>>> THIS HEARING WILL COME TO ORDER. WE HAVE CONVENED THIS MORNING TO ENSURE THE INTERNET REMAINS A FREE AND OPEN SPACE AND THAT THE LAWS NA GOVERN IT ARE SUFFICIENTLY UP TO DATE. THE INTERNET IS A SUCCESS STORY THANKS IN LARGE PART TO THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OUR GOVERNMENT PUT IN PLACE. BUT WE CANNOT TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED. THE OPENNESS OF THE INTERNET ARE UNDER ATTACK. SOON, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE CEOs OF THE THREE OF THE MOST PROMINENT FACEBOOK PLATFORMS, FACEBOOK, TWITTER AND WE HAVE MR. MORTGAGE ZUCKERBERG OF FACEBOOK. ON OCTOBER 1st, THIS COMMITTEE VOTED ON A BIPARTISAN AND UNANIMOUS BASIS TO APPROVE SUBPOENAS. AFTER DISCUSSION AMONG REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY AND THE COMMITTEE, THE WITNESSES AGREED TO ATTEND THE HEARING VOLUNTARILY AND REMOTELY. THERE IS STRONG AGREEMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE THAT HEARING FROM THESE WITNESSES IS IMPORTANT TO DELIBERATIONS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, INCLUDING DELIBERATIONS ON WHAT LEGISLATIVE REFORMS ARE NECESSARY TO INSURE A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET. FOR ALMOST 35 YEARS, THE PRESERVATION OF INTERNET FREEDOM HAS BEEN THE HALLMARK OF A THRIVING DIGITAL ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES. THIS SUCCESS HAS LARGELY BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO A LIGHT TOUCH REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT, OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE 26 WORDS THAT CREATED THE INTERNET. THERE IS LITTLE DISPUTE SECTION 230 PLAYED AN EARLY ROLE OF ONLINE PLATFORMS. SECTION 238 CONTENT PROVIDERS, PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY TO REMOVE AND MODERATE CONTENT THAT THEY OR THEIR USERS CONSIDER TO BE QUOTE OBSCENE, LEWD, LASCIVIOUS, FILTHY, VIOLENT, HARASSING OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE. END QUOTE. THIS LIABILITY SHIELD HAS BEEN PIVOTAL IN PROTECTING ONLINE PLATFORMS FROM ENDLESS AND POTENTIALLY VEHEMUS LAWSUITS THAT MEET THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDARDS. THE TIME HAS COME FOR THAT FREE PASS TO END. AFTER 24 YEARS OF SECTION 230 BEING THE LAW OF THE HAPPENED, MUCH HAS CHANGED. THE INTERNET IS NO LONGER AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY. THE COMPANIES BEFORE US TODAY ARE NO LONGER SCRAPPY STARTUPS OPERATING OUT OF A GARAGE OR A DORM ROOM. THEY ARE NOW AMONG THE WORLD'S LARGEST CORPORATIONS, WIELDING IMMENSE POWER IN OUR ECONOMY CULTURE AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE, IMMENSE POWER. THE APPLICATIONS THEY HAVE CREATED ARE CONNECTING THE WORLD IN UNPRECEDENTED WAY, FAR BEYOND LAWMAKERS COULD HAVE IMAGINED THREE DECKS E DECADES AGO. THEY ARE CONTROLLING THE OVERFLOW OF FUSE AND INFORMATION THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SHARE AND ACCESS. ONE NOTE WORTHY EXAMPLE OCCURRED TWO WEEKS AGO AFTER OUR SUBPOENAS WERE YOU FAMILY APPROVED. THE NEW YORK POST, THE COUNTRY'S FOURTH LARGEST NEWSPAPER, RAN A STORY REVEALING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HUNTER BIDEN AND A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL. THE REPORT ALLEGED THAT HUNTER BIDEN FACILITATED A MEETING WITH HIS FATHER, JOE BIDEN, WHO WAS THEN VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, BOTH TWITTER AND FACEBOOK TOOK STEPS TO BLOCK AMENDMENT ACCESS TO THE STORY FACEBOOK, ACCORDING TO ITS POLICY COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER BEGAN QUOTE REDUCING ITS DISTRIBUTION ON THE PLATFORM, UNQUOTE. PEDALING A THIRD PARTY CHECK. THIRD-PARTY FACT CHECK. TWITTER WENT BEYOND THAT BLOCKING ALL USERS, INCLUDING THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FROM SHARING THE ARTICLE THROUGH DIRECT MESSAGES. TWITTER EVEN LOCKED THE NEW YORK POST ACCOUNT ENTIRELY CLAIMING THE STORY INCLUDED HACKED MATERIALS AND THUS POTENTIALLY HARMFUL. IT IS WORTH PHOTOING THAT BOTH TWITTER AND FACEBOOK'S AVERSION TO HACKED MATERIALS HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SO STRINGENT. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S TAX RETURNS WERE ILLEGALLY LEAKED, NEITHER COMPANY ACTED TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION. SO THE AMOUNT DISCREDITED THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS WIDELY SHARED WITHOUT FACT CHECKING OR DISCLAIMERS. THIS APPARENT DOUBLE STANDARD WOULD BE APPALLING UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THE FACT THAT SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP IS OCCURRING IN THE MIDST OF THE 2020 ELECTION CYCLE DRAMATICALLY AMPLIFIES THE POWER WIELDED BY FACEBOOK AND TWITTER. GOOGLE RECENTLY GENERATED ITS OWN CONTROVERSY WHEN IT WAS REVEALED THE COMPANY THREATENED TO CUT OFF SEVERAL CONSERVATIVE WEBSITES, INCLUDING THE FEDERALIST FROM THEIR AD PLATFORM. MAKE NO MISTAKE, FOR SITE'S THAT RELY HEAVILY ON ADVERTISING REVENUE FOR THEIR BOTTOM LINE, BEING BLOCKED FROM GOOGLE SERVICES OR DEMONITIZED CAN BE A DEATH SENTENCE. ACCORDING TO GOOGLE THE OFFENSE OF THESE WEBSITES WAS HOSTING USER-SUBMITTED COMMENT SECTIONS THAT INCLUDED OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT. BUT GOOGLE'S OWN PLATFORM YouTube HOSTS USER-SUBMITTED COMMENT SECTIONS FOR EVERY VIDEO UPLOADED. IT SEEMS THAT GOOGLE IS FAR MORE ZEALOUS IN POLICING CONSERVATIVE SITES THAN ITS OWN YouTube PLATFORM OR THE SAME TYPES OF OFFENSES AND OUTRAGEOUS LANGUAGE. IT IS IRONIC THAT WHEN THE SUBJECT IS NET NEUTRALITY, TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES, INCLUDING FACEBOOK, GOOGLE AND TWITTER HAVE WARNED ABOUT THE GREATEST THREAT OF BLOCKING OR THROTTLING THE FLOW OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET. MEANWHILE, THESE SAME COMPANIES ARE ACTIVELY BLOCKING AND THROTTLING THE DISTRIBUTION OF CONTENT ON THEIR OWN PLATFORMS AND ARE USING PROTECTIONS UNDER SECTION 30 TO DO IT. IS THERE ANY SURPRISE THAT VOICES ON THE RIGHT ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT HIP ABOUT /* HIPPOCRACY. THESE ARE THE LATEST ON A TRAIL OF CENSORSHIP AND SUPPRESSION OF CONSERVATIVE FORCES ON THE INTERNET. REASONABLE OBSERVERS ARE LEFT TO WONDER WHETHER BIG TECH FIRMS ARE OBSTRUCTING THE FLOW OF INFORMATION TO BENEFIT ONE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OR AGENDA. MY CONCERN IS THAT THESE PLATFORMS HAVE BECOME POWERFUL ARBITERS OF WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT CONTENT USERS CAN ACCESS. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC GETS LITTLE INSIGHT INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WHEN CONTENT IS MODERATED AND USERS HAVE LITTLE RECOURSE WHEN THEY ARE CENSORED OR RESTRICTED. I HOPE WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE ISSUES THE COMMITTEE WILL DISCUSS TODAY ARE RIGHT FOR THOROUGH EXAMINATION AND ACTION. I HAVE INTRODUCED LEGISLAITION TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF SECTION 230'S LIABILITY PROTECTIONS AND INCREASE THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF COMPANIES WHO ENGAGE IN CONTENT MODERATION. THE ONLINE FREEDOM AND VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY ACT MAKES CHANGES TO LIGHT SIZE THE LIABILITY SHIELD AND MAKE CLEAR WHAT TYPE OF CONTENT MODERATION IS PROTECTED. THIS THESE ARE THE CHALLENGES WHILE LEAVING FUNDAMENT ALSO OF SECTION 230 IN PLACE. WHILE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE CHARACTERIZED THIS AS A PURELY PARTISAN EXERCISE, THERE IS STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR VIEWING SECTION 230. IN FACT, BOTH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, TRUMP AND BIDEN, HAVE PROPOSED REPEATEDLY SECTION 230 IN ITS ENTIRETY. A POSITION I HAVE NOT YET EMBRACED. I HOPE WE CAN FOCUS TODAY'S DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT ALL AMERICANS, PROTECT AC TRUE DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINTS AND FREE DISCOURSE IS CENTRAL TO OUR WAY OF LIFE. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM TODAY'S WITNESSES ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN THEIR CONTENT MODERATION PROCESS. AND I THANK EACH OF THEM FOR COOPERATING WITH US IN THE SCHEDULING OF THIS TESTIMONY. I NOW TURN TO MY FRIEND AND RANKING MEMBER SENATOR CANTWELL FOR HER OPENING REMARKS. SENATOR CANTWELL. >>> THE STATE OF WALK IN MY SENATE OFFICE HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., IT SHOWS THE VARIOUS ECOSYSTEMS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, WHICH WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE. I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE JUST RECENTLY THE SEATTLE AREA WAS NAMED THE NUMBER ONE STEM ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES. THAT IS THE MOST STEM WORK FORCE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. SO THESE ISSUES ABOUT HOW WE HARNESS THE INFORMATIONAGE TO WORK FOR US AND NOT AGAINST US IS SOMETHING THAT WE DEAL WITH EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK AND WE WANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION AND DISCOURSE. I BELIEVE THAT DISCUSSION AND DISCOURSE TODAY SHOULD BE BROADER THAN JUST 230. THERE ARE ISSUES OF PRIVACY THAT OUR COMMITTEE HAS ADDRESSED AND ISSUES ON HOW TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A FREE AND COMPETITIVE NEWS MARKET. I NOTICED TODAY WE'RE NOT CALLING IN THE NAB OR THE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION ASKING THEM WHY THEY HAVEN'T PRINTED OR REPRINTED INFORMATION THAT YOU ALLUDE TO IN OUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WISH WAS MORE BROADLY DISTRIBUTED. TO HAVE THE COMPETITION IN THE NEWS MARKET IS TO HAVE A DIVERSITY OF VOICES AND DIVERSITY OF OPINION AND IN MY REPORT JUST RECENTLY RELEASED, WE SHOW THAT TRUE COMPETITION REALLY DISCUSS HELP PROTECT INFORMATION BOTH FOR OUR ECONOMY AND THE HELP OF OUR DEMOCRACY. SO I DO LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES TODAY. BUT I DOT WNOT /* DO NOT WANT TE HEARING TO BE MAKING SURE THAT HATE SPEECH OR MISINFORMATION RELATED TO HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY ARE ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON THE INTERNET. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 AND WE HAD REPORTS FROM THE FBI, OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND A BIPARTISAN SITTING COMMITTEE THAT CONCLUDED IN 2016 THAT RUSSIAN OPERATIVES DID MASQUERADING AS AMERICANS USE TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS, INTENTIONALLY FALSIFIED NEWS ARTICLES, SELF GENERATED CONTENT, SOCIAL PLATFORM TOOLS TO INTERACT AND DECEIVE TENSE OF MILLIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA USERS IN THE UNITED STATES. THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE THEN REPUBLICAN SENATOR, FORMER SENATOR DAN COATES, SAID, QUOTE, JULY, 2018, THE WARNING LIGHTS ARE PLINKING RED THE DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SERVES OUR COUNTRY IS LITERALLY UNDER ATTACK. SO I TAKE THIS ISSUE VERY SERIOUSLY AND HAVE HAD FOR MANY YEARS, THAT IS, MAKING SURE AS THE MUELLER SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER INDICATED 12 RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS HACKED THE DNC AND VARIOUS INFORMATION DETAILING PHISHING ATTACKS INTO OUR STATE ELECTION BOARDS, ONLINE PERSONAS AND STEALING DOCUMENTS SO WHEN WE HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING AND FORMER BUSH HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR MICHAEL CHERTOFF TESTIFIED, I ASKED HIM POINT-BLANK, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES WHO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, EVERYBODY DOES ELECTION INTERFERENCE. SO I ASKED HIM IF ELECTION INTERFERENCE WAS SOMETHING WE DID OR SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING. HE RESPONDED THAT HE AGREED, QUOTE, INTERFERING WITH INFRASTRUCTURE OR ELECTIONS IS COMPLETELY OFF LIMITS AND UNACCEPTABLE. THAT IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING AGGRESSIVELY INTERNATIONALLY TO SANCTION ANYBODY THAT INTERFERES IN OUR ELECTIONS. SO I HOPE TODAY THAT WE WILL GET A REPORT FROM THE WITNESSES ON EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING TO CLAMP DOWN ON ELECTION INTERFERENCE. I HOPE THAT THEY WILL TELL US WHAT KIND OF HATE SPEECH AND MISINFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN OFF THE BOOKS. IT IS NO SECRET THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS STATE ACTORS, WHO ARE DOING ALL THEY CAN, TO TAKE A WHACK AT DEMOCRACY. TO TRY TO SAY THAT OUR WAY OF GOVERNMENT, THAT OUR WAY OF LIFE. THAT OUR WAY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND INFORMATION IS SOMEHOW NOT AS GOOD AS WE HAVE MADE IT BEING THE BEACON OF DEMOCRACY AROUND THE GLOBE I AM NOT GOING TO LET OR TOLERATE PEOPLE TO CONTINUE TO WHACK AT OUR ELECTION PROCESS, OUR VOTE BY MAIL SYSTEM, OR THE ABILITY OF TECH PLATFORMS, SECURITY COMPANIES, ONLINE ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES AND THE COLLECTIVE COMMUNITY TO SPEAK AGAINST MISINFORMATION AND HATE SPEECH. WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STANDS BEHIND OUR PRINCIPLES AND OUR PRINCIPLES DO ALSO TRANSFER TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMUNICATIONS ONLINE. AS MY COLLEAGUES WILL NOTE, WE HAVE ALL BEEN THROUGH THIS IN THE PAST. THAT IS WHY YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I AND SENATORS ROSEN AND THUNE SPONSORED THE HACK ACT. THAT IS TO HELP INCREASE THE SECURITY AND CYBER SECURITY OF OUR NATION AND CREATE A WORK FORCE THAT CAN FIGHT AGAINST THAT. THAT IS WHY I JOINED WITH HOLLAND AND RUBIO ON THE DETER ACT, ESPECIALLY IN ESTABLISHING SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIAN ELECTIONER FERRRENCE AND TO CONTINUE TO -- ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE WE SECURE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TOMORROW. I KNOW SOME THINK THESE ISSUES ARE OUT OF SIGHT AND OUT OF MIND. I GERMANY TEE THEY ARE NOT. THERE ARE ACTORS WHO HAVE BEEN AT THIS FOR A LONG TIME. THEY WANT TO DESTABILIZE EASTERN EUROPE AND WE BECAME THE SECOND ACT WHEN THEY TRIED TO DESTABILIZE OUR DEMOCRACY HERE BY SELLING DISINFORMATION. I WANT TO SHOW THEM THAT WE IN THE UNITED STATES DO HAVE FAIR ELECTIONS. WE DO HAVE A FAIR PROCESS. WE ARE GOING TO BE THAT BEACON OF DEMOCRACY. SO I HOPE THAT AS WE TALK ABOUT 230 TODAY AND WE HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES ON THE PROGRESS THEY HAVE MADE IN MAKING SURE DISINFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED ONLINE, THAT WE WILL ALSO CONSIDER WAYS TO HELP BUILD AND STRENGTHEN THAT. THAT IS TO SAY, AS SOME OF THOSE WHO ARE TESTIFYING TODAY, WHAT CAN WE DO ON TRANSPARENCY, ON RECORDING? ON ANALYSIS? AND, YES, I THINK YOU WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT ALGORITHMS TODAY AND THE KIND OF OVERSIGHT THAT WE ALL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN CONTINU TO HAVE A DIVERSITY OF VOICES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE. I DO WANT TO SAY, THOUGH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE VERTICAL NATURE OF NEWS AND INFORMATION. TODAY I EXPECT TO ASK THE WITNESS ABOUT THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THEY CREATE A CHOKE POINT FOR LOCAL NEWS. LOCAL NEWS MEDIA HAVE LOST 70% OF THEIR REVENUE OVER THE LAST DECADE AND WE HAVE LOST THOUSANDS, THOUSANDS OF JOURNALISTIC JOBS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. IT WAS EVEN AMAZING TO ME THAT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS YESTERDAYED A ME BEING INTERVIEWED BY SOMEONE AT A NEWSPAPER WHO WAS FUNDED BY A JOINT GROUP OF THE KNIGHT FOUNDATION AND PROBABLY FACEBOOK FUNDS TO INTERVIEW ME ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE NEWS MEDIA AND BROADCAST HAS FALLEN ON SUCH A DECLINE BECAUSE OF LOSS