BE
MORE ACCURATE IN FLAGGING THINGS
FOR OUR SYSTEMS.
TODAY WE'RE NOT JUST THERE ON
THAT.
A LOT OF THIS IS STILL REACTIVE.
PEOPLE FLAG IT.
WE HAVE PEOPLE LOOK AT IT.
WE HAVE POLICIES TO TRY TO MAKE
IT AS NOT SUBJECTIVE AS
POSSIBLE.
THERE'S A HIGHER ERROR RATE THAN
I'M HAPPY WITH IT.
>> THANKS.
WHAT IS FACEBOOK DOING TO
PREVENT FOREIGN ACTORS FROM
INTERFERING IN U.S. ELECTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THIS IS ONE OF MY TOP PRIORITIES
IN 2018 IS TO GET THIS RIGHT.
ONE OF MY GREATEST REGRETS IN
RUNNING THE COMPANY IS WE WERE
SLOW IN IDENTIFYING THE RUSSIAN
INFORMATION OPERATIONS IN 2016.
WE EXPECTED THEM TO DO A NUMBER
OF MORE TRADITIONAL CYBER
ATTACKS WHICH WE DID IDENTIFY
AND NOTIFY THE CAMPAIGNS THAT
THEY WERE TRYING TO HACK INTO
THEM.
WE WERE TRY TO IDENTIFYING THE
NEW INFORMATION OPERATIONS.
>> WHEN DID YOU IDENTIFY NEW
OPERATIONS?
>> RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF 2016
ELECTION ITSELF.
SINCE THEN, WE -- 2018 IS AN
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT YEAR FOR
ELECTIONS.
NOT JUST WITH THE U.S. MID TERMS
BUT AROUND THE WORLD THERE'S
IMPORTANT ELECTIONS IN INDIA,
BRAZIL AND MEXICO AND PAKISTAN
AND HUNGARY.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT
THE INTEGRITY OF THOSE
ELECTIONS.
SINCE THE 2016 ELECTION THERE'S
BEEN SEVERAL IMPORTANT ELECTIONS
AROUND THE WORLD WHERE WE'VE HAD
THE BETTER RECORD.
THERE'S THE FRENCH ELECTION, THE
GERMAN ELECTION.
>> EXPLAIN WHAT IS BETTER ABOUT
THE RECORD.
>> WE HAVE A NEW AI TOOL THAT
IDENTIFIES FAKE ACCOUNTS.
BETWEEN THOSE THREE ELECTIONS WE
WERE ABLE TO REMOVE TEN OF,000
-- THOUSANDS OF ACCOUNTS.
THE NATURE OF THESE ATTACKS IS
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN RUSSIA WHOSE
JOB IT IS TO TRY TO EXPLOIT OUR
SYSTEMS AND OTHER INTERNET
SYSTEMS AND OTHER SYSTEMS AS
WELL.
THIS IS AN ARM'S RACE.
THEY GOING TO KEEP ON GETTING
BETTER AT THIS AND WE NEED TO
KEEP ON GETTING BETTER IN THIS
TOO WHICH IS WHY ONE OF THE
THINGS I MENTIONED BEFORE IS
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN
20,000 PEOPLE BY TEND OF THIS
YEAR WORKING ON SECURITY AND
CONTENT REVIEW ACROSS THE
COMPANY.
>> SPEAK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT
AUTOMATED BOTS THAT SPREAD
DISINFORMATION.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PUNISH
THOSE WHO EXPLOIT YOUR PLATFORM
IN THAT REGARD?
>> WELL, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO
HAVE FAKE ACCOUNT ON FACEBOOK.
YOUR CONTENT HAS TO BE
AUTHENTIC.
WE BUILD TECHNICAL TOOLS TO TRY
TO IDENTIFY WHEN PEOPLE ARE
CREATING FAKE ACCOUNTS
ESPECIALLY LARGE NETWORKS OF
FAKE ACCOUNTS LIKE THE RUSSIANS
HAVE IN ORDER TO REMOVE ALL OF
THAT CONTENT.
AFTER THE 2016 ELECTION, OUR TOP
TRY YOURTY WAS PROTECTING THE
INTEGRITY OF OTHER ELECTIONS
AROUND THE WORLD.
AT THE SAME TIME WE HAD A
PARALEGAL EFFORT TO TRACE BACK
TO RUSSIA THE IA ACTIVITY.
THAT WAS PART OF RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT THAT DID THIS BASIC
-- ACTIVITY IN 2016.
WE WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE A
NUMBER OF RUSSIAN MEDIA
ORGANIZATIONS WERE OPERATED AND
CONTROLLED BY THIS INTERNET
RESEARCH AGENCY.
WE TOOK THE STEP LAST WEEK.
IT WAS A PRETTY BIG STEP OF
TAKING DOWN SANCTIONED NEWS
ORGANIZATIONS IN RUSSIA AS PART
OF AN OPERATION TO REMOVE 270
FAKE ACCOUNTS AND PAGES, PART OF
THE BROADER NETWORK IN RUSSIA.
IT WAS PRIMARILY TARGETING
SPREADING MISINFORMATION IN
RUSSIA AS WELL AS RUSSIAN
SPEAKING NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES.
>> HOW MANY ACCOUNTS OF THIS
TYPE HAVE YOU TAKEN DOWN?
>> IN THE IRA SPECIFICALLY, THE
ONE WE PEGGED BACK TO THE IRA,
WE CAN IDENTIFY THE 470 IN THE
AMERICAN ELECTIONS AND THE 270
THAT WE SPECIFICALLY WENT AFTER
IN RUSSIA LAST WEEK.
THERE ARE MANY OTHERS THAT OUR
SYSTEMS CATCH WHICH ARE MORE
DIFFICULT TO ATTRIBUTE TO
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.
THE NUMBER WOULD BE ON TENS OF
THOUSANDS.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO HAVE MY TEAM
FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
>> WOULD YOU PLEASE.
IF YOU KNEW IN 2015 THAT
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA WAS USING
THE INFORMATION, WHY DIDN'T
FACEBOOK BAN CAMBRIDGE IN 2014?
WHY DID YOU WAIT?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA WASN'T USING
OUR SERVICES IN 2015.
THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I
ASKED OUR TEAM IS WHY DID WE
WAIT UNTIL WE FOUND OUT ABOUT
THE REPORTS LAST MONTH TO BAN
THEM.
AS OF THE TIME WLERNED ABOUT
THEIR ACTIVITY IN 2015, THEY
WEREN'T RUNNING PAGES.
WE HAD NOTHING TO BAN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.
SENATOR HATCH.
>> THIS IS THE MOST INTENSE
PUBLIC RELATED HEARING FOR A
TECH OPERATION.
THE RECENT STORIES ABOUT
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA AND DATA
MINING ON SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE
RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT CONSUMER
PRIVACY.
I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.
THESE STORIES TOUCH ON THE
FOUNDATION OF THE INTERNET
ECONOMY AND THE WAY THE WEBSITES
THAT DRIVE OUR INTERNET ECONOMY
MAKE MONEY.
SOME HAVE PROFESSED THEMSELVES
SHOCKED, SHOCKED THAT COMPANIES
LIKE FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE SHARE
DATA WITH ADVERTISERS.
DID ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS
STOP TO ASK WHY FACEBOOK AND
GOOGLE DON'T CHARGE FOR ACCESS.
NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE.
EVERYTHING INVOLVES TRADE OFF.
IF YOU WANT SOMETHING WITHOUT
HAVING TO PAY MONEY, YOU'LL HAVE
TO PAY FOR IT IN SOME OTHER WAY,
IT SEEMS TO ME.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.
THESE GREAT WEBSITES THAT DON'T
CHARGE FOR ACCESS, THEY EXTRACT
VALUE IN SOME OTHER WAY.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
AS LONG AS THEY ARE UP FRONT
ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
IN MY MIND THE ISSUE HERE IS
TRANSPARENCY.
IT'S CONSUMER CHOICE.
DO USERS UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE
AGREEING TO WHEN THEY ACCESS A
WEBSITE OR AGREE TO TERMS OF
SERVICE.
ARE WEBSITES UP FRONT ABOUT HOW
THEY EXTRACT VALUE FROM USERS OR
DO THEY HIDE THE BALL.
THE CONSUMERS HAVE THE
INFORMATION THEY NEED TO MAKE AN
INFORMED CHOICE REGARDING
WHETHER OR NOT TO VISIT A
PARTICULAR WEBSITE.
TO MY MIND THESE ARE QUESTIONS
THAT WE SHOULD ASK OR BE
FOCUSING ON.
I REMEMBER YOUR FIRST VISIT TO
CAPITOL HILL IN 2010.
YOU SPOKE TO THE TASK FORCE,
WHICH I CHAIR.
YOU SAID THAT FACEBOOK WOULD
ALWAYS BE FREE.
IS THAT STILL YOUR OBJECTIVE?
>> SENATOR, YES.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A VERSION
OF FACEBOOK THAT IS FREE.
IT'S OUR MISSION TO TRY TO HELP
CONNECT EVERYONE AROUND THE
WORLD.
WE BELIEVE WE NEED TO OFFER A
SERVICE THAT EVERYONE CAN
AFFORD.
>> HOW DO YOU SUSTAIN A BUSINESS
MODEL IN WHICH USERS DON'T PAY
FOR YOUR SERVICE?
>> SENATOR, WE RUN ADS.
>> I SEE.
THAT'S GREAT.
WHEN EVER A CONTROVERSY LIKE
THIS ARISES THERE'S A DANGER
THAT CONGRESS'S RESPONSE WILL BE
TO STEP IN AND OVERREGULATE.
THAT'S BEEN THE EXPERIENCE THAT
I'VE HAD IN MY 42 YEARS HERE.
IF YOUR VIEW, WHAT SORTS OF
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES WOULD HELP
TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THE
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA STORY HAS
REVEALED AND WHAT SORTS OF
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES WOULD NOT
HELP TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE?
>> SENATOR, I THINK THERE ARE A
FEW CATEGORIES OF LEGISLATION
THAT MAKES SENSE TO CONSIDER.
AROUND PRIVACY SPECIFICALLY,
THERE ARE FEW PRINCIPLES THAT
WOULD BE USEFUL TO DISCUSS AND
CODIFY INTO LAW.
ONE IS AROUND HAVING A SIMPLE
AND PRACTICAL SET OF WAYS THAT
YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU'RE DOING
WITH DATA.
WE TALKED A BIT EARLIER AROUND
THE COMPLEXITY OF LAYING OUT
THIS LONG PRIVACY POLICY.
IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT PEOPLE
FULLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING WHEN
IT'S ONLY WRITTEN OUT IN A LONG
LEGAL DOCUMENT.
THE STUFF NEEDS TO BE
IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY WHERE
PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT.
WHERE CONSUMERS CAN UNDERSTAND
IT.
THAT CAN ALSO CAPTURE THE
NUANCES OF HOW THE SERVICES WORK
THAT'S NOT OVERLY RESTRICTED ON
PROVIDING THE SERVICES.
THAT'S ONE.
THE SECOND IS AROUND GIVING
PEOPLE COMPLETE CONTROL.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLE FOR FACEBOOK.
EVERY PIECE OF CONTENT YOU OWN
AND YOU HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL
OVER WHO SEE S IT AND HOW YOU
SHARE IT.
YOU CAN REMOVE IT AT ANY TIME.
THAT'S WHY EVERY DAY ABOUT A
HUNDRED BILLION TIMES DAY,
PEOPLE COMES TO ONE OF OUR
SERVICES AND POST A PHOTO.
THEY KNOW THEY HAVE THAT CONTROL
AND WHO THEY SAY IT WILL GO TO
IS WHO SEES THE CONTENT.
THAT'S IMPORTANT OPINION THAT
SHOULD APPLY TO EVERY SERVICE.
THE THIRD IS AROUND ENABLING
INNOVATION.
SOME OF THESE ARE SENSITIVE LIKE
FACE RECOGNITION.
I THINK THERE'S A BALANCE THAT'S
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO STRIKE
HERE WHERE YOU OBTAIN SPECIAL
CONSENT FOR FEATURES LIKE FACE
RECOGNITION BUT WE STILL NEED TO
MAKE IT SO THAT AMERICAN
COMPANIES CAN INNOVATE IN THOSE
AREAS OR ELSE WE'RE GOING TO
FALL BEHIND CHINESE COMPETITORS
AND OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD WHO
HAVE DIFFERENT REGIMES FOR
DIFFERENT NEW FEATURES LIKE
THAT.
>> SENATOR CANTWELL.
>> THANK YOU.
DO YOU KNOW WHO PALANTIR IS?
>> I DO.
>> SOME PEOPLE HAVE REFERRED TO
THEM AS STANFORD ANALYTICA.
DO YOU AGREE?
>> I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT.
>> DO YOU THINK PALANTIR TAUGHT
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA PRESS
REPORTS ARE SAYING HOW TO DO
THESE TACTICS?
>> SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT PALANTIR
HAS EVER SCRAPPED DATA FROM
FACEBOOK?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
>> OKAY.
DO YOU THINK THAT DURING THE
2016 CAMPAIGN AS CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA WAS PROVIDING SUPPORT
TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN UNDER
PROJECT ALAMO, WERE THERE ANY
FACEBOOK PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT
SHARING OF TECHNIQUE AND
INFORMATION?
>> SENATOR, WE PROVIDED SUPPORT
TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SIMILAR TO
WHAT WE PROVIDE TO ANY
ADVERTISER OR CAMPAIGN WHO ASKS
FOR IT.
>> THAT WAS A YES?
IS THAT A YES?
>> SENATOR, CAN YOU REPEAT THE
SPECIFIC QUESTION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET
SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
>> DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, CAM
BRIDGE ANALYTICA WORKED WITH THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO REFINE TACTICS
AND WERE FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES
INVOLVED IN THAT?
>> SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT
OUR EMPLOYEES WERE INVOLVED WITH
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA.
I KNOW WE DID HELP OUT THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN WITH SALES SUPPORT THE
SAME OTHER WAY WE DO WITH OTHER
CAMPAIGNS.
>> THEY MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.
MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING YOUR
INVESTIGATION WILL FIND OUT.
>> I CAN HAVE MY TEAM GET BACK
TO YOU ON ANY SPECIFICS THERE
THAT I DON'T KNOW SITTING HERE
TODAY.
>> HAVE YOU HEARD OF TOTAL
INFORMATION AWARENESS?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING
ABOUT?
>> NO, I DO NOT.
>> TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS
WAS 2003.
JOHN ASHCROFT AND OTHERS TRYING
TO DO SIMILAR THINGS TO WHAT I
THINK IS BEHIND ALL OF THIS.
GEOPOLITICAL FORCES TRYING TO
GET DATA AND INFORMATION TO
INFLUENCE A PROCESS.
WHEN I LOOK AT PALANTIR AND WHAT
THEY'RE DOING AND I LOOK AT
WHAT'S APP WHICH IS ANOTHER
ACQUISITION AND I LOOK AT WHERE
YOU ARE FROM THE 2011 DESENT
DECREE AND WHERE YOU ARE TODAY
I'M THINKING IS THIS GUY OUT
FOXING FOXES OR IS HE GOING
ALONG WITH WHAT IS A MAJOR TREND
TO TRY TO HARVEST INFORMATION
FOR POLITICAL FORCES.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS DO YOU SEE
THAT THOSE APPLICATIONS, THAT
THOSE COMPANIES PALANTIR AND
EVEN WHAT'S APP ARE GOING TO
FALL INTO THE SAME SITUATION
THAT YOU'VE JUST FALLEN INTO
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS?
>> SENATOR, I'M NOT SURE
SPECIFICALLY.
OVERALL, I DO THINK THAT THESE
ISSUES AROUND INFORMATION ACCESS
ARE CHALLENGING.
TO THE SPECIFICS ABOUT THOSE
APPS, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT
PALANTIR IS.
WHAT'S APP COLLECTS VERY LITTLE
INFORMATION.
I THINK IS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE
THE KIND OF ISSUES BECAUSE OF
THE WAY THE SERVICES
ARCHITECTED.
I THINK THESE ARE BROAD ISSUES
ACROSS THE TECH INDUSTRY.
>> I GUESS GIVEN THE TRACK
RECORD WHERE FACEBOOK IS AND WHY
YOU'RE HERE TODAY, I GUESS
PEOPLE WOULD SAY THEY DIDN'T ACT
BOLDLY ENOUGH AND THE FACT THAT
P PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON WAS AN
INVESTOR AND IT WAS LAST MONTH
THAT THE BOLTON PACT WAS UPSET
HOW THE AMERICANS WERE BECOMING
LIMP WRISTED.
THE FACT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVE INTERESTED IN
THIS LARGER EFFORT AND WHAT I
THINK MY CONSTITUENTS WANT TO
KNOW IS WAS THIS DISCUSSED AT
YOUR BOARD MEETINGS AND WHAT ARE
THE APPLICATIONS AND INTEREST
THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED WITHOUT
PUTTING REAL TEETH INTO THIS.
WE DON'T WANT TO COME BACK TO
THIS SITUATION AGAIN.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ALL TALENT.
MY QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE ALL
THE WILL TO HELP US SOLVE THIS
PROBLEM?
>> YES, SENATOR.
DATA PRIVACY AND FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE ARE TOPICS WE
DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD MEETING.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES WE
DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD MEETING.
WE FEEL A HUGE RESPONSIBILITY TO
GET THIS RIGHT.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THE EUROPEAN
REGULATION SHOULD BE APPLIED
HERE IN THE U.S. IN.
>> I THINK EVERY ONE IN THE
WORLD DESERVES GOOD PRIVACY
PROTECTION.
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE
IMPLEMENT THE EXACT SAME
REGULATION, I WOULD GUESS THAT
IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE
HAVE DIFFERENT SENSIBILITIES IN
THE U.S. AS TO OTHER COUNTRIES.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO ROLLING OUT
THE CONTROLS AND AFFIRMATIVE
CONSENT AND THE SPECIAL CONTROLS
AROUND SENSITIVE TYPES OF
TECHNOLOGY LIKE FACE RECOGNITION
THAT ARE REQUIRED IN GDPR.
WE'RE DOING THAT AROUND THE
WORLD.
I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY WORTH
DISCUSSING WHETHER WE SHOULD
HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE
U.S. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO
SAY TODAY IS WE'RE GOING TO GO
FORWARD AN IMPLEMENT THAT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE
REGULATORY OUTCOME IS.
>> SENATOR.
>> THANK YOU.
MY QUESTION WILL BE A FOLLOW UP
ON WHAT SENATOR HATCH WAS
TALKING ABOUT AND LET ME AGREE
WITH BASICALLY HIS ADVICE THAT
WE DON'T WANT TO OVERREGULATE TO
THE POINT WHERE WE'RE STIFLING
INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT.
I UNDERSTAND WITH REGARD TO
SUGGESTED RULES OR SUGGESTED
LEGISLATION THERE ARE TWO
SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT OUT THERE.
ONE WOULD BE THE ISP, THE
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO
ARE ADVOCATING FOR PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS THAT
APPLY TO ALL ONLINE ENTITIES
EQUALLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE
INTERNET ECOSYSTEM.
FACEBOOK IS AN EDGE PROVIDER.
EDGE PROVIDERS MAY NOT SUPPORT
THAT EFFORT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODELS THAN
THE ISPs AND SHOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED LIKE SERVICES.
DO YOU THINK WE NEED CONSISTENT
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUME
S ACROSS THE ENTIRE INTERNET
ECOSYSTEM THAT ARE BASED ON THE
TYPE OF CONSUME EVERY
INFORMATION BEING COLLECTED,
USED OR SHARED REGARDLESS OF THE
ENTITY DOING THE COLLECTING OR
USING OR SHARING?
>> SENATOR, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION.
I WOULD DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
ISPs WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE THE
PIPES OF THE INTERNET AND THE
PLATFORMS LIKE GOOGLE OR
FACEBOOK OR TWITTER OR YOUTUBE
THAT ARE THE APPS OR PLATFORMS
ON TOP OF THAT.
I THINK IN GENERAL THE
EXPECTATIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE OF
THE PIPES ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
FROM THE PLATFORMS.
THERE MIGHT BE AREAS WHERE THERE
NEEDS TO BE MORE REGULATION IN
ONE AND LESS IN THE OTHER.
I THINK THERE WILL BE OTHER
PLACES WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE
MORE REGULATION OF THE OTHER
TYPE.
ON THE PIPES, ONE OF THE
IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT I THINK WE
FACE AND HAVE DEBATED IS --
>> WHEN YOU SAY PIPES?
>> ISPs.
I KNOW NET NEUTRALITY HAS BEEN A
HOTLY DEBATED TOPIC AND ONE OF
THE REASONS I'VE BEEN OUT THERE
SAYING I THINK THAT SHOULD BE
THE CASE IS BECAUSE I LOOK AT MY
OWN STORY OF WHEN I WAS GETTING
STARTED BUILDING FACEBOOK AT
HARVARD, I ONLY HAD ONE OPTION
FOR AN ISP TO USE.
