Adobe TTML Export broken

[pietrop]

Adobe TTML Export broken

[object Object]

[pietrop]

fixed in https://github.com/pietrop/slate-transcript-editor/pull/27

Adobe TTML example output

```xml

Yeah, I I don't know the.

Yeah, that it.

No, I I, like, I know.

So to make sure once we get

started down, thank you for.

So I thank on the judiciary and

commerce.

Science and transportation will

come to order.

We welcome everyone today's

hearing on Facebook, social media
privacy and the use and abuse of

data, although not unprecedented.

This is a unique are the issues.

We will consider range from data
privacy and security to consumer

protection and the Federal Trade
Commission enforcement touching on

jurisdictions of these two
committees, we have 44 members

between our two committees that
may not seem like a large group by

Facebook standards.

But it is significant here for a

hearing in the United States
Senate.

We will do our best to keep things
moving efficiently, given our

circumstances.

We will begin with opening

statements from the chairman and
ranking members of each committee.

Starting with Chairman tone and
then proceed with Mr Zuckerberg's

opening statement.

We will then move on to

questioning each member will have
five minutes to question.

Witnesses I'd like to remind the
members of both committees that

time limits will be and must be
strictly enforced given the

numbers that we have here today if
you're over your time chairman

tone and I will make sure to let
you know.

There will not be a second round
as well, of course, there will be

the usual follow up written
questions for the record.

Questioning will alternate between
majority and minority and between

committees.

We will proceed in order based on

respective committee seniority, we
will anticipate a couple short

breaks later in the afternoon.

And so it's my pleasure to

recognize the chairman of the
Commerce Committee chairman tone

for his opening statement.

Thank you, chairman.

Grassley today's hearing is
extraordinary it's extraordinary

to hold a joint committee hearing
it's even more extraordinary to

have a single CEO testify before
nearly half of the United States

Senate.

But then Facebook is pretty

extraordinary.

More than 2,000,000,000 people use

Facebook every month.

1.4 billion people use it every

day.

More than the population of any

country on Earth, except China and
more than four times the

population of the United States
it's also more than 1,500 times

the population of my home state of
South Dakota.

Plus, roughly 45% of American
adults report getting at least

some of their news from Facebook
in many respects Facebook's

incredible reach is why we're here
today we're here because of what

you Mr Zuckerberg have described
as a breach of trust.

A quiz app used by approximately
300,000 people led to information

about 87,000,000 Facebook users
being obtained by the company.

Cambridge Analytica.

There are plenty of questions

about the behavior of Cambridge
Analytica and we expect to hold a

future hearing on Cambridge and
similar firms.

But as you said, this is not
likely to be an isolated incident.

A fact demonstrated by Facebook
suspension of another firm just

this past weekend.

You promised that when Facebook

discovers other apps that had
access to large amounts of user

data, you will ban them until
those affected and that's

appropriate.

But it's unlikely to be enough for

the 2,000,000,000 Facebook users.

One reason that so many people are

worried about this incident is
what it says about how Facebook

works.

The idea that for every person who

decided to try an app information
about nearly 300 other people was

scraped from your services to put
it mildly disturbing.

And the fact that those 87,000,000
people may have technically

consented to making their data
available doesn't make most people

feel any better.

The recent revelation that

malicious actors were able to
utilize Facebook's default privacy

settings to match email addresses
and phone numbers found on the so

called dark web to public Facebook
profiles, potentially affecting

all Facebook users only adds fuel
to the fire.

What binds these two incidents is
if they don't appear to be caused

by the kind of negligence that
allows typical data breaches to

happen.

Instead, they both appear to be

the result of people exploiting
the very tools that you've created

to manipulate users information.

I know Facebook is taken several

steps and intends to take more to
address these issues.

Nevertheless, some have warned
that the actions Facebook is

taking to ensure that third is
don't obtain data from

unsuspecting users while necessary
will actually serve to enhance

Facebook's own ability to market
such data exclusively most of us

understand that whether you're
using Facebook or Google or some

other online services.

We are trading certain information

about ourselves for free or low
cost services.

But for this model to persist,
both sides of the bargain.

Need to know the stakes that are
involved right now I'm not

convinced that Facebook's users
have the information that they

need to make meaningful choices in
the past.

Many of my colleagues on both
sides.

The aisle have been willing to
defer to tech company's efforts to

regulate themselves, but this may
be changing just last month and

overwhelming bipartisan fashion
Congress voted to make it easier

for prosecutors and victims to go
after websites that knowingly

facilitate sex trafficking.

This should be a wake up call for

the tech community.

We want to hear more without delay

about what Facebook and other
companies plan to do to take

greater responsibility for what
happens on their platforms.

How will you protect users data?
How will you inform users about

the changes that you are making
and how do you intend to

proactively stop harmful conduct
instead of being forced to respond

to at months or years later?
Mr Zuckerberg in many ways, you

and the company that you created
the story that you created

represent the American dream.

Many are incredibly inspired by

what you've done at the same time.

You have an obligation and it's up

to you to ensure that that dream
doesn't become a privacy nightmare

for the scores of people who use
Facebook.

This hearing is an opportunity to
speak to those who believe in

Facebook and those who are deeply
skeptical about it.

We are listening America is
listening and quite possibly the

world is listening to thank you.

Now, ranking member Feinstein.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman
Chairman Grassley chairman soon.

Thank you both for holding this
hearing, Mr Zuckerberg.

Thank you for being here, you have
a real opportunity to this

afternoon to lead the industry and
demonstrate a meaningful

commitment to protecting
individual privacy.

We have learned over the past few
months and we've learned a great

deal that that's alarming we've
seen how foreign actors are

abusing social media platforms
like Facebook to interfere in

elections and take millions of
Americans personal information

without their knowledge in order
to manipulate public opinion and

target individual voters
specifically on February 16

special counsel Muller issued an
indictment against the Russia

based Internet Internet Research
Agency and 13 of its employees for

interfering operations targeting
targeting the United States

through this 37 page indictment.

We learned that the IRA ran a

coordinated campaign through 470
Facebook accounts and pages.

The campaign included ads and
false information to create

discord and harm Secretary
Clinton's campaign and the content

was seen by an estimated
157,000,000 Americans a month

later on March seventeenth news
broke that Cambridge Analytica

exploited the personal information
of approximately 50,000,000

Facebook users without their
knowledge or permission.

And last week we learned that
number was even higher 87,000,000

Facebook users who had their
private information taken without

their consent.

Specifically using a personality

quiz, he created professor Kogan
collected the personal information

of 300,000 Facebook users and then
collected data on millions of

their friends.