OF REVENUE AS THEY'VE MADE THE TRANSITION TO THE DIGITAL AGE. SOMEHOW, SOMEHOW, WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER TO SHOW THAT THE DIVERSITY OF VOICES THAT LOCAL NEWS REPRESENT NEED TO BE DEALT WITH FAIRLY WITHIN IT COMES TO THE ADVERTISING MARKET AND THAT TOO MUCH CONTROL IN THE ADVERTISING MARKET PUTS A FOOT ON THEIR ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND GROW IN THE DIGITAL AGE. JUST AS OTHER FORMS OF MEDIA HAVE MADE THE TRANSITION AND YET STILL MAKING THE TRANSITION, WE WANT TO HAVE A VERY HEALTHY AND DYNAMIC NEWS MEDIA ACROSS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. SO I PLAN TO ASK THE WITNESSES TODAY ABOUT THAT. I WISH WE HAD TIME TO GO INTO DEPTH ON PRIVACY AND PRIVACY ISSUES, BUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU KNOW AND SO DOES SENATOR THUNE AND OTHER COLLEAGUES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MY SIDE, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE PROTECT AMERICAN CONSUMERS ON PRIVACY ISSUES. WE'RE NOT DONE WITH THIS WORK. THERE IS MANY UP TO DO TO BRING CONSENSUS IN THE UNITED STATES ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND I HOPE THAT AS WE DO HAVE TIME OR IN THE FOLLOW-UP TO THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN ASK THE WITNESSES ABOUT THAT TODAY. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, GENTLEMAN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, BUT THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF MANY, MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WILL HAVE ABOUT ALL OF THESE ISSUES. BUT, AGAIN, LET'S HARNESS THE INFORMATION AGE AS ARE YOU DOING. BUT LET'S ALSO MAKE SURE THAT CONSUMERS ARE FAIRLY TREATED AND THAT WE ARE MAKING IT WORK FOR ALL OF US TO GUARANTEE OUR PRIVACY, OUR DIVERSITY OF VOICES AND UPHOLDING OUR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND THE FACT THAT WE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STAND FOR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR CANTWELL, CERTAINLY YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THIS WILL NOT BE THE LAST HEARING WITH REGARD TO THIS SUBJECT MATTER AND I ALSO APPRECIATE YOU MENTIONING YOUR CONCERNS, WHICH I SHARE ABOUT LOCAL JOURNALISM. AT THIS POINT, WE ARE ABOUT TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY FROM OUR WITNESSES. BEFORE WE DPIN THAT, LET ME REMIND MEMBERS THAT TODAY'S HEARING WILL PROVIDE SENATORS WITH SEVEN MINUTES, ROUNDS, WITH A ROUND OF SEVEN-MINUTE QUESTIONING RATHER THAN THE USUAL FIVE MINUTES THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. AT SEVEN MINUTES, THE GAVEL WILL, LET'S SAY, A FEW SECONDS AFTER SEVEN MINUTES, THE GAVEL WILL GO DOWN. EVEN SO, THIS HEARING COULD LAST SOME THREE HOURS AND 42 MINUTES AT THAT RATE. SO, THIS WOULD BE AN EXTENSIVE AND LENGTHY HEARING. WE ARE ADVISED WE WILL ADHERE CLOSELY TO THAT SEVEN MINUTES AND ALSO SHORTLY BEFORE THE REQUEST OF ONE OF OUR WITNESSES, WE WILL TAKE A SHORT TEN-MINUTE BREAK. WITH THAT, WE WELCOME OUR PANEL OF WITNESSES, ASK THEM TO GIVE THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS SUMMARIZING THEM IN SOME FIVE MINUTES. THE ENTIRE STATEMENT WILL BE ADDED AT THIS POINT IN THE RECORD AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH MR. JACK DOOR CITY OF TWITTER. S JACK DORSEY OF TWITTER. DO YOU HEAR US? AND DO WE HAVE CONTACT WITH YOU? >> YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. YOU ARE NOW RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT TWITTER AND SECTION 230. MY REMARKS WILL BE BRIEF SO WE CAN GET TO QUESTIONS. SECTION 230 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT LAW PROTECTING INTERNET SPEECH. REMOVING SECTION 230 WILL REMOVE SPEECH. SECTION 230 GAVE INTERNET TWO TOOLS. FIRST LIABLE FOR USERS' CONTENT. THE SECOND PROVIDES GOOD SAMARITAN CONTENT AND REMOVAL EVEN OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH AS LONG AS IT'S DONE IN GOOD FAITH. THAT CONCEPT OF GOOD FAITH IS WHAT'S BEING CHALLENGED BY MANY OF YOU TODAY. SOME OF YOU DON'T TRUST WE'RE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. THAT'S THE PROBLEM I WANT TO FOCUS ON SOLVING. OTHER SERVICES LIKE TWITTER EARN YOUR TRUST. I BELIEVE WE SHARE MORE CHOICE IN THE MARKET IF WE DON'T. WE HAVE THREE SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS RAISED. ALL FOCUSED ON SERVICES THAT DECIDE TO MODERATE OR REMOVE CONTENT. IT CAN BE EXPANSIONS TO SECTION 230. NEW LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS OR COMMITMENT TO SELF BEST PRACTICES. THE FIRST IS REQUIRING A SERVICES MODERATION PROCESS TO BE PUBLISHED. OTHER CASES REPORTED AND REVIEWED. HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE? WHAT TOOLS ARE USED TOEN FORCE? ANSWERING QUESTIONS LIKE THESE WILL MAKE OUR PROCESS MORE ROBUST AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE WE SERVE. THE SECOND IS REQUIRING A STRAIGHT-FORWARD PROCESS. THIS ENSURES PEOPLE CAN LET US KNOW WHEN WE DON'T GET IT RIGHT SO WE CAN FIX ANY MISTAKES AND MAKE OUR PROCESSES BETTER IN THE FUTURE. FINALLY, MUCH OF THE CONTENT PEOPLE SEE TODAY IS DETERMINED BY ALGORITHMS. WITH VERY LITTLE VISIBILITY INTO HOW THEY CHOOSE WHAT THEY SHOW. WE TOOK A FIRST STEP IN MAKING THIS MORE TRANSPARENT TO TURN OFF OUR HOME TIME LINE OF ITEMS. IT'S A GOOD START. BUT WE'RE INSPIRED BY THE MARKET APPROACH SUGGESTED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IN JUNE 2019. ENABLING PEOPLE TO CHOOSE ALGORITHMS TO RANK AND FILTER THE CONTENT IS AN INCREDIBLY ENERGIZING IDEA THAT'S IN REACH. REQUIRING ONE MODERATION PROCESS AND PRACTICES TO BE PUBLISHED. TWO, A STRAIGHT-FORWARD PROCESS TO APPEAL DECISIONS AND, THREE, BEST EFFORTS AROUND OUR ALGORITHMIC CHOICE ARE ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS WE ALL HAVE GOING FORWARD AND THEY'RE ALL ACHIEVABLE IN SHORT ORDER. IT'S CRITICAL AS WE CONSIDER THESE SOLUTION WE OPTIMIZE FOR NEW STARTUPS AND INDEPENDENT DEVELOPERS. DOING SO INSURES A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THAT INCREASES THE PROBABILITY OF COMPETING IDEAS TO HELP SOLVE PROBLEMS. WE MUST ENTRENCH THE LARGEST COMPANIES. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND I LOOK FORWARD TO A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION TO DIG INTO THESE AND OTHER IDEAS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. DORSEY. WE NOW CALL ON MR. SUNDA PAKAI. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> SENATOR, RANKING MEMBERS AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE INTERNET HAS BEEN A POWERFUL FORCE FOR GOOD FOR THE PAST THREE DECADES, RADICALLY IMPROVED INFORMATION, WHETHER IT'S CONNECTING JOBS, GETTING CRITICAL UPDATES TO PEOPLE IN TIMES OF CRISIS OR HELPING A PARENT FIND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS LIKE, HOW CAN I GET MY BABY TO SLEEP THROUGH THE NIGHT. AT THE SAME TIME, PEOPLE EVERYWHERE CAN USE THEIR VOICES TO SHARE NEW PERSPECTIVES, EXPRESS THEMSELVES AND REACH PROD AUDIENCES THAT EVER BEFORE. WHETHER YOU ARE A BARBER IN MISSISSIPPI OR IN INDIANA, YOU CAN SHARE A VIDEO AND BUILD A GLOBAL FAN BASE AND A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS RIGHT FROM YOUR LIVING ROOM. IN THIS WAY, THE INTERNET HAS BEEN THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT EQUALIZERS. INFORMATION CAN BE SHARED AND KNOWLEDGE CAN FLOW FROM ANYONE ANYWHERE. THE SAME LOW VALUES TO ENTRY ALSO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR BAD ACTORS TO CAUSE HARM. AS A COMPANY, WHOSE MEASURE IS TO ORGANIZE THE WORLD'S INFORMATION AND MAKE IT UNIVERSITY ACCESS AND USEFUL, GOOGLE IS DEEPLY CONSCIENCE OF BOTH THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS THE INTERNET CREATES. THE POWERFUL INFORMATION SERVICES, SEARCH GMAIL, MAPS AND PHOTOS, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN FOR FREE. YOU CREATE A DEEP RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP THE PEOPLE WHO USE OUR