IF I HAD TO PAY EXTRA IN ORDER
TO MAKE IT SO MY APP COULD BE
SEEN OR USED BY OTHER PEOPLE,
THEN WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE
HERE TODAY.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVACY
CONCERNS.
LET ME JUST SAY WE'LL HAVE TO
FOLLOW UP ON THIS, BUT I THINK
YOU AND I AGREE THIS IS GOING TO
BE ONE OF THE MAJOR ITEMS OF
DEBATE IF WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD
AND DO THIS FROM A GOVERNMENTAL
STAND POINT.
LET ME MOVE ONTO ANOTHER COUPLE
OF ITEMS.
IS IT TRUE THAT THAT FACEBOOK
COLLECTS THE CALL AND TEXT
HISTORIES OF ITS USERS THAT USE
ANDROID PHONES?
>> WE HAVE AN APP CALLED
MESSENGER AND THAT APP OFFERS
PEOPLE AN OPTION TO SYNC THEIR
TEXT MESSAGES INTO THE MESSAGING
APP SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR TEXTS
AND FACEBOOK MESSAGES IN ONE
PLACE.
WE ALSO ALLOW PEOPLE THE OPTION
OF --
>> YOU CAN OPT IN OR OUT OF
THAT?
>> YES.
IT'S OPT IN.
YOU HAVE TO AFFIRMATIVELY SAY
THAT YOU WANT TO SYNC THAT
INFORMATION BEFORE WE GET
ACCESS.
>> UNLESS YOU OPT IN, YOU DON'T
COLLECT THAT INFORMATION IN.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> IS THERE PRACTICE DONE AT ALL
WITH MINORS OR DO YOU MAKE AN
EXCEPTION FOR PERSONS AGE 13 TO
17?
>> I DO NOT KNOW.
WE CAN FOLLOW UP.
>> ONE OTHER THING.
THERE'S BEEN REPORTS THAT
FACEBOOK WITH TRACK USERS
INTERNET BROWSING ACTIVITY EVEN
AFTER THAT USER ARE HAS LOGGED
OFF OF THE FACEBOOK PLATFORM.
CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS TRUE?
>> SENATOR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
I GET THIS ACCURATE SO PROBABLY
BE BETTER TO HAVE MY FAMILY
FOLLOW UP.
>> YOU DON'T KNOW?
>> I KNOW THAT PEOPLE USE
COOKIES ON THE INTERNET AND YOU
CAN PROBABLY CORRELATE ACTIVITY
BETWEEN SESSIONS.
WE DO THAT FOR A NUMBER OF
REASONS, INCLUDING SECURITY AND
INCLUDING MEASURING ADS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE ADD EXPERIENCES
ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHICH PEOPLE
CAN OPT OUT OF.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M PRECISE?
MY ANSWER.
>> WHEN YOU GET BACK TO ME, SIR,
WOULD YOU ALSO LET US KNOW HOW
FACEBOOK DISCLOSES TO ITS USERS
THAT ENGAGING IN THIS TYPE OF
TRACKING GIVES US THAT RESULT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.
>> I ASSUME FACEBOOK'S BEEN
SERVED SUBPOENAS FROM THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S
OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> HAVE YOU OR ANYONE AT
FACEBOOK BEEN INTERVIEWED?
>> YES.
>> HAVE YOU BEEN INTERVIEWED?
>> I HAVE NOT.
I HAVE NOT.
>> OTHERS HAVE IN.
>> I BELIEVE SO.
I WANT TO BE CAREFUL HERE
BECAUSE THAT -- OR WORK WITH THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL IS CONFIDENTIAL
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN
AN OPEN SESSION I'M NOT
REVEALING SOMETHING THAT'S
CONFIDENTIAL.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR YOU HAVE
BEEN CONTACTED AND HAVE HAD
SUBPOENAS?
>> LET ME CLARIFY THAT.
I'M NOT AWARE OF A SUBPOENA.
I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE BUT I
KNOW WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM.
>> THANK YOU.
SIX MONTHS AGO GENERAL COUNSEL
PROMISED YOU WERE TAKING STEPS
TO PREVENT UNWITTING
CO-CONSPIRATOR BUT THESE
UNVERIIED DIVISIVE PAGES ARE ON
FACEBOOK TODAY.
THEY LOOK A LOT LIKE THE RUSSIAN
GROUPS USED TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA
DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.
ARE YOU ABLE TO CONFIRM WHETHER
THEY ARE RUSSIAN CREATED GROUPS,
YES OR NO?
>> SENATOR, YOU ASKING ABOUT
THOSE SPECIFICALLY?
>> YES.
>> SENATOR, LAST WEEK WE
ANNOUNCD MAJOR CHANGE TO OUR
ADS AND PAGES POLICIES THAT WE
WILL BE VERIFYING THE IDENTITY
OF EVERY SINGLE ADVERTISER --
>> SPECIFIC ONES.
DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE
PIECES OF CONTENT SPECIFICALLY.
>> IF YOU DID THIS POLICY OVER A
WEEK AGO, YOU'D BE ABLE TO
VERIFY THEM IN.
>> WE ARE WORKING ON THAT NOW.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE GOING
TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF ANY
ADVERTISER WHO IS RUNNING A
POLITICAL OR ISSUE RELATED AD.
THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THE
HONEST ADS ACT IS PROPOSING AND
WE'RE FOLLOWING THAT.
WE'RE ALSO GOING TO DO THAT FOR
PAGES.
>> YOU CAN'T ANSWER ON THESE?
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR.
>> WILL YOU FIND OUT THE ANSWER
AND GET BACK TO ME?
>> I'LL HAVE MY TEAM GET BACK TO
YOU.
I THINK IT'S WORTH ADDING THAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO THE SAME
VERIFICATION OF THE IDENTITY AND
LOCATION OF A MINS WHO ARE
RUNNING LARGE PAGES.
EVEN IF THEY AREN'T BUYING ADS,
THAT WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE EFFORTS OR
OTHER UNAUTHENTIC EFFORT.
>> SOME MIGHT SAY IT'S ABOUT
TIME.
SIX MONTHS AGO I ASKED GENERAL
COUNSEL ABOUT FACEBOOK IS A
BREEDING GROUND FOR HATE SPEECH
AGAINST ROHINYJA REFUGEES.
YOU SAY YOU USE AI TO FIND THIS.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF CONTENT I'M
REFERRING TO.
IT'S CALLS FOR THE DEATH OF A
MUSLIM JOURNALIST.
THAT THREAT WENT STRAIGHT
THROUGH YOUR DETECTION SYSTEM.
IT SPREAD QUICKLY.
IT TOOK ATTEMPT AFTER ATTEMPT TO
GET YOU TO REMOVE IT.
WHY COULDN'T IT BE REMOVED
WITHIN 24 HOURS.
>> WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MYANMAR
IS A TERRIBLE TRAGEDY.
>> WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT.
>> YOU AND INVESTIGATORS HAVE
BLAMED -- YOU BLAME FACEBOOK FOR
PLAYING A ROLE IN THAT GENERAL
VISE.
WE ALL AGREE SOCIAL SECURITY
TERRIBLE.
HOW CAN YOU DEDICATE RESOURCES
TO MAKE SURE SUCH HATE SPEECH IS
TAKING DOWN IN 24 HOURS.
>> WE'RE WORKING ON THIS.
THERE'S THREE SPECIFIC THINGS
WE'RE DOING.
WE'RE HIRING DOZENS MORE BURMESE
LANGUAGE CONTENT USERS.
IT'S HARD TO DO IT WITHOUT
PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE.
WE'RE WORKING WITH SPECIFICS TO
TAKE DOWN THEIR ACCOUNT.
THIRD, IS WE'RE STANDING THE UP
A PRODUCT TEAM TO DO SPECIFIC
PRODUCT CHANGES IN MYANMAR AND
OTHER COUNTRIES THAT MAY HAVE
SIMILAR ISSUES IN THE FUTURE TO
PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING.
>> SENATOR CRUZ AND I SENT A
LETTER TO APPLE ASKING WHAT THEY
WILL DOING ABOUT CHINESE
SENSORSHIP.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'LL DO
ABOUT CHINESE SENSORSHIP WHEN
THEY COME TO YOU.
>> SENATOR GRAHAM IS UP NEXT.
>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANDREW
BOSWORTH?
>> YES, SENATOR, I AM.
>> HE SAID SO WE CONNECT MORE
PEOPLE, MAYBE SOMEONE DIES IN A
TERRORIST ATTACK COORDINATING ON
OUR TOOLS.
WE BELIEVE IN CONNECTING MORE
PEOPLE SO DEEPLY THAT ANYTHING
THAT ALLOWS US TO CONNECT PEOPLE
MORE OFTEN IS DE FACTO GOOD.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>> NO I DO NOT.
BOS WROTE THAT AS AN INTERNAL
NOTE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION
INTERNALLY.
I DISAGREED WITH IT AT THE TIME
HE WROTE IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMENTS THE
PEOPLE DID TOO.
>> YOU DID A BAD JOB OF
COMMUNICATING YOUR DISPLEASURE
BECAUSE IF HE UNDERSTOOD WHERE
YOU'RE AT, HE WOULD HAVE NEVER
SAID IT.
>> WE TRY TO RUN OUR COMPANY
WHERE PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS
OPINIONS INTERNALLY.
>> THIS IS AN OPINION THAT
DISTURBS ME.
IF SOMEBODY THAT SAID THIS THAT
WORKS FOR ME, I'D FIRE THEM.
WHO IS YOUR BIGGEST COME PET
TER?
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF COMPETITORS.
>> WHO IS THE BIGGEST?
>> CAN I GIVE A BUNCH.
THREE CATEGORIES.
ONE IS THE TECH PLATFORMS.
GOOGLE, MIMICROSOFT.
>> IF I BUY A FORD AND IT
DOESN'T WORK WELL, I CAN BUY A
CHEVY.
IF I'M UPSET WITH FACEBOOK,
WHAT'S THE EQUIVALENT PRODUCT
THAT I CAN SIGN UP FOR?
>> THE SECOND CATEGORY THAT I
WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT --
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT
CATEGORIES.
I'M TALKING A REAL COMPETITION
YOU FACE.
CAR COMPANIES FACE A LOT OF
COMPETITION IF THEY FACE A
DEFECTIVE CAR.
PEOPLE STOP BUYING THAT CAR.
IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO
FACEBOOK IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR?
>> YES.
THE AVER RAJ AMERICAN USES AGTS
DIFFERENT APPS TO COMMUNICATE
WITH THEIR FRIENDS AND STAY IN
TOUCH WITH PEOPLE.