It appears the information

collected included everything
these individuals had on their

Facebook pages.

And according to some reports even

included private direct messages
between users.

Professor Hogan is said to have
taken data from over 70,000,000

Americans, it has also been
reported that he sold this data to

Cambridge Analytica for 800,000
dollars.

Cambridge Analytica then took this
data and created a psychological

welfare tool to influence United
States elections.

In fact, the CEO Alexander Nick
declared the Cambridge Analytica

ran all the digital campaign.

The television campaign and its

data informed all the strategy for
the Trump campaign.

The reporting has also speculated
that Cambridge analytic works with

the Internet Research agency to
help Russia identify which

American voters to target, which
is propaganda I'm concerned that

press reports indicate Facebook
learned about this breach in 2,015

but appears not to have taken
significant steps to address it

until this year, so this hearing
is important and I appreciate the

conversation we had yesterday.

And I believe that Facebook

through your presence here today
and the words you're about to tell

us will indicate how strongly your
industry will regulate and or

reform.

The platforms that they control.

I believe this is extraordinarily
important.

You lead a big company with 27,000
employees.

And we very much look forward to
your comments.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, thank you.

So, to find sign, the history and

growth of Facebook Meares, that of
many of our technological Giants

founded by Mr Zuckerberg in 2,004
Facebook has exploded over the

past 14 years.

Facebook currently has over

2,000,000,000 monthly active users
across the world over 25,000

employees and offices and 13 U S
cities and various other countries

like they're expanding user base.

The data collected on Facebook

users has also skyrocketed they
have moved on from schools, likes

and relationship statuses.

Today.

Facebook has access to dozens of
data points ranging from ads that

you've clicked on events you've
attended and your location based

upon your mobile device, it is no
secret that Facebook makes money

of this data through advertising
revenue.

Although many seem confused by or
get altogether.

Unaware of this fact Facebook
generates generated 40,000,000,000

in revenue.

And we seen with about it coming

from advertising across Facebook
and Instagram.

Significant data collection is
also occurring at Google, Twitter,

Apple and Amazon and even an ever
expanding portfolio of products

and services offered by these
companies.

Grant 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 personal
data, the potential for further

growth and innovation based on
collection of data is limited

less.

However, the potential for abuse

is also significant.

Well, the condors of the Cambridge

analytic situation are still
coming to light.

There was clearly a breach of
consumer trust and a 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 have ignited a larger

discussion on consumers
expectations and the future of

data privacy in our society, it is
exposed that consumers may not

fully understand or appreciate the
extent to which their data is

collected protected 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 presidents, Bush Obama

and Trump all use these increasing
amounts of data to focus on micro

targeting and personalization over
numerous social media platforms

and especially Facebook.

In fact, President Obama's

campaign developed an apt
utilizing the same Facebook

feature as Cambridge Analytica to
capture the information of not

just the apps use.

But millions of their friends, the

digital director for that campaign
for 20 12 described the data

scraping app as something that
would quote.

Wind up being the most
groundbreaking piece of technology

developed for this campaign and
the quote so the effectiveness of

these social media tactics can be
debated.

But they're used over the past
years across 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 tethered to

consumer needs and expectations
now at a minimum.

Consumers must have the
transparency necessary to make an

informed decision 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 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 billions
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 and other social media

companies do not get your act in
order.

None of us are going to have any
privacy anymore that's what we're

facing we're talking about
personally identifiable

information that if not kept by
the social media companies from

theft, a value that we have in
America being 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're on those handheld tablets
and online, companies like

Facebook are tracking our
activities and collecting

information.

Facebook has a responsibility to

protect this 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 app developer lied to
consumers and lied to you lied to

Facebook.

But did Facebook watch over the

operations?
We want to know that.

And why didn't Facebook notify
87,000,000 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 now and I appreciate our

conversation only now Facebook has
pledged to inform those consumers

whose accounts were compromised.

I think you're genuine.

I got that sense in conversing
with you.

You want to do the right thing,
you 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 this data,

you heard chairman Thon say as we
have discussed, we want the haul

Cambridge Analytica in to answer
these questions at a separate

hearing.

I want to thank chairman ton for

working with all of us on
scheduling.

A hearing there's obviously a
great deal of interest in this

subject.

I hope we can get to the bottom of

this and if Facebook and other
online companies will not or

cannot fix the privacy invasions,
then we are going to have to we

the Congress.

How can American consumers trust

folks like you company to be
caretakers of their most personal

and identifiable information and
that's 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 launched Facebook

February fourth 2,004 at the age
of 19 and at that time, he was a

student at Harvard University.

As I mentioned previously, his

company now has over
40,000,000,000 of annual revenue

and over 2,000,000,000 monthly
active users.

Mr Zuckerberg, along with his
wife, also established the Chan

Zuckerberg initiative to further
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 Thon, 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 me too movement and the

March for our lives organized at
least in part on Facebook.

After Hurricane Harvey, people
came together to raise more than

20,000,000 dollars for relief and
more than 70,000,000 small

businesses use Facebook to create
jobs and grow.

But it's clear now that we didn't
do enough to prevent these tools

from being used for harm as well.

And that goes for Fake News for

foreign interference in elections
and hate speech is 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 relationship with people

and make sure that we're taking a
broad enough for you of our

responsibility it's not enough to
just connect people.

We have to make sure that those
connections are positive it's not

enough to just give people a
voice, we need to make sure that

people aren't using it to harm
other people or to spread

misinformation and it's.

Not enough to just give people

control over their information.

We need to make sure that 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
that they are 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
profile picture and the pages they

follow.

When we first contacted Cambridge

Analytica.

They told us that they had deleted

the data about a month ago.

We heard new reports that

suggested that wasn't true.

And now we're working with

governments in the U s the UK 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 are now investigating every
single app that had access to a

large amount of information in the
past.

And 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 access as much
information.

Now, the good news here is that we
already made big changes to our

platform.

And that would have prevented this

specific situation with Cambridge
Analytica from occurring again

today.

But there's more to do.

And you can find more details on
the steps we're 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'm running Facebook.

I started Facebook when I was in
college we've come a long way

since then.

We now serve more than

2,000,000,000 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
positive force in the world.

I realized the issues we're
talking about today aren't just

issues for Facebook and our
community, their 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 the five
minute rule.

And that applies to those of us
who are chairing the committee as

well.

Start with you, Facebook handles

extensive amounts of personal data
for billions of users as

significant amount of that data is
shared with third party developers

who utilize your platform.

As of this early this year, you

did not actively monitor whether
that data was transferred by such

developers to other parties.

Moreover your policies only

prohibit by developers to parties
seeking to profit from such data.