PRODUCTS SAFE AND SECURE. LIVE LONG AND INNOVATIVE TOOLS TO PREVENT ABUSE OF OUR SERVICES. WHEN IT COMES TO PRIVACY, WE ARE KEEPING INFORMATION SAFE, TREATING IT RESPONSIBLY AND PUTTING YOU IN CONTROL. WE CONTINUE TO MAKE PRIVACY IMPROVEMENTS AND CHANGES ANNOUNCED EARLIER THIS YEAR TO KEEP LESS DATA BY DEFAULT AND SUPPORT THE CREATION OF COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS. WE ARE EQUALLY COMMITTED TO PROTECTING THE QUALITY AND AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ON OUR PLATFORMS AND SUPPORTING OUR DEMOCRACY IN A NON-PARTISAN WAY. THAT'S JUST ONE TIMELY X. OUR INFORMATION PANELS ON GOOGLE AND YouTube INFORM USERS ABOUT HOW TO REGISTER. WE'VE ALSO TAKEN MANY STEPS TO RAISE QUALITY JOURNALISM FROM SENDING 24 VISITS TO NEWS WEBSITES GLOBALLY EVERY MONTH TO OUR RECENT $1 BILLION INVESTMENT IN PARTNERSHIPS WITH NEWS PUBLISHERS. SINCE OUR FOUNDING, WE HAVE BEEN DEEPLY COMMITTED TO THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. WE ALSO FEEL A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHO USE OUR PRODUCTS FOR HARMFUL CONTENT AND TO BE TRANSPARENT IN ABOUT HOW WE DO THAT. THAT'S WHY WE SET AND PUBLICLY DISCLOSE CLEAR GUIDELINES FOR OUR PRODUCTS AND PLATFORMS, WHICH WE ENFORCE INPARTIALLY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE COME TO OUR SERVICES, THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF PERSPECTIVES AND THEY ARE DEDICATED TO BUILDING PRODUCTS THAT ARE HELPFUL TO USERS OF ALL BACKGROUND AND VIEWPOINTS. LET ME BE CLEAR, WE APPROACH OUR WORK WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS. TO DO OTHERWISE, WOULD BE CONTRARY TO BOTH OF OUR INTERESTS AND OUR MISSION, WHICH FORCES US TO MAKE INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE TO EVERY TYPE OF PERSON, NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE OR WHAT THEY BELIEVE. OF COURSE, OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO A WIDE RANGE OF INFORMATION IS ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF EXISTING LEGAL FRAME, LIKE SECTION 230. THE UNITED STATES HAD OPTED SECTION 230 EARLY IN ITS HISTORY AND IT HAS BEEN FONDATIONAL TO THE U.S. LEADERSHIP AND IT PROTECTING THE FREEDOM TO CREATE AND SHARE CONTENT AND PLATFORMS AND SERVICE OF ALL SIZES TO ADDRESS THEM FOR CONTENT. WE APPRECIATE HE HAS THIS CONTENT. WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS. I WOULD URGE THE COMMITTEE TO BE VERY POWERFUL ABOUT ANY CHANGES TO SECTION 230 AND TO BE VERY AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE CHANGES MIGHT HAVE ON BUSINESSES AND CUSTOMERS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL HAVE THE SAME GOAL, PRE ACCESS TO COMMISSION FOR EVERYONE AND PR RESPONSIBLE PROJECTIONS. I LOOK FORWARD TO ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, M MR. BAKAI. MEMBERS SHOULD BE ADVISED AT THIS POINT THAT WE ARE UNABLE MAKE CONTACT WITH MR. MARK ZUCKERBERG. WE ARE TOLD BY FACEBOOK STAFF THAT HE IS ALONE AND ATTEMPTING TO CONNECT WITH THIS HEARING AND THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS AT THIS POINT TO SEE IF THAT CONNECTION CAN BE PLAYED. I THINK THIS IS A MOST INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUEST OF THE FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES AND SEE IF WITHIN FIVE MINUTES, WE CAN MAKE CONTACT AND PROCEED. SO AT THIS POINT, I DECLARE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. >>> >>>. >>> CALL THE HEARING BACK INTO ORDER LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES. MR. ZUCKERBERG, ARE YOU THERE? >> YES, SIR, I HEAR YOU FINE. >> YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR OPENING STATEMENTS. >> I WAS ABLE TO HEAR THE OTHER OPENING STATEMENTS. I WAS HAVING TROUBLE CHECKING, MYSELF. >> I KNOW THE FEELING, MR. ZUCKERBERG. >> CHAIRMAN WICKER, RANKING MEMBER CANTWELL AND THE COMMITTEE, EVERY DAY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS SHARE THE INTERNET AND SETTING THE RULES FOR ONLINE DISCOURSE IS AN IMPORTANT CHALLENGE FOR OUR SOCIETY AND THERE ARE PRINCIPLES AT STAKE THAT GO BEYOND ANYONE'S PLATFORM. HOW DO WE BALANCE FREE EXPRESSION AND SAFETY, HOW DO WE DEFINE WHAT IS SAFETY? WHO SHOULD DECIDE? I DON'T THINK PRIVATE COMPANIES SHOULD BE MAKING DECISINS BY THEMSELVES. ON FACEBOOK, WE HAVE TO OFTEN BALANCE COMPETING EQUITY, SOMETIMES THE BEST APPROACH FROM A SAFETY OR SECURITY PERSPECTIVE ISN'T THE BEST FOR PRIVACY OR FREE EXPRESSION. WE WORK ARE EXPERTS TO STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE. WE DON'T ALWAYS GET IT RIGHT. IN REALITY, IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE VERY DIFFERENT IDEAS AND VIEWS ABOUT WHERE THE LINES SHOULD BE. DEMOCRATS OFTEN SAY THEY DON'T REMOVE ENOUGH CONTENT. REPUBLICANS SAY WE OFTEN REMOVE TOO MUCH. I EXPECT WE WILL HEAR SOME OF THOSE CRITICISMS TODAY. AND THE FACT THAT BOTH SIDES CRITICIZE US DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE GETTING THIS RIGHT. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT THERE ARE REAL DISAGREEMENTS OF WHERE THE LIMITS OF ONLINE SPEECH SHOULD BE. I THINK THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. PEOPLE CAN REASONABLY DISAGREE WHERE TO DRAW THE LINES. THAT'S A HALLMARK OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE WUZ OUR STRONG FIRST AMENDMENT TRADITION. BUT IT STRENGTHENS MY BELIEF WHEN A PRIVATE COMPANY IS MAKING THESE CALLS, WE NEED A MORE ACCOUNTABLE PROCESS THAT PEOPLE FEEL IS LEGITIMATE AND THAT GIVES PLATFORMS CERTAINTY. AT FACEBOOK, WE PUBLISH OUR STANDARDS AND ISSUE QUARTERLY REPORTS ON THE CONTENT THAT WE TAKE DOWN. WE LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT BOARD THAT CAN OVERTURN OUR DECISIONS AND WE COMMIT TO AN AUDIT OF OUR CONTENT REPORTS. I BELIEVE CONGRESS HAS A ROLE TO PLAY, TOO, IN ORDER TO GIVE PEOPLE CONFIDENCE THE PROCESS IS CARRIED OUT IN A WHAT I THAT BALANCES DEEPLY HELD VALUES APPROPRIATELY. THAT'S WHY I HAVE CALLED FOR REGULATION. RIGHT NOW THE DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED ON SECTION 230. SOME SAY ENDING 230 WOULD SOLVE ALL OF THE INTERNET'S PROBLEMS. THAT'SS SAY IT WOULD END THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, SECTION 230 DOES TWO BASIC THINGS. FIRST IT ENCOURAGES FREE EXPRESSION, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT. WITHOUT 230, PLATFORMS COULD POTENTIALLY BE HELD LIABLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE SAY. THEY FACE MUCH GREATER PRESSURE TO TAKE DOWN MORE CONTENT TO AVOID LEGAL RISK. SECOND, IT ALLOWS PLATFORMS TO MODERATE CONTENT. WITHOUT 230, PLATFORMS CAN FACE LIABLE FOR BASIC MODERATION, REMOVING HARASSMENT, IF IT IMPACTS THE SAFETY OF THEIR COMMUNITIES. THERE IS A REASON WHY AMERICA LEADS IN TECHNOLOGY. SECTION 230 HELPED CREATE THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT. IT HAS HELPED NEW IDEAS GET BUILT AND OUR COMPANIES TO SPREAD AMERICAN VALUES AROUND THE WORLD AND WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THIS ADVANTAGE. THE INTERNET HAS ALSO EVOLVED AND I THINK CONGRESS SHOULD UPDATE THE LAW TO MAKE SURE IT'S WORKING AS INTENDED. ONE IMPORTANT PLACE TO START WOULD BE MAKING CONTENT MODERATION SYSTEMS MORE TRANSPARENT. ANOTHER WOULD BE TO SEPARATE GOOD ACTORS FROM BAD ACTORS BY MAKING SURE THAT COMPANIES CAN'T HIDE BEHIND SECTION 230 TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTENTIONALLY FACILITATING LEGAL ACTIVITY ON THEIR PLATFORMS. WE ARE OPENED TO WORKING WITH CONGRESS ON THESE IDEAS AND MORE. I HOPE THE CHANGES THAT YOU MAKE WILL RING TRUE TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF 230. THERE ARE CONSEQUENTIAL CHOICES TO MAKE HERE. IT'S IMPORTANT WE DON'T PREVENT THE NEXT GENERATION OF IDEAS FROM BEING BUILT. ALTHOUGH THIS IS ABOUT CONTENT POLICY, I WANT TO COVER ELECTION PREPAREDNESS WORK. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A PANDEMIC. AND THERE ARE ONGOING THREATS TO THE INTEGRITY OF THIS ELECTION. SINCE 2016, FACEBOOK MADE MAJOR INVESTMENTS TO STOP INTERFERENCE. WE RETIRED MORE THAN 35,000 PEOPLE TO WORK ON SAFETY AND SECURITY. WE'VE DISRUPTED MORE THAN 100 NETWORKS COMING FROM RUSSIA, IRAN AND CHINA AND MORE THAT WERE MISLEADING PEOPLE ABOUT WHO THEY ARE, WHAT THEY ARE DOING, INCLUDING THREE JUST THIS WEEK. THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY ELECTION. WE'VE UPDATED OUR POLICIES TO REFLECT THAT WE ARE SHOWING PEOPLE RELIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT VOTING AND RESULTS. AND WE'VE STRENGTHENED OUR ADS AND MISINFORMATION POLICIES. WE ARE ALSO RUNNING THE LARGEST VOTING INFORMATION CAMPAIGN IN U.S. HISTORY. WE ESTIMATE THAT WE'VE HELPED MORE THAN 4.4 MILLION PEOPLE REGISTER TO VOTE AND 100,000 PEOPLE VOLUNTEERED TO BE POLL WORKERS. CANDIDATES ON BOTH SIDES CONTINUE TO USE OUR PLATFORMS TO REACH VOTERS. PEOPLE RIGHTLY FOCUSED ON A ROLE THAT TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES PLAY IN OUR ELECTIONS. I'M PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE TO SUPPORT OUR DEMOCRACY. THIS IS A DIFFICULT PERIOD, BUT I BELIEVE THAT AMERICA WILL EMERGE STRONGER THAN EVER AND WE'RE FOCUSED ON DOING OUR PART TO HELP. >> WELL, THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ZUCKERBERG AND THANKS, TO ALL OF OUR WITNESSES. WE WILL NOW, I THINK WE WILL SET THE CLOCK TO SEVEN MINUTES. I SEE FIVE MINUTES UP THERE. SOMEHOW, WE'LL KEEP TIME. SO THERE WE ARE. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU ALL. LET ME START THEN WITH MR. DORSEY. MR. DORSEY, THE COMMITTEE HAS COMPILED DOZENS AND DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF CONDITION SERVETIVE CONTENT SUPPRESSED OVER YOUR PLATFORMS OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS. I ENTERED THESE EXAMPLES INTO THE RECORD IN OCTOBER 1st WHEN THE COMMITTEE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ISSUE THESE SUSPENSE. THANK YOU ALL THREE AGAIN FOR WORKING WITH US ON THE SCHEDULING. ALLEVIATING THE NECESSITY FOR ACTUALLY EXERCISING THE SUBPOENAS. MR. DORSEY, YOUR PLATFORM ALLOWS FOREIGN DICTATORS TO POST PROPAGANDA TYPICALLY WITHOUT RESTRICTION. YET YOU ROUTINELY RESTRICT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE. IN MARCH, A SPOKESMAN FOR THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY FALSELY AUSED THE U.S. MILITARY OF CAUSINGING THE EPIDEMIC. HE TWEETED. WHEN DID PATIENT ZERO BEGIN IN THE U.S.? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE INFECTED? WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF THE HOSPITALS? IT MIGHT BE THE U.S. ARMY WHO BROUGHT THE EPIDEMIC TO WUHAN. AND ON AND ON. AFTER THIS TWEET WAS UP FOR SOME TWO MONTHS, TWITTER ADDED A FACT CHECK LABEL TO THIS TWEET AFTER BEING UP FOR TWO MONTHS. HOWEVER, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED ABOUT HOW MAIL-IN BALLOTS ARE VULNERABLE TO FRAUD, A STATEMENT THAT I ASCRIBE TO AND AGREE WITH AND A STATEMENT THAT ISN'T, IN FACT, TRUE. TWITTER IMMEDIATELY IMPOSED FACT CHECK LABEL ON THAT TWEET. MR. DORSEY, HOW DOES A CLAIM BY THE U.S. CONGRESS REMAIN UP TWO MONTHS WITHOUT A FACT CHECK AND THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET ABOUT SECURITY MAIL-IN BALLOTS GET LABELLED INSTANTLY? >> WELL, FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE, AS YOU MENTIONED, WE DID LABEL THAT TWEET AS WE THINK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, WE CONSIDER SEVERITY OF POTENTIAL OFFLINE HARM AND WE ACT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION AGAINST TWEETS FROM WORLD LEADERS ALL AROUND THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT AND WE DID TAKE ACTION ON THAT TWEET BECAUSE HE SAW IT. WE SAW THE CONFUSION IT MIGHT ENCOURAGE AND WE'VE LABELED IT ACCORDINGLY AND THE GOAL ABOUT LABELING -- >> YOU ARE SPEAKING OF THE PRESIDENT'S TWEET? >> YES. THE GOAL OF LABELING IS TO PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT TO CONNECT THE DOTS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE INFORMATION SO THEY CAN MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES. WE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE CREATED THESE POLICIES RECENTLY. WE ARE EP FORCING THEM. THERE ARE CERTAINLY THINGS WE CAN DO MUCH FASTER. BUT, GENERALLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE POLICY WAS ENFORCED IN A TIMELY MANNERED A IN THE LATE REGARD. >> AND YET, YOU SEEM TO HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A TWEET BY THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SAYING THE U.S. ARMY BROUGHT THE EPIDEMIC TO WUHAN? WELL, WE DID. >> IT TOOK YOU TWO MONTHS TO DO SO, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M NOT SURE OF THE XKT TIME FRAME. WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. >> SO YOU WILL GET BACK TO US AS TO HOW A TWEET FROM THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY FALSELY ACCUSING THE U.S. MILITARY FALSELY CAUSING THE EPIDEMIC WAS LEFT UP FOR TWO MONTHS WITH NO COMMENT FROM TWITTER WHILE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAKING A STATEMENT BEING CAREFUL ABOUT THE VOTER BALLOT SECURITY WITH THE MAIL WAS LABELED IMMEDIATELY. I HAVE A TWEET HERE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND HE RECOUNTS SOME FOUR TWEETS BY THE IRANIAN DICTATOR AYATOLLAH ALI KHOMENI. ALL FOUR GLORIFY VIOLENCE. I QUOTE, THE ZIONIST REGIME IS A DEADLY CANCEROUS GROWTH AND A DEBT VICTIM TO THE REGION. IT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE UPROOTED AND DESTROYED. THAT'S THE FIRST TWEET. THE SECOND TWEET, THE ONLY REMEDY OF THE ZIONIST REGIME IS FIRM ARMED RESISTANCE. AGAIN LEFT UP WITHOUT COMMENT BY TWITTER. THE THIRD THE STRUGGLE TO FREE PALESTINE IS JIHAD IN THE WAY OF GOD I QUOTE THAT IN PART FOR THE SAKE OF TIME AND NUMBER FOUR, WE WILL SUPPORT AND ASSIST ANY NATION OR GROUP ANYWHERE WHO OPPOSES AND FIGHTS THE ZIONIST REGIME. I WOULD SIMPLY POINT OUT THAT THESE TWEETS ARE STILL UP, MR. DORSEY. AND HOW IS IT THAT THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE TO BE -- I'LL ASK YOU A UNANIMOUS CONCEPT TO ENTER THIS TWEET INTO THE RECORD AT THIS POINT THAT WILL BE DONE WITHOUT OBJECTION. HOW IS MR. DORSEY IS THAT ACCEPTABLE BASED ON YOUR POLICIES AT TWITTER? >> WELL, WE BELIEVE THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO HEAR FROM GLOBAL LEADERS AND WE HAVE POLICIES AROUND WORLD LEADERS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE RESPECTING THEIR RIGHT TO SPEAK AND TO PUBLIC WHAT THEY NEED. BUT IF THERE IS A VIOLATION OF OUR TERMS OF SERVICE, WE WANT TO LABEL IT AND -- >> THEY'RE STILL UP. DO THEY VIOLATE YOUR TERMS OF SERVICE, MR. DORSEY? >> WE DID NOT FIND THOSE TO VIOLATE OUR TERMS OF SERVICE BECAUSE WE CONSIDERED THEM -- WHICH IS A PART OF THE SPEECH OF WORLD LEADERS IN CONCERT WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. SPEECH AGAINST OUR OWN PEOPLE OR OUR COUNTRY'S OWN CITIZENS WE BELIEVE IS DIFFERENT AND CAN CAUSE MORE IMMEDIATE HARM. >> VERY TELLING INFORMATION, MR. DORSEY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SENATOR CANTWELL, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> REFERRING TO OUR COLLEAGUE SENATOR PETERS, JUST BECAUSE OF TIMING AND SITUATION FOR HIM. >> ALL RIGHT, SO MR. PETERS, ARE YOU THERE? >> I AM HERE. >> YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR SEVEN MINUTES. >> WELL, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND RANKING MEMBER CANTWELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR DEFINITELY TO ME. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT CONSIDERATION A GREAT DEAL. I ALSO WANT TO THANK EACH OF OUR PANELISTS HERE TODAY FOR COMING FORWARD AND BEING A WITNESS AND APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU ACCOMMODATING YOUR SCHEDULE SO WE COULD HAVE THIS HEARING. MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR MR. ZUCKERBERG AND I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING HOW MUCH I APPRECIATED OUR OPPORTUNITY LAST NIGHT TO SPEAK AT LENGTH ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES AND AS I TOLD YOU LAST NIGHT, I APPRECIATE THE FACEBOOK'S EFFORTS TO ASSIST LAW ENFORCEMENT, TO DISRUPT A PLOT TO KIDNAP AND THEN TO HOLD A SHAM TRIAL AND KILL OUR GOVERNOR, A GOVERNOR WHITMER. THE INDIVIDUALS IN THAT CASE APPARENTLY USED FACEBOOK FOR A BROAD RECRUITING EFFORT. BUT AGAIN THEY ACTUALLY PLANNED THE SPECIFICS OF THAT OPERATION OFF OF YOUR PLATFORM. MY QUESTION IS WHEN USERS REACH THE LEVEL OF RADICALIZATION THAT VIOLATES YOUR COMMUNITY STANDARD, YOU OFTEN WILL BAN THOSE GROUPS AND THEN DRIVE THEM OFF TO OTHER PLATFORMS. THOSE PLATFORMS TEND TO HAVE LESS TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT BUT THE ISSUE THAT I'D LIKE TO YOU ADDRESS IS FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS THEY ARE MAIN ON YOUR PLATFORM, THEY'RE OFTEN FARTHER DOWN THE PATH OF RADICALIZATION THAT THEY ARE DEFINITELY LOOKING FOR AN OUT. I UNDERSTAND FACEBOOK RECENTLY ADOPTED A STRATEGY TO REDIRECT USERS WHO ARE SEARCHING, FOR EXAMPLE, ELECTION OF MISINFORMATION. BUT IT DOESN'T TEAM THAT THAT POLICY APPLIES TO BUDDING VIOLENT EXTREMISTS. THAT, MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PLATFORM HAS, YOUR PLATFORM HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO OFF-RAMP USERS WHO ARE ON THE PATH TO RADICALIZATION BY SY LENT EXTREMIST GROUPS? >> SENATOR, THANKS, FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE ACTUALLY DO A LITTLE OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. PEOPLE ARE SEARCHING FOR I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, WHITE SUPREMACIST ORGANIZATIONS OF WHICH WE TREAT THEM AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, NOT ONLY ARE WE FOUGHT GOING TO SHOW THAT CONTENT. BUT I THINK WE TRY WHERE WE CAN HIGHLIGHT INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I THINK WE TRY TO WORK WITH EXPERTS ON THAT. I CAN FOLLOW UP AND GET YOU MORE INFORMATION ON THE SCOPE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES AND WHEN WE INVOKE THAT. BUT I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE QUESTION THAT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA AND SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE PURSUING AND PROGRAMS EXPAND. >> WELL, I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. I'M THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE SENATE HOMELAND COMMITTEE. WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS A RISE IN VIOLENT EXTREMIST GROUPS, WHICH IS TROUBLING AND WE NEED TO WORK CLOSELY WITH YOU AS TO HOW DO WE DISRUPT THIS KIND OF RADICALIZATION? SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK FURTHER AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST NIGHT, YOU ASSERTED THAT FACEBOOK IS PROACTIVELY WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT NOW TO DISRUPT SOME REAL WORLD VIOLENT ATTEMPTS THAT STEM FROM SOME OF THAT ACTIVITY THAT ORIGINATED IN THE PLATFORM. COULD YOU TELL ME, SPECIFICALLY, HOW MANY THREATS THAT YOU HAVE PROACTIVELY REFERRED TO LOCAL OR STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIOR TO BEING APPROACHED FOR A PRESERVATION REQUEST. >> SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD SO I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ON THAT. BUT IT IS INCREASINGLY COMMON THAT OUR SYSTEMS ARE ABLE TO DETECT WHEN THERE IS POTENTIAL ISSUES AND OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS, IN PARTICULAR, WE'VE BUILT CLOSER PARTNERSHIPS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO SHARE THOSE SIGNALS. WE ARE DOING MORE ABOUT IT, INCLUDING THE CASE YOU MENTIONED BEFORE AROUND THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING OF GOVERNOR WHITMER. WE IDENTIFIED THAT AS A SIGNAL TO THE FBI. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO, WE STARTED SEEING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY ON OUR PLATFORM. THERE IS CERTAINLY, THAT'S A PART OF OUR ROUTINE AND HOW WE OPERATE. >> WELL, MR. ZUCKER BERLG, DISCOVERY TOOLS AND RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHMS THAT YOUR PLATFORMS USE DOES SERVE UP EXTREME CONTENT BASED ON THE USER PROFILES OF FOLKS. AS WE SEEK TO UNDERSTAND WHY MEMBERSHIP IN THESE EXTREMIST GROUPS IS RISING, I WOULD HOPE THAT YOUR COMPANIES ARE RIGHT NOW ENGAGING IN SOME FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF MEMBERSHIP, ONCE YOU TAKE DOWN AN EXTREMIST GROUP. TO LOOK AT HOW THAT HAPPENED ON YOUR PLATFORM, IT WILL BETTER INFORM US AS TO HOW WE CAN DISRUPT INTO GROUPS. MY QUESTION FOR YOU, THOUGH, IS THAT IN 2016. YOU SAID, THIS WAS APPARENTLY AN INTERNAL FACEBOOK INTERNAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS REPORTED BY THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL," THAT SAID THAT 64% OF MEMBERS OF VIOLENT GROUPS MAME BECAME MEMBERS BECAUSE OF YOUR PLATFORM'S RECOMMENDATION. I WILL QUOTE FROM THAT REPORT IN THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" THAT SAID OUR RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS WERE THE PROBLEM. THAT'S CLEARLY VERY CONCERNING. AND I KNOW IN RESPONSE TO A REPORT IN 2016, YOU HAD MADE CHANGES TO YOUR POLICIES. YOU MADE CHANGES TO SOME OF THE ALGORITHMS THAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME. MY QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU SEEN A REDUCTION IN YOUR PLATFORMS, FACILITATION OF EXTREMIST GROUP RECRUITMENT SINCE THOSE POLICIES WERE CHANGED? >> SENATOR, NOT FROM THAT SPECIFIC STUDY, BUT I AGREE WITH THE CONCERN AND MAKING SURE THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION SYSTEMS FOR WHAT GROUPS PEOPLE ARE GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO JOIN IS CERTAINLY ONE IMPORTANT SECTOR FOR ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE TAKEN A NUMBER OF STEPS HERE, INCLUDING DISQUALIFYING GROUPS FROM BEING INCLUDED IN OUR RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM AT ALL IF THEY ROUTINELY ARE BEING USED TO SHARE MISINFORMATION OR IF THEY HAVE CONTENT VIALSINGS OR A NUMBER OF OTHER CRITERIA. SO I AM QUITE FOCUSED ON THIS. I AGREE WIH WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH THAT QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA TODAY ON THE REAL WORLD IMPACT OF THAT YET. BUT I THINK ADDRESSING THIS UPSTREAM IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> SO THAT I APPRECIATE YOU AGREEING WITH THAT AND WE NEED MORE DATA IS IT YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATA AT THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD OR IT DOESN'T EXIST? >> WELL, SENATOR, CERTAINLY THE FORMER AND POTENTIALLY THE LATTER AS WELL. I THINK IT PROBABLY TAKES SOME TIME F BEFORE OR AFTER WE MAKE THESE CHANGES TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE THE IMPACT OF IT. AND I'M NOT AWARE OF WHAT STUDIES ARE GOING ON INTO THIS. IT SEEMS THIS WOULD BE THE TYPES OF STUDIES ONE WOULD WANT, NOT INTERNAL FACEBOOK RESEARCHERS TO WORK ON A COLLABORATION WITH ACADEMICS AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. THANK YOU, SENATOR PETERS. SENATOR GARDNER HAS ALSO ASKED TO GO OUT OF ORDER AND SENATOR THUNE HAS GRACIOUSLY DEFERRED TO HIM. SO SENATOR GARDNER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR SEVEN MINUTES, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SENATOR THUNE FOR SHARING YOUR TIME OR AT LEAST DEFERRING YOUR TIME TO ME. THANK YOU, MR. ZUCKERBERG. AND MR. DORSEY THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. MR. DORSEY, I WILL DIRECT THESE FIRST QUESTIONS TO YOU. DO YOU BELIEVE THE HOLOCAUST REALLY HAPPENED, YES OR NO? >> YES. >> SO YOU AGREE SOMEONE SAYS THE HOLOCAUST HAS NOT HAPPENED IS SPREADING MISINFORMATION, YES OR NO? >> YES. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS ON THIS. THEY SURPRISE ME AND PROBABLY A LOT OF OTHER AMERICANS AFTER ALL IRAN'S AYATOLLAH HAS DONE EXACTLY THIS. QUESTIONING THE LOL LO CAUST. YET HIS TWEETS REMAIN UNGLAGD ON TWITTER'S PLATFORM. YOU AND I AGREE MODERATING YOUR PLATFORM MAKES SENSE IN SOME RESPECTS. WE DON'T WANT THE NEXT TERRORIST FINDING INSPIRATION OR TWITTER OR CERTAINLY ANY PLATFORM FOR THAT MATTER. BUT YOU'VE ALSO DECIDED TO MODERATE CERTAIN CONTENT FROM INFLUENTIAL WORLD LEADERS. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR DECISIONS TO DO SO A LITTLE BIT BETTER. CAN YOU NAME ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF TWITTER HIDING OR DELETING A TWEET FROM HEADS OF STATE? >> NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT WE HAVE MANY EXAMPLES ACROSS WORLD LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD. >> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PROVIDE A LIST OF THOSE? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WE KNOW THEY CAN HAVE CERTAIN UPSIDES LIKE COMBATING TERRORISM. TWITTER HAS CHOSEN CONTENT BY COMBATING MISINFORMATION AS WELL. THE TWEETS FROM THE PRESIDENT - BUT HAVEN'T HIDDEN THE AYATOLLAH'S 22 ETC. TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP AND YOU CAN'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD HIDDEN OR DELETED TWEETS FROM OTHER WORLD LEADERS. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT LIST. THAT BRINGS MY NEXT QUESTION TO THE FRONT. DOES TWITTER MAINTAIN A FORMAL LIST OF CERTAIN ACTS THAT YOU ACTIVELY MONITOR FOR MISINFORMATION? >> NO AND WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY AGAINST -- [ INAUDIBLE ] WE HAVE A POLICY AGAINST MISINFORMATION IN THREE CATEGORIES, MANIPULATED MEDIA, PUBLIC HEALTH, SPECIFICALLY COVID AND SPECIFIC INTEGRITY, ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND VOTER SUPPRESSION. THAT IS ALL 23 HAVE A POLICY ON FOR MISLEADING INFORMATION. WE DO NOT HAVE POLICY ENFORCEMENT FOR ANY OTHER TYPES MENTIONING. >> SO SOMEBODY DENYING THE MURDER OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OR INSTIGATING VIOLENCE AGAINST A COUNTRY IS NOT CATEGORICALLY FOLLOWING IN ANY OF THOSE THREE INFORMATION OR CATEGORY TWITTER HAS? >> NOT MISINFORMATION. WE HAVE INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE POLICIES, WHICH SOME OF THE TWEETS ARE THE EXAMPLES YOU ARE MENTIONING. FOR MISLEADING INFORMATION, WE ARE FOCUSED ON THOSE THREE CATEGORIES ONLY. >> SO SOMEBODY DENIES THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENING IS NOT MISINFORMATION? >> IT'S MISLEADING INFORMATION, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY AGAINST MISLEADING INFORMATION. >> MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIED AND THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF TWITTER. AGAIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN LABEL A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN A TWEET DOWN FROM THE AYATOLLAH? >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE, BUT WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU ON IT. WE HAVE CERTAINLY LABELED TWEETS AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TAKEN THAT ON AS WELL. >> YOU KNOW. OFF SAID YOU DO NOT MAINTAIN A LIST? >> WE LOOK FOR REPORTS AND ISSUES BROUGHT TO US AND THEN WE WEIGH IT AGAINST OUR POLICY AND ENFORCE AS NEEDED. >> YOU LOOK REPORTS FROM YOUR EMPLOYEES OR FROM. >> FROM THE PEOPLE USING THE SERVICE. >> RIGHT. THEN THEY TURN THAT OVER TO YOUR BOARD OF REVIEW, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE ALSO IN SOME CASES OUR ALGORITHMS TAKE ACTION. IN OTHER CASES IT'S APPARENT. >> THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF BLUE CHECK MARKS SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION. TWITTER MUST HAVE SOME KIND OF LIST OF PRIORITY ACCOUNT. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHEN TO FLAG IT? IS THERE A FORMAL THRESHOLD OR RETWEET ITSELF OR LIKES BEFORE A TWEET IS FLAGGED? >> NO. >> TWITTER CAN'T CLAIM WITH YOUR ANSWERS ON THE AYATOLLAH AND OTHERS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TWITTER CAN CLAIM A WORLD OF MISHATE AND INFORMATION WHILE YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY LET THE KIND OF CONTENT THE AYATOLLAH TWEETED OUT FLOURISH ON THE PLATFORM INCLUDING OTHER WORLD LEADERS. IT'S NO WONDER THAT AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CONTENT AT TWITTER GIVEN WHAT WE SAID. I DON'T LIKE A GROUP OF UNELECTED ELITES IF SAN FRANCISCO DECIDING WHETHER MY SPEECH IS PERMISSIBLE ON THE PLATFORMS. I LIKE LESS THE IDEA OF WASHINGTON, D.C. BUREAUCRATS TRYING TO ENFORCE SOME KIND OF POLITICALLY NEUTRAL CONTENT MODERATION. SO JUST AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM OTHER PANELISTS, AS WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THROUGHOUT THE DAY, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO LEGISLATE TO STIFLE SPEECH. YOU CAN TRY TO TURN OFF GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK. THE SUPREME COURT HAS TRIED TEACHING US THAT LESSON TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS WE REMEMBER IT. I'M RUNNING SHORT ON TIME. SO I WILL QUICKLY GO THROUGH ANOTHER QUESTION. ONE OF 230 LIABILITIES PROTECTION IS THIS. YOU SHOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT SOMEONE ELSE SAYS ON YOUR PLATFORM. CONVERSELY, YOU SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU SAY AND DO ON YOUR PLATFORM THAT MAKES SENSE. TEN RIS CROCKS IN A RECENT TWEET, FOR EXAMPLE, ALLOWING SOME WEBSITES TO ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR CONTENT THAT THEY HELPED CREATE. EACH OF THE PAN ETHELISTS QUICKLY I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OPERATING THE PLATFORM, ITSELF. DO YOU AGREE THAT INTERNET PLATFORMS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE SPECIFIC CONTENT THAT YOU, YOURSELF, CREATE ON YOUR OWN PLATFORMS, YES OR NO? >> VERY QUICKLY. >> SENATOR. I THINK THAT IS REASONABLE. >> TWITTER CREATES CONTENT, SHOULD TWITTER BE HELD RELIABLE? >> AS WELL. >> SAME QUESTION TO YOU, YES OR NO, SHOULD GOOGLE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLITICAL CONTENT IT CREATES. >> IF WE ARE ACTING AS A PUBLISHER, I WOULD SAY YES. >> THE SPECIFIC CONTENT YOU CREATE ON YOUR OWN PLATFORM? >> THAT SEEMS REASONABLE. >> THANK YOU, I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER SIDES QUESTION AND GOOD FAITH PROVISION IN SECTION 230 THAT WE'LL GET INTO A LITTLE MORE. I KNOW I'M OUT OF TIME SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS TIME. SENATOR THUNE, THANK YOU AS WELL AND TO THE WITNESSES. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR GARDNER. THE RANKING MEMBER HAS NOW DEFERRED TO SENATOR KLOBUCHAR. SO, SENATOR, YOU ARE NOW RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO NOTE FIRST IF THIS HEARING COMES SIX DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAY AND IT MAKES I BELIEVE WE'RE POLITICIZING THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IS SPLIT SIEGZ IT SHOULD NOT ACTUALLY BE A PARTISAN TOPIC. AND I DO WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES FOR APPEARING AND THE WORK THEY ARE DOING TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE VOTING AND TO PUT OUT THE CORRECT INFORMATION WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND OTHERS ARE UNDERMINING VOTE MY MAIL, SOMETHING WE ARE DOING IN EVERY STATE IN THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. SECOND POINT, REPUBLICANS FAILED TO PASS BIPARTISAN HONEST ACT AND THE WHITE HOUSE BLATANTLY BLOCKED THE BIPARTISAN SECURITY BILL THAT I HAVE WITH SENATOR LANG LANGFORD AND ONE OF THE REASONS I THINK WE NEED A NEW PRESIDENT, THIRD, MY COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE, MANY I WORK WITH VERY WELL IN THIS COMMITTEE. BUT WE HAVE HAD FOUR YEARS TO DO SOMETHING WHEN IT COMES TO ANTI-TRUST PRIVACY, LOCAL NEWS, A SUBJECT THAT BRIEFLY CAME UP AND SO MANY OTHER THINGS. SO I WILL USE MY TIME TO FOCUS ON WHAT I CONSIDER IN JUSTICE GINSBURG'S WORD TO BE A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE. HOW