>> THE SAME SERVICE YOU PROVIDE?
IS TWITTER THE SAME?
>> IT OVERLAPS.
>> YOU DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A
MONOPOLY?
>> IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THAT TO
ME.
>> IT DOESN'T.
INSTAGRAM.
YOU BOUGHT IT.
WHY DID YOU BUY INSTAGRAM?
>> THEY WERE VERIAL LENDED APP
DEVELOPERS MAKING GOOD USE OF
OUR PLATFORM AND UNDERSTOOD OUR
VALUES.
>> IT'S A GOOD BUSINESS
DECISION.
MY POINT IS ONE WAY TO REGULATE
A COMPANY IS THROUGH
COMPETITION, THROUGH GOVERNMENT
REGULATION.
HERE'S THE QUESTION THAT ALL OF
US NEED TO ANSWER.
WHAT DO WE TELL OUR CON STIMP
WENTS GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE
WHY WE SHOULD LET YOU
SELF-REGULATE.
WHAT WOULD YOU TELL PEOPLE IN
SOUTH CAROLINA THAT GIVEN ALL
THE THINGS WE DISCOVERED HERE
IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR US TO RELY
UPON YOU TO REGULATE YOUR OWN
BUSINESS PRACTICES?
>> MY POSITION IS NOT THAT THERE
SHOULD BE NO REGULATION.
I THINK THE INTERNET IS --
>> DO YOU EMBRACE REGULATION?
>> I THINK THE REAL QUESTION AS
THE INTERNET BECOMES MORE
IMPORTANT IN PEOPLE'S LIVES IS
WHAT IS THE RIGHT REGULATION.
>> YOU AS COMPANY, WELCOME
REGULATION?
>> I THINK IF IT'S THE RIGHT
REGULATION THEN YES.
>> DO YOU THINK THE EUROPEANS
HAVE IT RIGHT?
>> I THINK THEY GET THINGS
RIGHT.
>> HAVE YOU EVER SUBMITTED --
THAT'S TRUE.
WOULD YOU WORK WITH US IN TERMS
OF WHAT REGULATIONS YOU THINK
ARE NECESSARY IN YOUR INDUSTRY?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> WOULD YOU SUBMIT TO US SOME
PROPOSED REGULATIONREGULATIONS?
>> YES.
I'LL HAVE MY TEAM FOLLOW UP WITH
YOU SO WE CAN HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION ACROSS THE DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES WHERE I THINK THIS
DISCUSSION NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
>> LOOK FORWARD TO IT.
WHEN YOU SIGN UP FOR FACEBOOK,
YOU SIGN UP FOR TERMS OF
SERVICE.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
>> YES.
>> IT SAYS THE TERMS GOVERN YOUR
USE OF FACEBOOK AND THE
PRODUCTS, FEATURES, APPS,
TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE WE OFFER
EXCEPT WHERE WE STATE SEPARATE
TERMS AND NOT WHERE THESE
APPLIES.
I'M A LAWYER AND I HAVE NO IDEA.
DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE
CONSUMERS UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY
ARE SIGNING UP FOR?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT THE
AVERAGE PERSON LIKELY READS THAT
WHOLE DOCUMENT.
I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS
THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT AND
HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO.
>> DO YOU AGREE WITH ME YOU
BETTER COME UP WITH DIFFERENT
WAYS BECAUSE THERE AIN'T
WORKING?
>> SENATOR, I THINK IN CERTAIN
AREAS THAT IS TRUE.
I THINK IN OTHER AREAS LIKE THE
CORE PART OF WHAT WE DO.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE MOST
BASIC LEVEL, PEOPLE COME TO
FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, WHAT'S APP
MESSENGER ABOUT A HUNDRED
BILLIONS TIMES A DAY TO SHARE A
CONTENT OR MESSAGE WITH SPECIFIC
SET OF PEOPLE.
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE
HAVE THE CONTROLS THIS LINE
EVERY TIME AND GIVEN THE VOLUME
OF THE ACTIVITY AND THE VALUE
THAT PEOPLE TELL US THEY ARE
GETTING FROM THAT, I THINK THAT
CONTROL IN LINE DOES SEEM TO BE
WORKING FAIRLY WELL.
WE CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER AND
THERE SERVICES COMPLEX AND YOU
GO AND POST A PHOTO.
I AGREE THAT IN MANY PLACES WE
COULD DO BETTER.
FOR THE CORE OF THE SERVICE IT
IS QUITE CLEAR.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.
>> I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT
WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS BAD.
YOU ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS BREACH
OF TRUST AND THE WAY I EXPLAIN
IT TO MY CONSTITUENTS IS IF
SOMEONE BREAKS INTO MY APARTMENT
WITH A CROWBAR AND TAKE MY
STUFF, IT'S LIKE IF THE MANAGER
GAVE THEM THE KEYS OR IF THEY
DIDN'T HAVE ANY LOCKS ON DOORS,
IT'S STILL BREAK IN.
I BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE LAWS
AND RULES THAT ARE SOPHISTICATED
AS THE BRILLIANT PRODUCTS THAT
YOU'VE DEVELOPED HERE.
WE JUST HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.
ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I'M
FOCUSED ON IS THE ELECTION.
I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT THAT
YOU AND FACEBOOK AND NOW TWITTER
HAVE GIVEN TO THE HONEST ADS ACT
BILL THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT I'M
LEADING WITH SENATOR McCAIN AND
WARNER.
AS WE WORK TO PAS THIS LAW SO WE
HAVE THE SAME RULES THIS PLACE
TO DISCLOSE POLITICAL ADS AND
ISSUE ADS AS WE DO FOR TV AND
RADIO AS WELL AS DISCLAIMERS
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE EARLY
ACTION, AS SOON AS JUNE, BEFORE
THIS ELECTION, SO PEOPLE CAN
VIEW THESE ADS INCLUDING ISSUE
ADS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT BEFORE I
GO INTO THIS MORE DETAIL TO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT AREA FOR
THE WHOLE INDUSTRY TO MOVE ON.
THE TWO SPECIFIC THINGS THAT
WE'RE DOING ARE ONE IS AROUND
TRANSPARENCY.
NOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
GO AND CLICK ON ANY ADVERTISER
OR ANY PAGE ON FACEBOOK AND SEE
ALL THE ADS THEY ARE RUNNING.
THAT BRINGS ADVERTISING ONLINE,
ON FACEBOOK TO AN EVEN HIGHER
STANDARDS THAN WHAT YOU WOULD
HAVE ON TV OR PRINT MEDIA
BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE YOU CAN
SEE ALL THE TV ADS SOMEONE IS
RUNNING.
THIS CAMPAIGN OR THIRD PARTY IS
SAYING DIFFERENT MESSAGES TO
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEOPLE IS
IMPORTANT.
>> SENATOR WARNER AND I HAVE
CALLED OR GOOGLE TO DO THE SAME.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PATCH WORK
OF ADS.
I HOPE YOU'LL BE WORKING WITH US
TO PASS THIS BILL, IS THAT
RIGHT?
>> WE WILL.
>> THANK YOU.
ON THE SUBJECT OF CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA, WERE THESE PEOPLE,
THE 87 MILLION PEOPLE, USERS
CONCENTRATED IN CERTAIN STATES?
ARE YOU ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE
THEY ARE FROM?
>> I DO NOT HAVE THAT
INFORMATION WITH ME BUT WE CAN
FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR OFFICE.
>> AS WE KNOW THAT ELECTION WAS
CLOSE AND IT WAS ONLY THOUSANDS
VOTES IN CERTAIN STATES.
YOU ALSO ESTIMATED THAT ROUGHLY
126 MILLION PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN
SHOWN CONTENT FROM FACEBOOK PAGE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERNET
RESEARCH AGTS SI.
HAVE YOU DETERMINED WHETHER ANY
OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE THE SAME
FACEBOOK USERS WHOSE DATA WAS
SHARED WITH CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA?
ARE YOU ABLE TO MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION?
>> WE'RE INVESTIGATING THAT NOW.
WE BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE THERE
WILL BE A CONNECTION THERE.
>> THAT SEEMS LIKE A BIG DEAL AS
WE LOOK BACK AT THAT LAST
ELECTION.
FORMER CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA
EMPLOYEE CHRISTOPHER WILEY SAID
THE DATA IT IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
FROM FACEBOOK USERS COULD BE
STORED IN RUSSIA.
DO YOU AGREE THAT'S A
POSSIBILITY?
>> SORRY, ARE YOU ASK IF
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA COULD BE
STORED IN RUSSIA?
>> THAT'S WHAT HE SAID THIS
WEEKEND ON A SUNDAY SHOW.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC
KNOWLEDGE THAT WOULD SUGGEST
THAT.
ONE OF THE STEPS WE NEED TO TAKE
IS DO A FULL AUDIT OF ALL OF
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA SYSTEMS TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING,
MAKE SURE THEY REMOVE THE DATA
AND IF THEY HAVEN'T WE'LL TAKE
LEGAL ACTION FOR THEM TO DO SO.
THAT AUDIT, WE HAVE SEEDED THAT
IN ORDER TO LET THE UK
GOVERNMENT LET THE GOVERNMENT
INVESTIGATION FIRST.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO COMPLETING
THAT.
>> YOU STATED YOU WOULD SUPPORT
SOME PRIVACY RULES SO EVERYONE
IS PLAYING BY THE SAME RULES
HERE.
YOU ALSO SAID HERE YOU SHOULD
HAVE NOTIFIED CUSTOMERS EARLIER.
WOULD YOU SUPPORT A RULE THAT
WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO NOTIFY YOUR
USERS OF A BREACH WITHIN 72
HOURS?
>> SENATOR, THAT MAKES SENSE TO
ME.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE OUR TEAM
FOLLOW UP WITH YOURS TO DISCUSS
DETAILS AROUND THAT AND MORE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I THINK PART OF THIS WAS WHEN
PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW THEIR
DATA HAS BEEN BREACHED, THAT'S A
HUGE PROBLEM.
I THINK WE GET TO SOLUTION
FASTERS WHEN WE GET THAT
INFORMATION OUT THERE.
THANK YOU AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
PASSING THIS BILL.
WE'D LOVE TO PASS IT BEFORE THE
ELECTION ON THE HONEST ADS AND
LOOKING FORWARD TO BETTER
DISCLOSURE THIS ELECTION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SENATOR KLOBUCHAR.
>> THANK YOU.
I TOLD YOU WHEN I SENT MY
BUSINESS CARDS DOWN TO BE
PRESENTED THEY CAME BACK FROM
THE SENATE PRINT SHOP WITH A
MESSAGE.