Number one, besides professor
Cogan transfer and now potentially

cube.

Do you know of any instances where

user data was improperly
transferred to third party in

breach of Facebook's terms.

If so, how many times does that

happen?
And was Facebook only made aware

of that transfer by some third
party.

Mr Chairman, thank you.

As I mentioned, we're now

conducting a full investigation
into every single app that had a

access to a large amount of
information before we locked down

platform to prevent developers
from accessing this information

around 20 14 we believe that we're
going to be investigating many

apps, tens of thousands of apps.

And if we find any suspicious

activity we're going to conduct a
full audit of those apps to

understand how they're using their
data and if they're doing anything

improper, if we find that they're
doing anything improper will ban

them from Facebook and we will
tell everyone affected.

As for past activity, I don't have
all the examples of apps that

we've banned here.

But if you'd like, I can have my

team follow up with you after this
have you ever required an audit to

ensure the deletion of improperly
transfer 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've enforced

our platform policies in the past.

As we have looked at patterns of

how apps have used our API's and
access to information as well as

looked into reports that people
have made us about apps that might

be doing sketchy things going
forward.

We're going to take a more
proactive position on this and do

much more regular spot checks and
other reviews of apps as well as

increasing the amount of audits
that we do and again, I can make

sure that our team 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 on that you're
telling me, I think that you're

able to supply those figures to
us, at least as of this point, Mr

Chairman, I will have my team
follow up with you on what

information we have.

Okay, but right now, you have no

certainty of whether or not how
much of that's going on, right,

okay.

Facebook collects massive amounts

of data from consumers, including
content networks contact lists

device information location and
information from third parties

yet.

Your data policy is only a few

pages long and provide 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 to

accusers all the ways the data
might be used by Facebook and

other third parties.

And what is Facebook's

responsibility to inform users
about that information.

Mr Chairman, I believe it's
important to tell people exactly

how the information that they
Share On Facebook is going to be

used that's why every single time
you go to share something on

Facebook, whether it's a photo and
Facebook or a message and

Messenger or WhatsApp 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 a specific
group and you can change that and

control that in line to your
broader point about the privacy

policy.

This gets into an issue that I

think we and others in the tech
industry of found challenging,

which is that long.

Privacy policies are very

confusing.

And 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.

So one of the things that that
we've struggled with over time is

to make something that is 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 actually

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, thank you Mr
Chairman yesterday when we talked,

I gave the relatively harmless
example that I'm 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,

miss Sandberg suggested on the
Today show that Facebook users who

do not want their personal
information used for advertising

might have to pay for that
protection pay for.

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, so if

you want to have an experience
where your ads aren't you 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.

And while there is some discomfort

for sure with using information in
making ads more relevant.

Overwhelming feedback that we get
from our community is that people

would rather have us show relevant
content there than not so we offer

this control that you're
referencing.

Some people use it it's not the
majority of people on Facebook.

And I think that 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 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 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
in essence is what I understood

miss Sandberg to say, is that
correct?

Yes, Senator, although to be
clear, we don't offer an option

today for people to pay to not
show ads, we think offering an ad

supported service is the most
aligned with our mission of trying

to help connect everyone in the
world.

Because we want to offer a free
service that everyone can afford.

OK that's the only way that we can
reach billions of people.

So therefore you consider my
personally, identifiable data, the

company's data.

Not my data, is that it?

No, Senator, actually.

At the first line of our terms of

service say that you control and
own the information and content

that you put on Facebook.

Well, the recent scandal is

obviously frustrating.

Not only because it affected

87,000,000 but because it seems to
be part of a of lax data practices

by the company going back years.

So back in 20 11 it was a

settlement with the FTC.

And now we discover yet another

incidence where the data was
failed to be protected.

When you discovered the Cambridge
Analytica that had fraud only

obtained all of this information.

Why didn't you inform those

87,000,000 when we learned in 20
15 that Cambridge Analytica had

bought data from an app developer
on Facebook that people had 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 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 out it
then and that is not a mistake

that we will make.

Yes, you did that.

And you apologize for it.

But you didn't notify them.

Do you think that you have an
ethical obligation to notify

87,000,000 Facebook users Senator,
when we heard back from Cambridge

Analytica that they had told us
that they weren't using the data

and deleted it we considered it a
closed case.

In retrospect, that was clearly a
mistake.

We shouldn't have taken their word
for it and we've updated our

policies.

And how we're going to operate the

company to make sure that we don't
make that mistake again.

Did anybody notify the FTC?
No Senator, for the same reason

that we considered it a closed
closed case Senator zone and Mr

Zuckerberg would do that
differently today.

Presumably that in response to
Senator Nelson's question.

Yes, having to do it over this may
be your first appearance before

Congress, but it's not the first
time that Facebook is 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 that 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.

So we have made a lot of mistakes

in running the company.

I think it's pretty much

impossible, I believe.

To start a company in your dorm

room and then grow it to be at the
scale.

That we're at now without making
some mistakes and because our

service is about helping people
connect and information.

Those mistakes have been different
and 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.

Just because of the nature of the
service overall, I would say that

we're going through a broader
philosophical shift in how we

approach our responsibility of the
company for the first 10 or 12

years of the company.

I viewed our responsibility is

primarily building tools that if
we could 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 also Fake News and foreign

interference in elections is that
we need to take a more proactive

role.

In a broader view of our

responsibility it's not enough to
just build tools.

We need to make sure that they're
used for good.

And that means that we need to now
take a more active view in

policing.

The ecosystem and in watching and

kind of looking out and making
sure that all of the members in

our community are using these
tools in a way that's going to be

good and healthy.

So 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 that
anything I say here today to

necessarily change people's view.

But I'm committed to getting this

right.

And I believe that over the coming

years, once we fully work, all
these solutions through people

will see real differences and 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

speech can sometimes be hard to
identify and especially when your

relying on artificial intelligence
and other technologies for the

initial discovery, can you discuss
what steps that Facebook currently

takes when making these
evaluations?

The challenges that you face in
any examples of where you may draw

the line between what is?
And what is not hate speech?

Yes, Mr Chairman I'll speak to
hate speech and then I'll talk

about enforcing our content
policies more broadly, actually,

maybe if you're okay, with it I'll
go in the other order.

So from the beginning of the
company and 2,004 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.

So we basically had to enforce our

content policies.

Reactively people could share what

they wanted.

And and then if someone in the

community found it to be offensive
or against our policies.

They'd flag it for us and we'd
look at it reactively now

increasingly.

We are developing AI tools that

can identify certain classes of
bad activity proactively and flag

it for our team at Facebook by the
end of this year.

By the way we're going to have
more than 20,000 people working on

security and content review
working across all these things.

So when content gets flagged us,
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.

So hate speech is one of the
hardest because determining if

something as hate speech is very
linguistically nuanced, right, you

need to understand, you know, what
is a slur?

And what whether something is
hateful?

Not just in English, but the
majority of people on Facebook use

it in languages that are different
across the world can trust that.

For example, with an area like
finding terrorist propaganda which

we've actually been very
successful at deploying.

AI, tools on already today as we
sit here.

90 of the ISIS and Al Qaeda
content that we take down on

Facebook, our AI systems flagged
before any human see it.

So that's a success in terms of
rolling out AI tools that that can

proactively police and enforce
safety across the community hate

speech.

I am optimistic that over a five

to 10 year period we will have AI
tools that can get into some of

the nuances, the linguistic
nuances of different types of

content to be more accurate and
flagging things for our systems.

But today we're just not there on
that.

So a lot of this is still reactive
people flag at us.

We have people look at it.

We have policies to try to make it

as not subjective as possible, but
until we get it more automated

there's a higher error rate than I
am happy with.

Thank you, Senator Feinstein.

Thanks, 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

in 20 18 is to get this right, one
of my greatest regrets in running

the company is that we were slow
in identifying the Russian

information operations and 20 16
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.

But we were slow to identifying
the type of new information

operations.

When did you identify new

operations?
It was right around the time of

the 20 16 election itself.

So since then, this is an

incredibly important year for
elections.

Not just with the U S Midterms but
around the world.

There are important elections in
India in Brazil and Mexico and

Pakistan and and Hungary that we
want to make sure that we do

everything we can to protect the
integrity of those elections.

Now, I have more confidence that
we're going to get this right

because since the 20 16 election,
there have been several important

elections around the world where
we've had a better record there's

the French presidential election
there's the German election.

There was the US Senate Alabama
special election last year.

Explain what is better about the
record.

So we've deployed.

New AI tools that do a better job

of identifying fake accounts that
may be trying to interfere in

elections or spread
misinformation.

And between those three elections.

We were able to proactively remove

tens of thousands of accounts that
before they they could contribute

significant harm.

And the nature of his attacks,

though, is that there are people
in Russia whose job it is is to

try to exploit our systems and
other Internet systems and other

systems as well.

So this is an arms race they're

going to keep on getting better at
this.

And we need to invest in keep
getting better at this too.

Which is why one of the things I
mentioned before is we're going to

have more than 20,000 people by
the end 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 a

fake account on Facebook.

Your content has to be authentic.

So 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 20 16 election.

Our top priority was protecting

the integrity of other elections
around the world.

But at the same time we had a
parallel effort to trace back to

Russia.

The IRA activity, the Internet

Research Agency activity.

That is the part of the Russian

government that that did this
activity in 20 16 and just last

week we were able to determine
that a number of Russian media

organizations that were sanctioned
by the Russian regulator were

operated and controlled by this
Internet Research agency.

So we took the step last week.

The pretty big step for us of

taking down sanctioned news
organizations in Russia as part of

an operation to remove 270 fake
accounts and pages.

Part of their broader network in
Russia.

That was actually not targeting
international interference as much

as sorry.

Let me correct that this is

primarily targeting spreading
misinformation in Russia itself as

well as certain Russian speaking
neighboring countries.

How many accounts of this type,
have you taken down across in the

IRA?
Specifically, the ones that we've

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

specifically to Russian
intelligence, but the number would

be in the tens of thousands of
fake accounts that we remove and

I'm.

Happy to have my team follow up

with you on more information if
that would be helpful, would you

please?
I think this is very important.

If you knew in 2,015 that
Cambridge analytic was using the

information of Professor Cogens
why didn't Facebook band Cambridge

in 2,015 why'd you wait.

So that's a great question.

Cambridge Analytica wasn't using
our services in 20 15 as far as we

can tell.

So this is clearly one of the

questions that I asked our team.

As soon as I learned about this is

why did we wait until we found out
about the reports last month to to

ban them it's because as of the
time that we learned about their

activity and 20 15 they weren't an
advertiser, they weren't running

pages.

So we actually had nothing to ban.

Thank you, thank you, Mr Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Feinstein.

Now, Senator Hatch.

Well, this is the most intense

public scrutiny I've seen for a
tech related hearing since the

Microsoft hearing that I shared
back in the late 19 nineties.

The stories about Cambridge
analytic and data mining on social

media have raised serious concerns
about consumer privacy.

And naturally I know you
understand that at the same time,

these stories touch on the very
foundation of the Internet economy

and the way the websites that
drive our Internet economy make

money some of professed themselves
shocked shocked.

The companies like Facebook Google
user data with advertisers.

Did any of these individuals ever
stopped?

Ask themselves why Facebook and
Google don't don't charge for

access.

Nothing like is free everything

involves trade offs, if you want
something without having to pay

money for it you're going to have
to pay for it.

In some other way.

It seems to me and that's where?

What we're seeing here?
And these great websites that

don't charge for access.

They extract value in some other

way.

And there's nothing wrong with

that as long as they're upfront
about what they're doing to my

mind.

The issue here is transparency

it's consumer choice to users
understand what they're agreeing

to when they access a website or
agree to terms of service, our

websites, upfront about how they
extract value from users who 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 mind
to my mind.

These are questions that we should
ask or be focusing on now, Mr

Zuckerberg, I remember well, your
first visit, the Capital Hill.

Back in 2,010 you spoke to the
Senate Republican high tech task

force, which I chair.

You said back then, 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 is our mission to

try to help connect everyone
around the world and to bring the

world closer together in order to
do that.

We believe that we need to offer a
service that everyone can afford

and we're committed to doing that.

Well, if so, 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.

Whenever a controversy like this
arises there's always a danger

that Congress's response will be
to step in and over regulate

that's the experience that I've
had in my 42 years here.

In 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 that there are a

few categories of legislation that
makes sense to consider around

privacy.

Specifically, there are a few

principles that I think it would
be useful to discuss and

potentially codify into law one is
around having a simple and

practical set of ways that you
explain what you're doing with

data.

And we talked a little bit earlier

around the complexity of laying
out the it's a long privacy policy

it's hard to say that people, you
know, fully understand something

when it's only written out in a
long legal document, this the

stuff needs to be implemented in a
way where people can actually

understand it where consumers can
understand it.

But that can also capture all the
nuances of how these services work

in a way that doesn't that's not
overly restrictive 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 that you
share on Facebook, you own.