IT WAS THE FIRST BUSINESS CARD
THEY EVER PRINTED A FACEBOOK
ADDRESS ON.
THERE ARE DAYS WHEN I'VE
REGRETTED THAT BUT MORE DAYS WE
GET LOTS OF INFORMATION.
THERE ARE DAYS I WONDER IF
FACEBOOK FRIEND S A LITTLE MISAT
A TIMED.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE I HAVE
THOSE EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THE PLATFORM YOU CREATED IS
REALLY IMPORTANT.
MY SON WHO IS 13 IS DEDICATED TO
INSTAGRAM.
HE WOULD WANT TO BE SURE I
MENTION THAT WHILE I'M HERE WITH
YOU.
LOTS OF WAYS TO CONNECT PEOPLE.
THE INFORMATION IS AN IMPORTANT
COMMODITY AND IT'S WHAT MAKES
YOUR BUSINESS WORK.
I GET THAT.
HOWEVER, I WONDER ABOUT SOME OF
THE COLLECTION EFFORTS AND MAYBE
WE CAN GO THROUGH LARGELY EVEN
YES AND NO AND WE'LL GET BACK TO
MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION OF
THIS.
DO YOU COLLECT USER DATA THROUGH
CROSS DEVICE TRACKING?
>> I BELIEVE WE DO LINK PEOPLE'S
ACCOUNTS BETWEEN DEVICES IN
ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR
FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM AND OTHER
EXPERIENCES CAN BE SYNCED.
>> THAT WOULD INCLUDE OFFLINE
DATA.
DATA THAT'S NOT LINKED TO
FACEBOOK BUT SOME DEVICE THEY
WENT THROUGH FACEBOOK ON?
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> SENATOR, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE GET THIS RIGHT.
I WANT TO HAVE MY FAMILY TOLL UP
WITH YOU ON THAT AFTER WARDS.
>> THAT DOESN'T SEEM THAT
COMPLICATED TO ME.
YOU UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER THAN
I DO.
DO YOU TRACK DEVICES THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO USES FACEBOOK HAS
THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE DEVICE
THEY USE FOR THEIR FACEBOOK
CONNECTION BUT NOT NECESSARILY
CONNECTED TO FACEBOOK?
>> I'M IN THE SURE OF THE ANSWER
TO THAT QUESTION.
>> REALLY?
>> YES.
THERE MAY BE SOME DATA NECESSARY
TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT WE
DO.
I DON'T HAVE THAT SITTING HERE
TODAY.
>> THE FTC FLAGGED CROSS DEVICE
TRACKING AS ONE OF THEIR
CONCERNS.
GENERALLY THAT PEOPLE ARE
TRACKING DEVICES THAT THE USERS
OF SOMETHING LIKE FACEBOOK DON'T
KNOW THEY'RE BEING TRACKED.
HOW DO YOU DISCLOSE YOUR
COLLECTION METHODS?
IS THAT ALL IN THIS DOCUMENT
THAT I WOULD SEE AND AGREE TO
BEFORE I ENTERED INTO FACEBOOK?
>> YES.
THERE ARE TWO WAYS WE DO THIS.
SOMEONE WE TRY TO BE EXHAUSTIVE
IN TERMS OF SERVICE AND PRIVACY
POLICIES.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE TRY TO
PROVIDE INLINE CONTROLS SO THAT
PEOPLE ARE IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT
PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND.
THEY CAN EITHER GO TO SETTINGS
OR SHOW THEM AT THE TOP OF THE
APP.
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND ALL CONTROLS
AND SETTINGS THEY HAVE AND CAN
CONFIGURE THEIR EXPERIENCE THE
WAY THEY WANT.
>> DO PEOPLE NOW GIVE YOU
PERMISSION TO TRACK SPECIFIC
DEVICES IN THEIR CONTRACT AND IF
THEY DO IS THAT A RELATIVELY NEW
ADDITION TO WHAT YOU DO?
>> SENATOR --
>> AM I ABLE TO OPT OUT?
AM I ABLE TO SAY IT'S OKAY FOR
YOU TO TRACK WHAT I'M SAYING ON
FACEBOOK BUT DON'T TRACK WHAT
I'M TEXTING TO SOMEBODY ELSE OFF
FACEBOOK, ON AN ANDROID PHONE?
>> YES, SENATOR.
IN GENERAL FACEBOOK IS NOT
COLLECTING DATA FROM OTHER APPS
THAT YOU USE.
THERE MAY BE SOME SPECIFIC
THINGS ABOUT THE DEVICE YOU'RE
USING THAT FACEBOOK NEEDS TO
UNDERSTAND IN ORDER TO OFFER THE
SERVICE BUT IF YOU'RE USING
GOOGLE OR USING SOME TEXTING
APP, UNLESS YOU SPECIFICALLY OPT
IN THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE THE
TEXTING APP INFORMATION,
FACEBOOK WOULDN'T SEE THAT.
>> HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY
OR IS THAT A RECENT ADDITION TO
HOW YOU DEAL WITH THOSE OTHER
WAYS THAT IE MIGHT COMMUNICATE?
>> SENATOR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT IS HOW THE MOBILE OPERATING
SYSTEMS ARE ARCHITECTED.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE BUNDLED
PERMISSIONS FOR HOW I CAN AGREE
TO WHAT DEVICES I MAY USE THAT
YOU MAY HAVE CONTACT WITH?
DO YOU BUNDLE THAT PERMISSION OR
AM AABLE TO SAY WHAT I'M WILLING
FOR YOU TO WATCH AND WHAT I
DON'T WANT YOU TO WATCH?
I THINK WE MAY HAVE TO TAKE THAT
FOR THE RECORD BASED ON
EVERYBODY ELSE'S TIME.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WOULD YOU BE
COMFORTABLE SHARING NAME OF THE
HOTEL YOU STAYED IN LAST NIGHT?
>> NO.
>> IF YOU MESSAGED ANYBODY THIS
WEEK, WOULD YOU SHARE WITH US
THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE YOU
MESSAGED?
>> NO, I WOULD PROBABLY NOT
CHOOSE TO DO THAT PUBLICLY HERE.
>> I THINK THIS MIGHT BE WHAT
THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
THE LIMITS OF YOUR RIGHT TO
PRIVACY AND HOW MUCH YOU GIVE
AWAY IN MODERN AMERICA IN THE
NAME OF QUOTE, CONNECTING PEOPLE
AROUND THE WORLD.
THE QUESTION OF WHAT INFORMATION
FACEBOOK'S COLLECTING, WHO THEY
ARE SENDING IT TO AND WHETHER
THEY ASKED ME IN ADVANCE MY
PERMISSION TO DO THAT.
IS THAT FAIR THING FOR A USER OF
FACEBOOK TO EXPECT?
>> YES, SENATOR.
I THINK EVERY SHOULD HAVE
CONTROL OVER HOW THEIR
INFORMATION IS USED.
AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN SOME
OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS, I THINK
THAT IS LAID OUT IN SOME OF THE
DOCUMENTS BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY
YOU WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE CONTROL
IN THE PRODUCT ITSELF.
THE MOST IMPORTANT WAY THIS
HAPPENS ACROSS OUR SERVICES IS
THAT EVERY DAY PEOPLE COME --
>> AS WE REACH THE 4:00 HOUR IN
THE EAST YOU'RE WATCHING LIVE
COVERAGE OF FACEBOOK CEO SENATE
TESTIMONY.
SOME YOU HAVE WILL NOW BE
RETURNING TO REGULAR PROGRAMMING
FOR.
FOR THE REST OF YOU, OUR
COVERAGE CONTINUES.
CONTINUES.
>> IN THE PAST, SOMETIMES THAT
INFORMATION IS GOING WAY BEYOND
THEIR FRIENDS.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE MADE MONEY OFF
SHARING THAT, CORRECT?
>> SENATOR, I THINK YOU'RE
REFERRING TO THE DEVELOPER
PLATFORM.
IT MAY BE USEFUL TO GIVE
BACKGROUND ON HOW WE SET IT UP,
IF THAT'S USEFUL.
>> I HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT, SO
MAYBE YOU CAN DO THAT FOR THE
RECORD.
BECAUSE I HAVE A COUPLE OTHER
QUESTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO ASK.
YOU HAVE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED
SOMETHING THAT IS CALLED
MESSENGER KIDS.
FACEBOOK CREATED AN APP ALLOWING
KIDS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 6 AND
12 TO SEND VIDEO AND TEXT
MESSAGES THROUGH FACEBOOK AS AN
EXTENSION OF THEIR PARENTS'
ACCOUNT.
YOU HAVE CARTOON-LIKE STICKERS
AND CONTENT THAT APPEALS TO
FIRST GRADERS.
ON JANUARY 30th, CAMPAIGN FOR
COMMERCIAL-FREE CHILDHOOD.
POINTED TO A WEALTH OF RESEARCH
DEMONSTRATING THAT EXCESSIVE USE
OF DIGITAL DEVICES AND SOCIAL
MEDIA IS HARMFUL TO KIDS AND
ARGUED THAT YOUNG CHILDREN
SIMPLY ARE NOT READY TO HANDLE
SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AT AGE 6.
IN ADDITION, THERE ARE CONCERNS
ABOUT DATA THAT IS BEING
GATHERED ABOUT THESE KIDS.
AND OTHER CERTAIN LIMITS, WE
KNOW, WHICH CHILDREN'S ONLINE
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
WHAT GUARANTEES CAN GIVE YOU
THAT NO DATA FROM MESSENGER KIDS
IS OR WILL BE SHARED WITH THOSE
THAT MIGHT VIOLATE THAT LAW.
>> SENATOR, A NUMBER OF THINGS
THAT ARE IMPORTANT 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 KIDS AND CALL THEM,
USE APPS LIKE FACETIME WHEN
THEY'RE WORKING LATE OR NOT
AROUND AND WANT TO COMMUNICATE
WITH THEIR KIDS BUT THEY WANT
COMPLETE CONTROL.
I THINK WE CAN AGREE WHEN YOUR
KID IS 6 OR 7, EVEN IF THEY HAVE
ACCESS TO A PHONE, YOU WANT TO
CONTROL EVERYONE WHO THEY
CONTACT.
THERE WASN'T AN APP THAT DID
THAT.
WE BUILT THIS SERVICE TO DO
THAT.
THE APP COLLECTS A MINIMUM
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT IS
NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE
SERVICE.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MESSAGES
THAT PEOPLE SEND IS SOMETHING
THAT WE COLLECT IN ORDER TO
OPERATE THE SERVICE.
BUT IN GENERAL, THAT DATA IS NOT
GOING TO BE SHARED WITH THIRD
PARTIES.
IT IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE
BROADER FACEBOOK --
>> EXCUSE ME, AS A LAWYER I
PICKED UP THE WORD ON THE PHRASE
"IN GENERAL."
IT SEEMS TO SUGGEST IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES IT WILL BE SHARED
WITH THIRD PARTIES.
>> NO, IT WILL NOT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THE IDEA
THAT SOMEONE HAVING REACHED
ADULT AGE, HAVING GROWN UP WITH
MESSENGER KIDS SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO DELETE THE DATA THAT YOU'VE
COLLECTED?
>> SENATOR, YES.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN YOU
BECOME 13, WHICH IS THE LEGAL
LIMIT.
WE DON'T ALLOW PEOPLE UNDER THE
AGE OF 13 TO USE FACEBOOK.
YOU DON'T AUTOMATICALLY GO FROM
HAVING A MESSENGER KIDS ACCOUNT
TO A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT.
YOU HAVE TO START OVER AND GET A
FACEBOOK ACCOUNT.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO
CONSIDER MAKING SURE THAT ALL
THAT INFORMATION IS DELETED AND,
IN GENERAL, PEOPLE WILL BE
STARTING OVER WHEN THEY GET
THEIR FACEBOOK OR OTHER
ACCOUNTS.
>> I HAVE A FEW SECONDS,
ILLINOIS HAS A BIO METRIC
INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT, OUR
STATE DOES, TO REGULATE THE
COMMERCIAL USE OF FACIAL AND
FINGER SCANS IN THE LIKE.
WE'RE IN A DEBATE ON THAT, I'M
AFRAID FACEBOOK IS TRYING TO
CARVE OUT EXCEPTIONS TO THAT.
I HOPE YOU'LL FILL ME IN ON HOW
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH PROTECTING
PRIVACY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MR. ZUCKERBERG FOR
BEING HERE.
I NOTE UP UNTIL 2014, THE MANTRA
OR MOTTO OF FACEBOOK WAS "MOVE
FAST AND BREAK THINGS" IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE CHANGED
IT, BUT THE MANTRA IS CURRENTLY
"MOVE FAST WITH STABLE
INFRASTRUCTURE" WHICH IS A MUCH
LESS SEXY MANTRA.
>> IT SOUNDS MORE BORING.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, DURING THE
TIME IT WAS FACEBOOK'S MANTRA,
OR MOTTO TO MOVE FAST AND BREAK
THINGS, DO YOU THINK SOME OF THE
MISJUDGMENTS, PERHAPS, MISTAKES
YOU'VE ADMITTED TO HERE WERE AS
A RESULT OF THAT CULTURE OR THAT
ATTITUDE, PARTICULARLY WITH
REGARDS TO PERSONAL PRIVACY OF
INFORMATION OF YOUR SUBSCRIBERS?
>> SENATOR, I THINK WE MADE
MISTAKES BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT
THE BROADEST MISTAKES WE MADE
HERE IS NOT TAKING A BROAD
ENOUGH VIEW OF OUR
RESPONSIBILITY.
THE MOVE FAST CULTURAL VALUE IS
MORE TACTICAL AROUND WHETHER
ENGINEERS CAN SHIP THINGS AND
DIFFERENT WAYS WE OPERATE.
BUT I THINK THE BIG MISTAKE THAT
WE'VE MADE LOOKING BACK ON THIS
IS VIEWING OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS
JUST BUILDING TOOLS RATHER THAN
VIEWING OUR WHOLE RESPONSIBILITY
AS MAKES SURE THOSE TOOLS ARE
USED FOR GOOD.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE
PREVIOUSLY YOUR -- OR EARLY IN
THE PAST, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT
PLATFORMS LIKE FACEBOOK,
TWITTER, INSTAGRAM, THE LIKE ARE
NEUTRAL PLATFORMS AND THE PEOPLE
WHO OWN AND RUN THOSE FOR PROFIT
NOT CRITICIZING DOING SOMETHING
FOR PROFIT IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT
THEY HAVE BORE NO RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THEIR CONTENT.
YOU AGREE NOW THAT FACEBOOK AND
OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE
NOT NEUTRAL PLATFORMS BUT BEAR
SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
CONTENT.
>> I AGREE THAT WE'RE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT.
I THINK THERE'S ONE OF THE BIG
SOCIETAL QUESTIONS THAT I THINK
WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO ANSWER IS
THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK THAT WE
HAVE IS BASED ON THIS REACTIVE
MODEL THAT ASSUMES THERE AREN'T
AI TOOLS THAT CAN PROACTIVELY
TELL WHETHER SOMETHING WAS
TERRORIST CONTENT OR SOMETHING
BAD.
IT NATURALLY RELIED ON REQUIRING
PEOPLE TO FLAG FOR A COMPANY AND
THE COMPANY NEEDING TO TAKE
REASONABLE ACTION.
IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TOOLS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO
IDENTIFY MORE TYPES OF BAD
CONTENT.
I THINK THERE ARE MORAL AND
LEGAL OBLIGATION QUESTIONS THAT
I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO WRESTLE
WITH AS A SOCIETY ABOUT WHEN WE
WANT TO REQUIRE COMPANIES TO
TAKE ACTION PRO ACTIVELY ON
CERTAIN OF THOSE THINGS.
AND WHEN IT GETS IN THE WAY --
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
I HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS.
SO, INTERESTINGLY, THE TERMS OF
THE -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, THE
TERMS OF SERVICE IS A LEGAL
DOCUMENT WHICH DISCLOSES TO YOUR
SUBSCRIBERS HOW THEIR
INFORMATION WILL BE USED.
HOW FACEBOOK IS GOING TO
OPERATE.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU DOUBT
EVERYBODY READS OR UNDERSTANDS
THAT LEGALESE, THOSE TERMS OF
SERVICE.
IS THAT TO SUGGEST THAT THE
CONCEPT THAT PEOPLE GIVE IS NOT
INFORMED CONSENT.
THEY MAY NOT READ IT, IF THEY
READ IT, THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND
IT.
>> I THINK WE HAVE A BROADER
RESPONSIBILITY THAN WHAT THE LAW
REQUIRES.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT 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 TWO.
YOU SAY YOU OWN ALL THE CONTENT
AND INFORMATION YOU POST ON
FACEBOOK.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE TOLD US TODAY
A NUMBER OF TIMES.
IF I CHOOSE TO TERMINATE MY
FACEBOOK ACCOUNT, CAN I BAR
FACEBOOK OR ANY THIRD PARTIES
FROM USING THE DATA THAT I
PREVIOUSLY SUPPLIED FOR ANY
PURPOSE WHATSOEVER?
>> YES, SENATOR, IF YOU DELETE
YOUR ACCOUNT, WE SHOULD GET RID
OF YOUR INFORMATION.
>> YOU SHOULD OR DO?
>> WE DO.
>> HOW ABOUT THIRD PARTIES YOU
HAVE CONTRACTED WITH?
DO YOU USE SOME OF THAT
UNDERLYING INFORMATION, PERHAPS
TO TARGET ADVERTISING FOR
THEMSELVES?
YOU CAN'T -- DO YOU CLAW BACK
THAT INFORMATION, AS WELL, OR
DOES IT REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY?
>> SENATOR, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT
IT UP.
THERE'S A COMMON MISPERCEPTION
ABOUT FACEBOOK THAT WE SELL DATA
TO ADVERTISERS.
AND WE DO NOT SELL DATA TO
ADVERTISERS.
>> YOU CLEARLY RENT IT.
>> WHAT WE ALLOW IS FOR
ADVERTISERS TO TELL US WHO THEY
WANT TO REACH, AND THEN WE DO
THE PLACEMENT.
SO IF AN ADVERTISER COMES TO US
AND SAYS, ALL RIGHT, I'M A SKI
SHOP AND I WANT TO SELL SKIS TO
WOMEN, THEN WE MIGHT HAVE SOME
SENSE BECAUSE PEOPLE SHARED
SKIING-RELATED CONTENT OR SAID
THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THAT.
THEY SHARED WHETHER THEY'RE A
WOMAN.
AND THEN WE CAN SHOW THE ADS TO
THE RIGHT PEOPLE WITHOUT THAT
DATA CHANGING HANDS AND GOING TO
THE ADVERTISER.
THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF HOW
OUR MODEL L WORKS AND SOMETHING
THAT IS MISUNDERSTOOD.
I APPRECIATE YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
>> SENATOR, CORNYN, THANK YOU.
>>> WE INDICATED WE WOULD TAKE A
COUPLE OF BREAKS AND GIVE OUR
WITNESS AN OPPORTUNITY.
I THINK WE'VE BEEN GOING NOW FOR
JUST UNDER TWO HOURS, SO --
>> WE CAN DO A FEW MORE.
>> YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING?
MAYBE 15 MINUTES.
DOES THAT WORK?
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL KEEP GOING.
SENATOR BLUMENTHAL IS UP NEXT.
AND WE WILL COMMENCE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY, MR. ZUCKERBERG.
YOU TOLD US TODAY AND THE WORLD
THAT FACEBOOK WAS DECEIVED BY
ALEXANDER McHOCAN.
>> YES.
>> FACEBOOK WAS UNNOTICED THAT
HE COULD SELL THAT USER
INFORMATION.
HAVE YOU SEEN THE TERMS OF
SERVICE BEFORE?
>> I HAVE NOT.
>> WHO, IN FACEBOOK, WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEING THOSE
TERMS OF SERVICE THAT PUT YOU ON
NOTICE THAT THAT INFORMATION BE
SOLD?
>> SENATOR, OUR APP REVIEW TEAM
WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
>> HAS ANYONE BEEN FIRED ON THE
APP REVIEW TEAM?
>> SENATOR, NOT BECAUSE OF THIS.
>> DOESN'T THAT TERM OF SERVICE
CONFLICT WITH THE FTC ORDER THAT
FACEBOOK WAS UNDER AT THIS VERY
TIME THAT THIS TERM OF SERVICE
WAS, IN FACT, PROVIDED TO
FACEBOOK?
AND YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE FTC
ORDER SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES
FACEBOOK TO PROTECT PRIVACY.
ISN'T THERE A CONFLICT THERE?
>> SENATOR, IT CERTAINLY APPEARS
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE
THAT THIS APP DEVELOPER
SUBMITTED A TERM THAT WAS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE RULES OF THE
PLATFORM.
>>WELL, WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS,
IN EFFECT, WILLFUL BLINDNESS.