And you have complete control over
who sees it and how you share it

and you can remove it at any time
that's why every day about

100,000,000,000 times a day,
people come to one of our services

and either post a photo or send a
message to someone.

Because they know that they have
that control and that who they say

it's going to go to is going to be
who sees the content and I think

that that control is something
that's important that I think

should apply to every service and
go ahead, the third point is just

around enabling innovation because
some of these use cases that that

are very sensitive, like face
recognition, for example.

And I think that there's a balance
that's extremely important to

strike here where you obtain
special consent for sensitive

features like face recognition.

But don't 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 for

different new features like that.

So, under grant.

Well, thank you, Mr Chairman.

Welcome Mr Zuckerberg.

Do you know who Palantir is I do?
Some people have referred to them

as a Stanford analytic.

Do you agree, Senator?

I have not heard that.

Okay, 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

scrape data from Facebook?
Senator I'm not aware of that,

okay?
Do you think that during the 20 16

campaign as Cambridge Analytica is
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.

So that was a yes.

Is that yes, Senator.

Can you repeat the specific

question?
I just want to make sure I get

specifically what you're asking
during the 20 16 campaign.

Cambridge Analytica worked with
the Trump campaign to refine

tactics and were Facebook
employees in that, Senator, I

don't know that our employees were
involved with Cambridge Analytica.

Although.

I know that we did help out the

Trump Campaign overall and sales
support in the same way that we do

with other campaigns.

So they may have been involved in

all working together during that
time period.

Maybe that's something your
investigation will find out.

Senator.

I can certainly 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.

Okay, total Information awareness
was 2,003 John Ashcroft and other

is trying to do similar things to
what I think is behind all of this

geopolitical forces trying to get
data information to influence a

process, so when I look at
volunteer and what they're doing?

And I look at what app, which is
another acquisition.

And I look at where you are from
the 2,011 consent decree and where

you are today.

I'm thinking is this guy Outfoxing

the foxes or is he going along
with what is a major trend in an

information age to try to harvest
information for political forces.

Question to you is do you see that
those applications that those

companies volunteer 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 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 really
that familiar with what planter

does.

WhatsApp collects very little

information and I think is less
likely to have the kind of issues

because of the way that the
services architected but certainly

I think that these are broad
issues across the tech industry.

Well, I guess given the track
record of where Facebook is and

why you're here today, I guess
people would say that they didn't

act boldly enough.

And the fact that people like John

Bolton basically was an investor
in New York Times article earlier.

I guess it was actually last month
that the Bolton pack was obsessed

with how America was becoming
limp, rested and spineless and had

wanted research and messaging for
national security issues.

So the fact that you know, there
are a lot of people who are

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 interests
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 the talent.

My question is whether you have
all the will to help us solve this

problem.

Yes, Senator, so data, privacy and

foreign interference in elections
are certainly topics that we have

discussed at the board meeting.

These are some of the biggest

issues that the company has faced
and we feel a huge responsibility

to get these right.

Do you believe the European

regulation should be applied here
in the U S Senator?

I think everyone in the world
deserves good privacy protection.

And regardless of whether we
implement the exact same

regulation, I would guess that it
would be somewhat different

because we have somewhat different
sensibilities in the US as other

countries we're committed to
rolling out the controls and the

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.

So I think, it's certainly worth
discussing whether we should have

something similar in the US.

But what I would like to say today

is that we're going to go forward
and implement that regardless of

what the regulatory outcome is,
Senator wicker.

Senator tone well, chair next,
Senator wicker, thank you, Mr

Chairman and Mr Zuckerberg.

Thank you for being with us.

My question is going to be sort of
a follow up on what Senator Hatch

was talking about and let me agree
with, basically his vice that we

don't want to over regulate to the
point where we're stifling

innovation and investment.

I understand with regard to

suggested rules or suggested
legislation there at least two

schools of thought out there.

One would be the ISPs.

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 on
the other hand it's my

understanding that many edge
providers such as Facebook may not

support that effort because edge
providers have different business

models.

Then the ISPs and should not be

considered like services so do you
think we need consistent privacy

protections for consumers across
the entire Internet ecosystem that

are based on the type of consumer
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 Facebook or Google or Twitter

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.

So there might be areas where
there needs to be more regulation.

And one and less than the other.

But I think there are going to be

other places where there needs to
be more regulation of the other

type specifically, though.

On the pipes one of the important

issues that I think we face and I
debated is when you say pipe, you

man is pipe and I know net
neutrality has been a hotly

debated topic.

And one of the reasons why I have

been out there saying that I think
that 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 us.

And if I had to pay extra in order

to make it that my app could
potentially be seen or used by

other people, then we probably
here today.

Okay, but we're talking about
privacy concerns and 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
standpoint.

Let me just move on to another
couple of items is it true that as

was recently publicized that
Facebook collects the call and

text histories of its users that
use Android phones.

Senator, we have an app called
Messenger for sending messages to

your Facebook friends.

And that app offers people an

option to sync their text messages
into the messaging app and to make

it so that basically, so you can
have one app where it has both

your texts.

And and your Facebook messages in

one place.

We also allow people the option

you can opt in around that.

Yes, it is.

It is 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 college history that

is correct.

And is that true?

Or is this practice done at all
with minors?

Or do you make an exception?
There for persons age 13 to 17 I

do not know we can follow up.

Okay, do that let's do that one

other thing there have been
reports that Facebook can track

users Internet browsing activity
even after that user 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 better to have my team
follow up.

So you don't know it.

I know that people use cookies on

the Internet and that you can
probably correlate activity

between between sessions.

We do that for a number of

reasons, including security and
including measuring ads to make

sure that the ad experiences are
the most effective which, of

course, people can opt out of.

But I want to make sure that

precisely that to me.

Would you also, let us know how

Facebook discloses to its users
that engaging in this type of

tracking gives us that result.

And thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator.

Wicker Senator LA he's.

Up next, thank you.

I I assume Facebook been served

with subpoenas for the special
counsel moles office is that

quick?
Yes, have you or anyone Facebook

but interviewed by the special
counsels office?

Yes, have you been interview?
I have not, I have not others.

Am I believe so?
And I want to be careful here

because that our work with the
special counsel is confidential.

And I want to make sure that in an
open session I'm not revealing

something Confidential I
understand that's why I made clear

that you have been contacted.

You have an subpoenas, actually.

Let me clarify that.

I actually am not aware of a

subpoena.

I believe that there may be but I

know we're working with them,
thank you.

Six months ago, Council promises
you are taking steps to prevent

Facebook for serving what is
called unwitting cold Conspira and

Russian interference.