IT WAS HEEDLESS AND RECKLESS, IN
FACT, AMOUNTED TO A VIOLATION OF
THE FTC CONSENT DECREE.
WOULD YOU AGREE?
>> NO, SENATOR.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS NOT
THAT THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE
CONSENT DECREE.
AS I'VE SAID A NUMBER OF TIMES
TODAY, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A
BROADER VIEW OF OUR
RESPONSIBILITY AROUND PRIVACY
THAN WHAT IS MANDATED IN THE
CURRENT LAW.
>> HERE IS MY RESERVATION, MR.
ZUCKERBERG, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT MY TIME IS
LIMITED.
WE'VE SEEN THE APOLOGY TOURS
BEFORE.
YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO HAVE
REPORTED THIS VIOLATION OF THE
FTC CONSENT DECREE, AND WE HAVE
LETTERS.
WE'VE HAD CONTACTS WITH FACEBOOK
EMPLOYEES.
I'M GOING TO SUBMIT A LETTER
FROM THE RECORD, WITH YOUR
PERMISSION, THAT INDICATES NOT
ONLY A LACK OF RESOURCES BUT A
LACK OF INTENTION -- ATTENTION
TO PRIVACY.
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
MONETIZE USER INFORMATION TO
MAXIMIZE PROFIT OVER PRIVACY.
AND UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC
RULES AND REQUIREMENTS ENFORCED
BY AN OUTSIDE AGENCY, I HAVE NO
ASSURANCE THAT THESE KINDS OF,
A., COMMITS ARE GOING TO PRODUCE
ACTION.
SO I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF
VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, AND
THEY'RE BASED ON LEGISLATION
THAT I'VE OFFERED.
LEGISLATION THAT SENATOR MARCY
IS INTRODUCING TODAY.
THE CONSENT ACT, WHICH I'M
JOINING.
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 GENERALLY AGREE
WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I LAID IT OUT EARLIER WHEN I
TALKED ABOUT WHAT --
>> WOULD YOU AGREE TO AN OPT-IN
AS OPPOSED TO AN OPT-OUT?
>> SENATOR, I THINK THAT THAT IS
CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE TO
DISCUSS, AND I THINK THE DETAILS
AROUND THIS MATTER A LOT.
>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT USERS
SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS ALL OF
THEIR INFORMATION?
>> SENATOR, YES, OF COURSE.
>> ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU
COLLECT AS A RESULT OF
PURCHASING FROM DATA BROKERS AS
WELL AS TRACKING THEM?
>> SENATOR, WE HAVE ALREADY A
DOWNLOAD YOUR INFORMATION TOOL
THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SEE AND
TAKE OUT ALL THE INFORMATION
THAT FACEBOOK -- THEY'VE PUT
INTO FACEBOOK OR FACEBOOK KNOWS
ABOUT THEM.
I AGREE, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT.
>> I HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER
SPECIFIC REQUESTS THAT YOU AGREE
TO SUPPORT AS PART OF
LEGISLATION.
I THINK LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY
FOR THE RULES OF THE ROAD HAVE
TO BE THE RESULT OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.
WE HAVE -- FACEBOOK HAS
PARTICIPATED RECENTLY IN THE
FIGHT AGAINST SCOURGE -- THE
SCOURGE OF SEX TRAFFICKING AND
THE BILL THAT WE'VE JUST PASSED
AND WILL BE SIGNED INTO LAW
TOMORROW.
THE STOP EXPLOITING SEX
TRAFFICKING ACT WAS THE RESULT
OF OUR COOPERATION.
I HOPE WE CAN COOPERATE ON THIS
KIND OF MEASURE, AS WELL.
>> SENATOR, I LOOK FORWARD TO
HAVING MY TEAM WORK WITH YOU ON
THIS.
>> SENATOR CRUZ.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, WELCOME.
THANK YOU FOR 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.
DOES FACEBOOK CONSIDER ITSELF TO
BE A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM.
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF YOUR
COMPANY HAVE GIVEN CONFLICTING
ANSWERS ON THIS.
ARE YOU A FIRST AMENDMENT
SPEAKER EXPRESSING YOUR VIEWS OR
A NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUM ALLOWING
EVERYONE TO SPEAK.
>> HERE IS HOW WE THINK ABOUT
THIS, SENATOR, I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT -- THERE ARE CERTAIN
CONTENT THAT CLEARLY WE DO NOT
ALLOW.
RIGHT.
HATE SPEECH, TERRORIST CONTENT,
NUDITY.
ANYTHING THAT MAKES PEOPLE FEEL
UNSAFE IN THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO REFER AS A
PLATFORM --
>> THE TIME IS CONSTRAINT.
IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION.
THE PREDICATE FOR SECTION 230
UNDER THE CDA IS THAT YOU'RE 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?
>> OUR GOAL IS NOT TO ENGAGE IN
POLITICAL SPEECH.
I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE
SPECIFIC LEGAL LANGUAGE OF THE
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.
>> I WILL SAY THERE ARE A GREAT
MANY AMERICANS, MR. ZUCKERBERG,
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 OF 2016 GIZMO REPORTED
THAT FACEBOOK SUPPRESSED
CONSERVATIVE NEWS.
INCLUDING STORIES AND MITT
ROMNEY, LOUIS LEARNER, GLENN
BECK.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, FACEBOOK
HAS INITIALLY SHUT DOWN THE
CHICK-FIL-A APPRECIATION DAY
PAGE.
HAS BLOCKED A POST OF FOX NEWS
REPORTER.
HAS BLOCKED OVER TWO DOZEN
CATHOLIC PAGES, AND MOST
RECENTLY BLOCKED TRUMP
SUPPORTERS DIAMOND AND SILKS
PAGE WITH 1.2 MILLION FACEBOOK
FOLLOWERS DETERMINING THEIR
CONTENT AND BRAND WERE, QUOTE,
"UNSAFE TO THE COMMUNITY
ACCOUNTS.
TO MANY AMERICANS THAT APPEARS
TO BE A PERVASIVE PATTERN OF
POLITICAL BIAS.
>> LET ME SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT
THIS, SENATOR.
FIRST, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT
CONCERN IS COMING FROM BECAUSE
FACEBOOK AND THE TECH INDUSTRY
ARE LOCATED IN SILICON VALLEY,
WHICH IS AN EXTREMELY
LEFT-LEANING PLACE.
AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A CONCERN
THAT I HAVE AND THAT I TRY TO
ROOT OUT IN THE COMPANY IS
MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE
ANY BIAS IN THE WORK THAT WE DO.
I THINK IT IS A FAIR CONCERN
THAT PEOPLE WOULD --
>> LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION, ARE
YOU AWARE OF ANY AD OR PAGE THAT
HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN FROM PLANNED
PARENTHOOD?
>> SENATOR, I'M NOT.
>> HOW ABOUT MOVEON.ORG.
OR ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR
OFFICE?
>> I'M NOT SPECIFICALLY AWARE.
I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE.
>> IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU 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 IN CONTENT
REVIEW?
>> NO, SENATOR, WE DON'T
GENERALLY ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR
POLITICAL ORIENTATION WHEN
JOINING THE COMPANY.
>> AS CEO, HAVE YOU MADE HIRING
OR FIRING DECISIONS BASED ON
WHAT CANDIDATES THEY SUPPORTED?
>> WHY IS PALMER LUCKY --
>> THAT'S SPECIFIC --
>> YOU DIDN'T MAKE DECISIONS
BASED ON --
>> I CAN COMMIT IT WAS NOT
BECAUSE OF A POLITICAL VIEW.
>> DO YOU KNOW OF THE 15 TO
20,000 PEOPLE ENGAGED IN CONTENT
REVIEW, HOW MANY, IF ANY, HAVE
EVER SUPPORTED FINANCIALLY A
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE?
>> SENATOR, I DO NOT KNOW THAT.
>> YOUR TESTIMONY SAYS IT IS NOT
ENOUGH THAT WE JUST CONNECT
PEOPLE.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE
CONNECTIONS ARE POSITIVE.
IT SAYS WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE AREN'T USING THEIR VOICE
TO HURT PEOPLE OR SPREAD
MISINFORMATION.
WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY NOT
JUST TO BUILD TOOLS, TO MAKE
SURE THOSE TOOLS ARE USED FOR
GOOD.
MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU FEEL IT'S
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSESS
GOODERS WHETHER THEY ARE GOOSE
AND POSITIVE CONNECTIONS OR
ONCES THAT THOSE 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 THAT WE WOULD
ALL AGREE ARE CLEARLY -- FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE, TERRORISM,
SELF-HARM.
>> CENSORSHIP.
>>WELL, I THINK THAT YOU WOULD
PROBABLY AGREE THAT WE SHOULD
REMOVE TERRORIST PROPAGANDA FROM
THE SERVICE.
SO THAT I AGREE.
I THINK IT'S CLEARLY BAD
ACTIVITY THAT WE WANT TO GET
DOWN AND WE'RE GENERALLY PROUD
OF HOW WELL WE DO AT THAT.
NOW, WHAT I CAN SAY, AND I WANT
TO GET THIS IN BEFORE THE END
HERE, IS THAT I'M VERY COMMITTED
TO MAKING SURE THAT FACEBOOK IS
A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS.
THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT
FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF WHAT WE
DO.
WE'RE PROUD OF THE DISCOURSE AND
THE DIFFERENT IDEAS THAT PEOPLE
CAN SHARE ON THE SERVICE.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS AS
LONG AS I'M RUNNING THE COMPANY,
I'M GOING TO BE COMMITTED TO
MAKING SURE IS THE CASE.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR CRUZ.
WANT TO BREAK NOW?
OR KEEP GOING?
SURE.
I MEAN, THAT WAS PRETTY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE SENATOR WHITEHOUSE IS UP
NEXT.
WE HAVE BEEN GOING A GOOD TWO
HOURS.
WE'LL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES
AND RECONVENE.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THE
TESTIMONY OF MARK ZUCKERBERG,
CEO OF FACEBOOK TAKING A
GRILLING FROM SENATORS AND THERE
ARE PLENTY MORE TO COME.
THIS IS A HEARING EXPECTED TO
LAST SEVERAL HOURS.
AS NOTED, WE'RE ALMOST A COUPLE
OF HOURS INTO IT.
THEY'RE TAKING SHORT BREAK.
WE WANT TO BRING IN NOW JO LING
KENT, WHAT IS THE PERCEPTION OF
HOW ZUCKERBERG IS HANDLING WHAT
BECAME MORE AGGRESSIVE IN THE
LAST FEW LINES OF QUESTIONING?
>> Reporter: YEAH, AT THE
BEGINNING HERE HE WAS NOT PELTED
WITH THE AGGRESSIVE QUESTIONS
THAT A LOT OF US WERE EXPECTING.
BUT HE HAS BEEN -- SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL, FOR EXAMPLE, GOING
AFTER THE FACEBOOK CEO FOR
WILLFUL IGNORANCE OF THE ISSUES
RELATING TO CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA
AND SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS
THAT HE HAD FOR HIM.
BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MAJOR
PLOT POINTS HERE I WANT TO HIT
ON THAT WE LEARNED ABOUT
FACEBOOK THAT WE NEED TO TALK
ABOUT.
FIRST, FACEBOOK DID NOT DISCLOSE
THE ISSUE WITH CAMBRIDGE
ANALYTICA TO THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE
HAVE HEARD THIS.
SECOND OF ALL, FACEBOOK CEO MARK
ZUCKERBERG DISCLOSING THAT HE
DID WORK -- FACEBOOK IS WORKING,
RATHER WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
OFFICE, ROBERT MUELLER'S OFFICE.
THERE WAS BIT OF WAFFLING OF
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A
SUBPOENA SERVED TO THE COMPANY.
THEY DID CONFIRM, FOR THE FIRST
TIME, ON THE RECORD, THAT
FACEBOOK IS WORKING WITH THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE.
WE'RE STARTING TO LEARN A LITTLE
BIT MORE AROUND THE LINE OF
QUESTIONING, BUT ZUCKERBERG
SAYING -- APOLOGIZING FOR THE
BEHAVIOR OF THE COMPANY BUT A
LIGHTER ZUCKERBERG HERE THAT
WE'RE SEEING A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT OF AN ATTITUDE THAN
WE'VE SEEN IN YEARS PAST,
LESTER.
>> JO LING KENT, AS THEY TAKE A
BREAK.
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE WITH ME.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
AND KARA SWISHER IS JOINING US.
A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT WHO
SPENDS ALL DAY LONG THINKING
ABOUT THESE ISSUES.
DO YOU FEEL THAT ANY SENATOR
HERE HAS REALLY LAID A GLOVE ON
MARK ZUCKERBERG, YOU KNOW,
GRILLED HIM TO THE EXTENT IT
WOULD MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE?
OR DOES THIS FEEL LIKE STUFF HE
WAS PREPARED FOR AND HANDLING
WELL?
>> WELL, IF YOU THINK BEING
SLAPPED WITH WET NOODLES IS
HARD, I GUESS IT'S HARD.
THIS HAS BEEN EASY FOR MARK.
AND HE'S DONE A NICE JOB
ANSWERING VERY EASY QUESTIONS.
I MEAN, I THINK ONLY SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL AND SENATOR DURBIN
NOTED THE ISSUES.
THESE ARE BIGGER ISSUES CALLING
WILLFUL IGNORANCE, I WOULD AGREE
WITH.
SENATOR DURBIN BROUGHT UP THE
HOTEL ANALOGY.
I THINK IT SHOOK MARK A TINY
BIT.
OTHERWISE IT'S BEEN AN EASY
MORNING FOR THE FACEBOOK CEO.
HE'S HANDLED IT JUST FINE
BECAUSE IT'S EASY.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE
CONSENT DECREE, WHICH RICHARD
BLUMENTHAL BROUGHT UP.
DOES FACEBOOK FACE JEOPARDY?
PREVIOUS MISGIVINGS?
>> I THINK THIS IS AN
INTERESTING AREA.
I THINK THEY GRIEVED TO A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THINGS AND THE
QUESTION IS CAN THEY PROVE THEY
VIOLATED THESE THINGS?
OR CAN THEY MAKE THE CAUSE,
EXCEL, WE DIDN'T MANAGE IT WELL.
WE MEANT TO DO IT.
WE HAVE THE RULES IN PLACE.
SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THE HARD
BAA -- PART IS PROVING THEY
MEANT TO DO IT OR WILLFULLY DID
IT.
I THINK IT'S INTERESTING SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL USED THE TERM
"WILLFUL."
I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT
DESCRIPTION RATHER STRONGLY.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> AND TURNING TO KASIE HUNT
WHO IS COVERING THE HEARING WITH
US.
AS OFTEN HAPPENS, WHEN YOU WATCH
A HEARING ON CAPITOL HILL, WE
HAVE TWO COMMITTEES HERE AND
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES YOU CAN
GET INTO.
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT PRIVACY,
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.
WE HEARD SENATOR CRUZ TALKING
ABOUT CENSORSHIP.
EACH SENATOR IS BRINGING HIS OR
HER AGENDA TO THE QUESTIONING.
>> Reporter: 40 PLUS SENATORS
QUESTIONING MARK ZUCKERBERG
TODAY IN A RARE JOINT HEARING.
AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
EACH ONE BRINGING THEIR OWN
AGENDA, THEIR OWN SET OF
QUESTIONS, AND SOMETIMES, YOU
KNOW, FRANKLY, NOT ALLOWING
ZUCKERBERG TO FINISH AN ANSWER
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ACTUALLY
MAKE A POINT.
AND MANY OF MY SOURCES POINTED
OUT THERE WERE INSTANCES
THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING WHERE
MANY OF THESE SENATORS WHO, YOU
KNOW, ARE IN THEIR 60s, 70s,
EVEN OLDER DON'T NECESSARILY
UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY THAT
THEY'RE ASKING ABOUT.
AND THAT WAS EVIDENT HERE AND
THAT, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, GAVE
ZUCKERBERG AN OPENING TO DEFEND
HIS COMPANY.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WHAT IS
IMPORTANT FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL
SIDE OF THIS IS WHAT, AT THE END
OF THE DAY, IS CONGRESS GOING TO
DO OR NOT DO TO REGULATE BIG
TECH?
TO POTENTIALLY PROTECT USERS'
PRIVACY.
MARK ZUCKERBERG HAS BEEN SAYING,
YES, WE SUPPORT BEING REGULATED.
AND THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN THAT
FACEBOOK HAS SUPPORTED -- AMY
KLOBCHAR.
THERE'S A MIXED RECORD ON STATE
HOUSES OR HERE IN THE U.S.
CONGRESS.
THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME REAL
TESTS FOR THESE TECHNOLOGY
COMPANIES.
ARE THEY ACTUALLY GOING TO STEP
UP AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE WILLING
TO ACCEPT SOME RULES THAT WE
CAN'T NECESSARILY MAKE FOR
OURSELVES.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM HIT ON
THIS, AS WELL.
PRESSING ZUCKERBERG ON WHETHER
THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY, THAT'S
ANOTHER WAY, OF COURSE, THE
GOVERNMENT COULD REGULATE BIG
TECH.
SOME BIG QUESTIONS TO GRAPPLE
WITH HERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THIS CONGRESS IN
GENERAL IS NOT KNOWN FOR MOVING
QUICKLY AND TECHNOLOGY HAS MOVED
FASTER THAN THEY HAVE.
THEY ARE, IN WAYS, BEHIND THE
EIGHT BALL, ALONG WITH MARK
ZUCKERBERG.
>> I FORGET WHO IT WAS
REGULATION.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ACCEPT
REGULATION.
MARK SAID I'LL GET BACK TO YOU.
>> I CALL IT AS A RECOVERING
LAWYER WEASEL WORDS.
WE'LL ACCEPT REGULATION WHERE
IT'S APPROPRIATE.
THAT'S WHERE ALL THE ACTION IS.
WHETHER OR NOT AND I THINK WHAT
YOU RAISED WITH KARA SWISHER IS
THE OTHER BIG PIECE.
THERE'S TWO THINGS FACEBOOK IS
FACING.
POTENTIAL REGULATION AND THEN
PERHAPS MORE CRUCIALLY TO THEIR
BOTTOM LINE AND FINANCIALLY IS
THIS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE IN
VIOLATION OF THIS AGREEMENT THEY
MADE WITH THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION STEMMING FROM ILLEGAL
ACTION IN 2011.
>> THAT CAN BE BIG FINES.
>> HUGE FINES.
KARA, LET'S GO BACK TO YOU.
I KNOW IT'S SOMETHING YOU COVER
A LOT.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE NOW YOU'RE
STARTING TO TALK ABOUT SOME
HITTING FACEBOOK WHERE IT HURTS.
WE'VE SEEN THE STOCK PRICE TANK.
WHEN YOU'VE SEEN RICHARD
BLUMENTHAL PUT UP A CHART WITH A
TERM OF SERVICE THAT SEEMS TO BE
ON ITS SURFACE AND CLEAR
VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH
THE FTC, ONE IMAGINES THAT WAS A
DIFFICULT MOMENT FOR MARK
ZUCKERBERG.
>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK QUESTION IS ARE THEY
GOING TO FACE -- THAT'S WHERE
FACEBOOK HAD MOST OF THE
PROBLEMS IS WITH THE STATES
ATTORNEY GENERALS, WHICH IS
INTERESTING.
MOSTLY TECH COMPANIES HAVE BEEN
GIVEN A PASS BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
NOT JUST -- SINCE FOREVER,
PRETTY MUCH.
IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF
THEY FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
IF THAT HAPPENS.
THESE ARE BIG AREAS, OBVIOUSLY,
PUBLIC PERCEPTION IS A LOT.
ARE THESE PEOPLE TELLING THE
TRUTH.
BUT THE STOCK PRICE HAS
RECOVERED A LITTLE BIT TODAY
BECAUSE MARK IS DOING WELL,
LARGELY BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS
ARE LIGHT, LIGHT QUESTIONS FOR
HIM.
SO WE'LL SEE IF IT RESULTS IN
ANYTHING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
>> THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF
FIREWORKS.
LIVE COVERAGE OF THE FACEBOOK
HEARING WILL CONTINUE ON
NBCNEWS.COM BUT THIS BRINGS OUR
LIVE COVERAGE OF THE NETWORK TO
A CLOSE.
THE HEARING IS, OF COURSE, ONE
OF THE BIG STORIES WE'RE
COVERING TODAY ALONG WITH
POSSIBLE NEW U.S. MILITARY
ACTION IN SYRIA, WITH THE
RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR, AND
THE STATUS OF THE MUELLER
INVESTIGATION IN THE WAKE OF
YESTERDAY'S FBI RAID ON THE
OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT'S
PERSONAL LAWYER.
SAVANNAH, YOU'LL, OF COURSE,
HAVE MORE TOMORROW ON "TODAY."
AND I'LL HAVE COMPLETE DETAILS
ON NBC NIGHTLY NEWS ON THIS BUSY
NEWS DAY.
I'M LESTER HOLT.
NBC NEWS, NEW YORK.
HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.