But these these unverified device

of pages are on Facebook.

Today.

They look a lot like the anonymous
group of Russian agency use this

print propaganda during the 20 16
election.

You ever confirm with their
Russian create groups, yes or no

Senator.

Are you asking about those

specifically yes, Senator, last
week we actually announced a major

change to our ads and pages.

Policy Y that we will be verifying

the identity of every single
Advertiser specific ones, you know

what they are?
I am not familiar with this piece

of content specifically.

But if you decide this policy of a

week ago you'd be able to verify
them, we are working on that.

Now, what we're doing is we're
going to verify the identity of

any advertiser who's running a
political or issue related ad,

this is basically what the honest
ads act is proposing and we're

following that.

And we're also going to do that

for pages.

Would you get on these I'm not

familiar with those specific.

I will you find out the answer and

get back to me.

I'll have my team get back to you?

I do think it's worth adding,
though.

That we're going to do the same
verification of the identity and

location of admins who are running
large pages.

So that way, even if they aren't
going to be buying ads in our

system.

That will make it significantly

harder for Russian interference,
efforts or other in authentic

efforts to try to spread
misinformation through the network

surprise it's been going on for
some some might say that's about

time six months ago.

I asked you general counsel about

Facebook's roles, a breeding
ground for hate speech against in

refugees.

Recently UN investigators blamed

Facebook for playing a role in
citing possible genocide.

Emma and has been genocide there.

You say you use AI to find this.

This is a type of content
referring to it.

Calls for the death of a Muslim
journalists that threat went

straight through your detection
systems, I spread very quickly and

then it took attempt after attempt
after attempt and the involvement

of civil society groups to get you
to remove it.

Why couldn't it be removed within
24 hours.

Senator what's happening in
Myanmar is a terrible tragedy.

And we need to do more.

We all agree with that.

Okay?
But you and investigators have

blamed you blame Facebook we're
playing a role in the genocide.

We all agree is terrible.

How can you dedicate the?

Will you dedicate resources make
sure such hate speech is taken

down within 24 Yes we're working
on this.

And there are three specific
things that we're doing.

One is we're hiring dozens of more
Burmese language content

reviewers, because hate speech is
very language.

Specific had to do it without
people who speak the local

language.

And we need to ramp up our effort

there dramatically, second is
we're working with civil society

in Myanmar to identify specific
hate figures.

So we can take down their accounts
rather than specific pieces of

content and third is we are
standing 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 from

happening in Santa Cruz and I sent
a letter to Apple asking what

they're going to do about Chinese
censorship.

My question I place that would be
great.

Thank you, sir.

For the record, I want to know

what you do about Chinese
censorship when they come to you

Seagrams up next, thank you.

Are you familiar with Andrew

Bosworth?
Yes, Senator, I am.

He said so we connect more people.

Maybe someone dies in a terrorist

attack coordinated on our tools,
the ugly truth is that we believe

in connecting people so deeply
that anything that allows us to

connect more people more often is
to fact.

Do good, do you agree with that?
No, Senator, I do not.

And as context, Boz wrote that bus
is what we call them internally.

He wrote that as an internal note
we have a lot of discussion

internally.

I disagreed with it at the time

that he wrote it.

If you looked at the comments on

the internal discussion the
Georgia internally did too.

That you did a four job as CEO
communicating your displeasure

with such thoughts.

Because if he had understood where

you're at he would never said it
to begin with.

Well, Senator, we try to run our
company in a way where people can

express different opinions
internally.

Well, this is an opinion that
really disturbs me.

And if somebody work for me, that
said this I'd fire who's your

biggest competitor, Senator.

We have a lot of competitors who's

your biggest I think the
categories you want just one I'm

not sure I can give one.

But can I give a bunch here are

three categories that I would
focus on one are the other tech

platforms.

So Google, Apple, Amazon

Microsoft.

We overlap with them in different.

They do.

Do they provide the same service?

She provide in different ways,
different in this way, if I buy it

forward and it doesn't work well.

And I don't like it.

I can buy a shitty.

If I'm upset with Facebook what's

the equivalent product that I can
go sign up for.

Well, the the second category that
I was going to talk about, er, not

song that categories I'm talking
about is a real competition.

You face because car companies
face a lot of competition.

If they make a defective car, it
gets out in the world people stop

buying that car they buy.

Another one is in an alternative

to Facebook in the private sector.

Yes, Senator, the average American

uses eight different apps, okay,
communicate with their friends and

stay in touch with people, ranging
from Technic apps to email to

serve as you provide.

Well, we provide a number of

difference is Twitter the same as
what you do.

It overlaps of the course.

You don't you have a monopoly.

It certainly doesn't feel like
that to me.

Okay, so it doesn't Instagram.

You bought an Instagram hear.

Did you buy Instagram because they
were very talented app developers

who are making good use of our
platform and understood our values

as a good bus decision.

My point is that one way to

regulate a companies through
competition through government

regulation here's the question
that all of us got an answer.

What do we tell our constituents?
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 just discovered here

it's a good idea for us to rely
upon you to regulate your own

business practices.

Well, Senator, my position is not

that there should be no
regulation.

I think the Internet is
increasingly embrace regulation.

I think the real question as the
Internet becomes more important in

people's lives is what is the
regulation?

Not whether there should be or you
as a company.

Welcome regulation, I think.

If it's the right regulation, then

you think the Europeans had it
right.

I think that they get things
right.

Have you ever submitted that's
true.

So, would you work with us in
terms of what regulations you

think are necessary in your
industry, absolutely, okay, would

you submit some proposed
regulations?

Yes, and I'll have my team follow
up with you?

So that way we can have this
discussion across the different

categories where I think that this
discussion needs to forward to?

When you sign up for Facebook, you
sign up for terms of service, are

you familiar with that?
Yes, okay, it says the terms

govern our use of Facebook and the
products features app services

technology software.

We offer Facebook's products or

products, except where we
expressly state that separate

terms and not these apply I'm a
lawyer.

I have no idea what that means.

But when you look at terms of

service, this is what you get.

Do you think the average consumer

understands what they're signing
up for?

I don't think that the average
person likely reads that whole

document, but I think that there
are different ways that we can

communicate that and have a
responsibility to do.

So do you agree with me?
That you better come up with

different ways because this I
ain't working well, Senator, I

think in certain areas that is
true.

And I think in other areas like
the core part of what we do.

But if you think about just at the
most basic level, people come to

Facebook Instagram what's that
Messenger about 100,000,000,000

times a day to share a piece of
content or a message with a

specific set of people.

And I think that that basic

functionality, people understand
because we have the controls in

line every time and given the
volume of the activity and the

value that people tell us that
they're getting from that.

I think that that control in line
does seem to be working fairly

well.

Now we can always do better and

there are other services are
complex and there is more to it.

Than just you go and you post a
photo.

So I agree that in many places we
could do better.

But I think for the core of the
service it actually is quite

clear.

Thank you, Senator.

Graham center kosher.

Thank you, Mr Mr Zuckerberg.

I think we all agree that what
happened here was bad you

acknowledge it was a breach of
trust and the way I explained it

to my constituents.

Is that if someone breaks into my

apartment with a crowbar and they
take my stuff it's just like if

the manager gave them the keys or
if they didn't have any locks on

the doors it's still a breach I'd
still a break in and I believe we

need to have laws and rules that
are sophisticated as the brilliant

products that you've developed
here.

And we just haven't done that yet
and one of the areas that I

focused on is the election.

And I appreciate the support that

you and Facebook.

And now Twitter actually have

given to the honest ads act.

A bill that you mentioned that I'm

leading with Senator McCain and
Senator Warner.

And I just want to be clear as we
work to pass this law so that we

have the same rules in 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.

I heard before this election so
that people can view these ads,

including issue ads.

Is that correct, that is correct,

Senator.

And I just want to take a moment

before I go into this in more
detail to thank you for your

leadership on this this I think is
an important area for the whole

industry to move on.

The two specific things that we're

doing are one is around
transparency.

So now you're going to be able to
go and click on any advertiser,

any page on Facebook and see all
of the ads that they're running.

So that actually brings
advertising online on Facebook to

an even higher standard than what
you would have on TV or print

media.

Because there's nowhere where you

can see all of the TV ads that
someone is running, for example,

where you will be able to see now
on Facebook.

Whether this campaign or third
party is saying different messages

to different types of people in
that that's a really important

element of transparency.

Then the other really important

piece is around verifying every
single Advertiser who's going to

be running political or issue ads.

I appreciate that in center Warner

and I called on Google and the
other platforms to do the same.

So memo to the rest of you we have
to get this done or we're going to

have a patchwork of ads.

And I hope that you'll be working

with us to pass this.

Bill is that right, we will.

Okay, thank you.

Now, on the subject of Cambridge

Analytica, were these people that
87,000,000 people users

concentrated in certain states.

Are you able to figure out where

they're from.

I do not have that information

with me, but we can follow up with
your office.

Okay, because as we know the
election was close and it was only

thousands of votes in certain
states.

You've also estimated that roughly
126,000,000 people may have been

shown content from a Facebook page
associated with the Internet

Research Agency, 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, Senator we're
investigating that now we believe

that it is entirely possible that
there will be a connection there.

Okay, that seems like a big deal.

As we look back at that last

election, former Cambridge
Analytica employee Christopher

Wiley said that the data that it
improperly obtained that Cambridge

analytic and properly obtained
from Facebook users could be

stored in Russia.

Do you agree that that's a

possibility?
Sorry, are you asking if Cambridge

analytics data could be stored in
Russia?

That's what he said this weekend
on a Sunday show, Senator, I don't

have any specific knowledge that
would suggest that.

But one of the steps that we need
to take now is go to a full audit

of all of Cambridge analytical
systems to understand what they're

doing.

Whether they still have any data

to make sure they remove all the
data if they don't we're going to

take legal action against them to
do so that audit.

We have temporarily seated that in
order to let the UK Government

complete their government
investigation first, because, of

course, the government
investigation takes precedence

over a company doing that.

But we are committed to completing

this.

Full audit and getting to the

bottom of what's going on here.

So that way, we can have more

answers to this.

Okay?

You earlier stated publicly and
here that you would support some

privacy rules so that everyone is
playing by the same rules here and

you also said here that 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.

And I think we should have our
team follow up with yours to

discuss the details around that
more.

Thank you.

I just think part of this was when

people don't even know that their
dad has been breached that's a

huge problem.

And I also think we get to

solutions faster 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 Kobe Shar center blown.

So next, thank you, Mr Chairman,
Mr Berg, nice to see you.

When I saw you not too long after
I entered the Senate in 2,011 I

told you when I sent my business
cards down to be printed, they

came back from the Senate print
shop with the message.

That was the first business card,
they ever printed a Facebook

address on there are days when
I've regretted that.

But more days when we get lots of
information that we need to get

there are days when I wonder if
Facebook friends is a little

misstated that doesn't seem like I
have those every single day.

But you know, the platform you've
created is really important.

And my son, Charlie who's 13 is
dedicated to Instagram.

So he'd want to be sure.

I mentioned him while I was here.

With with you, I haven't printed
that on my card yet.

I will say that.

But I think we have that account

as well.

Lots of ways to connect people and

the the information obviously 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 seven.

Yes, and now and then we'll get

back to more expensive discussion
of this.

But do you collect user data
through cross device tracking

Senator.

I believe we do link people's

accounts between devices in order
to make sure that their Facebook

and Instagram and there are other
experiences can be synced between

their devices and that would also
include offline.

Data data that's tracking that's
not necessarily linked to Facebook

but linked to some device.

They went through Facebook on is

that right, Senator?
I want to make sure we get this

right.

So I want to have my team.

Follow up with you on that
afterwards.

That doesn't seem that complicated
to me.

You understand this than I do.

But maybe you can explain to me

why that why that's complicated.

Do you track devices that an

individual who uses Facebook as
that is connected to the device

that they use for their Facebook
connection.

But not necessarily connected to
Facebook I'm not sure the answer

to that question, really.

Yes, there may be some data that

is necessary to provide the
service that we do.

But I don't have that sitting
here.

Today, so that's something that I
would want to follow now.

The FTC last year flag cross
device tracking as one of their

concerns.

Generally that people are tracking

devices that the users of
something like Facebook don't know

that are being tracked.

How do you disclose your collected

collection methods is at all in
this document that I would see and

agree to before I entered into a
Facebook.

Yes, Senator, so there are two
ways that we do.

This one is we try to be
exhaustive in the legal documents

around the terms of service and
privacy policies.

But more importantly, we try to
provide inline controls.

So people that are in plain
English that people can

understand.

They can either go to settings or

we can show them at the top of the
app periodically is that people

understand all the controls and
settings they have and can

configure their experience the way
that they want.

So the people 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 or able to opt out

and I will 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 somebody else off
Facebook on an Android.

Okay, yes, Senator, in general,
Facebook is not collecting data

from other apps that you use.

There may be some specific things

about the device that you're using
that Facebook needs to understand

in order to offer the service.

But if you're using Google or

you're using some texting app
unless you specifically opt in

that you want to share the texting
app information, Facebook won't

see that?
Has it always been that way?

That a recent addition to how you
deal with those other ways that

might communicate, Senator, my
understanding is that that is how

the mobile operating systems are
architected so you don't have

bundled permissions for how I can
agree to what devices I may use

that you may have contact with,
did you?

You bundle that permission.

Or am I able to want individually

say what I'm willing for you to to
watch and what I don't want you to

watch.

And I think we may have to take

that for the record based on
everybody else's time.

Thank you, Senator.

Blunt.

Next up Senator Durbin, thank very
much, Mr Chairman, Mr Zuckerberg,

would you be comfortable sharing
with us?

The name of the hotel you stayed
in last night?

No, if you've messaged anybody
this week?

Would you share with us?
The names of the people you've

messaged Senator?
No, I would probably not choose to

do that publicly here.

I think that 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 question basically of

what information Facebook is
collecting who they're sending it

to and whether they were ask me in
advance, my permission to do that.

Is that a fair thing for a user of
Facebook to expect?

Yes, Senator, I think everyone
should have control over how their

information is used.

And as we've talked about in some

of the other questions, I think
that that is laid out in some of

the documents.

But more importantly, you want to

give people control in the product
itself.

So most important way that this
happens across our services is

that every day?
People come to our services to

choose to share photos or send
messages and every single time

they choose to share something.

They have a control right there

about who they want to share it
with, but that level of control is

extremely important.

They certainly know within the

Facebook pages who their friends
are but they may not know as has

happened and you've conceded this
point in the past that sometimes

that information is going way
beyond their friends.

And sometimes people have made
money off of sharing that

information, correct, Senator
you're referring, I think to our

developer platform and it may be
useful for me to give some

background on how we set that up.

If that's useful I have three

minutes left.

So maybe you can do that for the

record because I have a couple of
the questions I'd like to ask you

have recently announced something
that is called Messenger Kids

Facebook created.

An app allowing kids between the

ages of six and 12 to send video
and text messages through Facebook

as an extension of their parents
account.

You have cartoon like stickers and
other features designed to appeal

to little kids first graders
kindergarteners on January

thirtieth campaign.

For commercial free childhood and

lots of other child development
organizations, Warren Facebook,

they pointed to a wealth of
research demonstrating the

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 six in addition.

There are concerns about data
that's being gathered about these

kids now.

There are certain limits in the

law.

We know the children's online

privacy at what guarantees can you
give us that?

No, data for Messenger kids is or
will be collected or shared with

those that might violate that law.

All right, Senator.

So a number of things I think 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 to have complete
control over that so I think we

can all agree that when your kid
is six or 7 even if they have

access to a phone, you want to be
able to control everyone who they

can contact and there wasn't an
app out there that did that.

So 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

on the word in general, the phrase
in general, it seems to suggest

that in some circumstances, it
will be shared with third parties.

No, it will not alright, would you
be open to the idea that someone

having reached at old 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 our legal limit
or limited.

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 so I think it's a good idea to
consider making sure that all that

information is deleted.

And in general, people are going

to be starting over when they get
their their Facebook or other

accounts.

A close because they just have a

few seconds.

Illinois has a biometric

information, Privacy Act.

Our state does, which is to

regulate the commercial use of
facial, voice finger and Iris

scans and the like we're now in a
fulsome debate on that and I'm

afraid.

Facebook is the position trying to

carve out exceptions to that.

I hope you'll fill me in on how

that is consistent with protecting
privacy.

Thank you, thank you.

Senator Durbin center corny.

Thank you, Mr Zuckerberg for being
here.

Up until 2,014 the mantra or
motto.

A 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 sounds much more boring.

But my question is during the time

it was Facebook, mantra or motto
to move fast and break things.

Do you think some of the
misjudgments perhaps mistakes that

you've admitted to here where as a
result of that culture or that

attitude, particularly as regards
to personal privacy of 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 that wasn't a matter.

The move fast cultural value is
more tactical around whether

engineers can ship things and
different ways that we operate.

But I think the big mistake that
we've made looking back on this

viewing 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've been told that

platforms like Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, the like or neutral

platforms.

And the people who own and run

those for profit and I'm not
criticizing doing something for

profit in this country.

But they bore no responsibility

for the content.

You agree 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 and I think that there
is one of the big societal

questions I think we're going to
need to answer is the current

framework that we have is based on
this reactive model that assumed

that there weren't 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 then the company being to take

reasonable action in the future
we're going to 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'll have to wrestle
with as a society about when we

want to require companies to take
action.

Proactively uncertain of those
things when that gets in the way,

I appreciate that I have two
minutes left.

All right to ask you questions.

So you interestingly the terms of

what do you call it?
The terms of service is a legal

document which discloses to your
subscribers.

How their information is going to
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.

So is that 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 it, they may

not understand it, I just think we
have a broader responsibility than

what the law requires.

So I'm I'm in.

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.

You say you own all of the content
and information you post on

Facebook that's what you've told
us here today.

A number of times.

So if I choose to terminate my

Facebook account.

Can I bar Facebook or any third

parties from using the data that I
had 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

we do you we do.

How about third parties that you

have contracted with to use some
of that underlying information,

perhaps to target advertising for
themselves.

You can with do you call back that
information as well.

Or does that remain in their
senator, this is actually a very

important question I'm glad you
brought this up because there's a

very common misperception about
Facebook that we sell data to

advertisers and we do not sell
data to advertisers.

We don't sell eerily rented.

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.

Ever changing hands and going to

the advertiser that's a very
fundamental part of how our model

works and something that is often
misunderstood, so I appreciate

that you brought that up.

Thank you, Senator Cornyn.

We had indicated earlier on that
we would take a couple of breaks.

Give our witness, an opportunity.

And I think we've been going now

for just under two hours.

So I think we'll do is do a few

more.

Er, Burger are you do, you want to

keep going, maybe 15 minutes,
okay?

Alright we'll keep going center.

Blumenthal is up next and we will

commence.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Thank you for being here today, Mr
Zuckerberg.

You have told us today and you've
told the world that Facebook was

deceived by Alexander Kogan when
he sold user information to

Cambridge Analytica, correct.

Yes, I want to show you the terms

of service that Alexander Cogan
provided to Facebook and note for

you that, in fact, Facebook was on
notice that he could sell that

user information, have you seen
these 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 could be

sold.

Senator or a review team would be

responsible for that.

Has anyone been fired on that?

A review team, Senator, not
because of this 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 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.

```