MANY PEOPLE LOG INTO FACEBOOK EVERY DAY? >> SENATOR IS MORE THAN 2 BILLION. >> OKAY. >> HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE YOU MADE ON POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS? TH IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? >> I DO NOT KNOW, IT IS A RELATIVELY SMALL PART OF OUR REVENUE. >> SMALL FOR YOU. I THINK IT'S 2.2 BILLION OVER 10,000 ADS SOLD. AND THOSE ARE YOUR NUMBERS. WE CAN CHECK THEM LATER. DO YOU REQUIRE FACEBOOK EMPLOYEES TO REVIEW THE CONTENT OF EACH OF THE POLITICAL ADS YOU SELL TO INSURE THEY COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND YOUR OWN INTERNAL RULES? >> FOR, WE REQUIRE ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISERS TO BE VERIFIED BEFORE THEY CAN RUN ADS. IF WE DO REVIEW ADVERTISING AS WELL. >> BUT DOES A REAL PERSON READ THE POLITICAL ADS YOU SELL, YES OR NO? >> SENATOR, I IMAGINE THAT A PERSON DOES NOT LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE AD. OUR SYSTEMS ARE A COMBINATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS AND PEOPLE. WE HAVE 35,000 PEOPLE WHO DO CONTENT AND SECURITY REVIEW FOR US. BUT THE MASSIVE AMOUNT. >> IT'S REALLY A STRAIGHT FORWARD QUESTION. I DON'T THINK THEY DO. I THINK ALL THE RHYTHMS. I THINK THE ADS ARE INSTANTLY PLACED. IS THAT CORRECT? >> SENATOR, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS IS WE HAVE COMPUTERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SCAN EVERYTHING AND IF WE THINK THERE ARE POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS, EITHER THE AI SYSTEM WILL ACT OR IT WILL FLAG IT TO THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO DO CONTENT REVIEW. >> WITH ALL THE MONEY YOU HAVE, YOU COULD HAVE A REAL PERSON REVIEW LIKE A LOT OF THE OTHER TRADITIONAL, STILL, ANOTHER QUESTION, WHEN JOHN McCAIN AND SENATOR WARNER INTRODUCED THE ADS ACT, WE GOT PUSHED BACK FROM YOUR COMPANY AND OTHERS. USUAL INITIALLY AGAINST IT. YOU DISCUSSED IT AT ANOTHER HEARING, I APPRECIATE THAT. HAVE YOU SPENT ANY OF THE MONEY? I KNOW YOU SPENT THE MOST MONEY, FACEBOOK ON LOBBYING LAST YEAR. HAVE YOU SPENT ANY OF THE MONEY TRYING TO CHANGE OR BLOCK [ INAUDIBLE ] . >> SENATOR, NO IN FACT, I HAVE ENDORSED IT PUBLICLY EASTERN THOUGH IT HASN'T BECOME LAW. >> [ INAUDIBLE ] IS THERE A CHANGE, HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO GET IT PAST THE ROAD BLOCK ON IT? I THINK YOU VOLUNTRILY IMPLEMENTED THE PART OF THE ACT WHICH GROUPS ARE BEING TARGETED BY POLITICAL ADS? >> SENATOR, WE HAVE I THINK INDUSTRY LEADING TRANSPARENCY AROUND POLITICAL ADS. A PART OF THAT IS SHOWING WHICH AUDIENCES IN BROAD TERMS ENDS UP SEEING THE ADS. OF COURSE, GETTING THE RIGHT RESOLUTION ON THAT IS CHALLENGING WITHOUT IT BECOMING A PRIVACY ISSUE. WE'VE TRIED TO DO THAT AND PROVIDE AS MUCH TRANSPARENCY AS WE CAN. I THINK WE ARE CURRENTLY LEADING IN THAT AREA. >> IT'S CONCERNS, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. BUT I HAVE SUCH LIMITED TIME. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, LAST THING I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IS DIVISIVENESS ON THE PLATFORM AND I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A RECENT STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT PART OF YOUR ALGORITHMS THAT PUSH TOWARDS MORE POLARIZED CONTENT, LEFT, RIGHT, WHATEVER, IN FACT YOUR RESEARCH WARNS SENIOR EXECUTIVES TO EXPLORE THE HUMAN BRAIN'S ATTRACTION TO DIVISIVENESS. THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. MORE DIVISIVENESS. MORE TIME ON THE PLATFORM, THE COMPANY MAKES MORE MONEY. CAUSE BOTHER YOU WHAT IT'S DONE TO OUR POLITICS? >> SENATOR, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION HOW THE SYSTEMS WORK. WE DESIGN OUR SYSTEMS TO SHOW PEOPLE THE CONTENT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST MEANINGFUL TO THEM. WHICH IS NOT TRYING TO BE AS DIVISIVE AS POSSIBLE. IT'S MOST OF THE THINGS ARE NOT POLITICAL. IT'S ABOUT YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOUR COUSIN HAD HER BABY. >> OKAY. I WANT TO MOVE ON TO HERE AND MR. -- PACHAI. BUT I AM TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW. THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT THE COUSINS AND THE BABIES HERE. I'M TALKING ABOUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND AUTOMATIC THINGS THAT SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AND I THINK IT'S BEEN PEROSIVE. GOOGLE, MR. PACHAI, I HAVE NOT LIKED YOUR RESPONSE TO THE LAWSUIT AND WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING. I THINK WE NEED A CHANGE FOR THIS COMPANY. I WILL ASK YOU MORE ABOUT IT AT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I THINK YOUR RESPONSE ISN'T JUST DEFENSIVE, IT'S BEEN DEFIANCE TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALL OVER THE WORLD. YOU CONTROL 70% OF THE SEARCH ADVERTISING MARKET. DON'T YOU SEE THESE PRACTICES AS YANTD COMPETITIVE? >> WELL, SENATOR, WE HAVE POPULAR ENGINE SEARCH ENGINE. WE SEE ALL THIS MAY GET SOME INFORMATION AND, YOU KNOW, WE MUST SIGNIFICANTLY AND ARE INNOVATING. WE ARE LOWERING PRICES AND THE MARKETS WE ARE OPERATING IN, I AM HAPPY TO ENGAGE AND DISCUSS IT FURTHER. >> WELL, ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES TESTIFIED BE EVERY THE ANTITRUST SUBCOMMITTEE LAST MONTH. HE SUGGESTED THAT GOOGLE WASN'T DOMINANT IN AD TECH. THAT IT WAS ONE OF MANY COMPANIES IN A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE AD TECH LANDSCAPE. GOOGLE HAS 90% OF THE AD SERVER MARKET. A PRODUCT OF ITS DOUBLE CLICK ACQUISITION. DOES THE MARKET SOUND HIGHLY COMPETITIVE TO YOU? >> MANY PUBLISHERS CAN USE SIMULTANEOUS CODES. AMAZON ALONE HAVE -- SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A MARKET IMAGE SHARED. OUR MARGINS ARE LOW. WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE FEEDBACK HERE IN TRYING TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC INDUSTRY. WE ARE HAPPY TO ENGAGE IF FEEDBACK. >> THANK YOU. >> SO. >> THANK YOU. >> I AM LOOKING TO OUR NEXT HEARING TO DISCUSS IT MORE. >> FOR THUNE, ARE YOU NOW RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, WE APPRECIATE YOU CONVENE AN IMPORTANT FOLLOW-UP ON SECTION 230. MANY OF US HERE TODAY AND MANY OF THOSE WE REPRESENT ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF POLITICAL BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION BY LARGE INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. OTHERS ARE CONCERNED EVEN IF YOUR ACTIONS AREN'T SKEWED, THAT THEY ARE HUGELY CONSEQUENTIAL FOR OUR PUBLIC DEBATE. YET YOU OPERATE WITH LIMITED ACCOUNTABILITY. SUCH DISTRUST IS INTENSIFIED THAT THE MODERATION PRACTICES USED TO SUPPRESS OR AMPLIFY CONTENT REMAIN LARGELY A BLACK BOX TO THE PUBLIC. MOREOVER, THE PUBLIC EXPLANATIONS FOR TAKING DOWN OR SUPPRESSING CONTENT TOO OFTEN SEEM LIKE EXCUSES THAT HAVE TO BE WALKED BACK AFTER SCRUTINY AND DUE TO EXCEPTIONAL SECRECY, WITH WHICH PLATFORMS PROTECT THEIR ALGORITHMS AND CONTENT PRACTICES, IT'S BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHETHER POLITICAL BIAS EXISTS SO USERS ARE STUCK WITH ANECDOTAL INFORMATION THAT FREQUENTLY SEEMS TO CONFIRM THEIR WORST FEARS. WHICH IS WHY I HAVE INTRODUCED TWO BIPARTISAN BILLS, THE PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONSUMER TRANSPARENCY AND THE PACT ACT AND THE FILTHER BUBBLE TO GIVE USERS THE REGULATORS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC MEANING. INSIGHT INTO ONLINE CONTENT DECISIONS AND HOW ALGORITHMS MAY BE AMPLIFYING OR SUPPRESSING INFORMATION SO I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THAT DISCUSSION TODAY. MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES SUGGEST THAT WHEN WE CRITICIZE THE BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES, THAT WE ARE SOMEHOW WORKING THE REPS. BUT THE ANALOGY ASSUMES IT'S LEGITIMATE. IT ASSUMES THAT YOU THREE SILICON VALLEY CEOs GET TO DECIDE WHAT POLITICAL SPEECH GETS AMPLIFIED OR SUPPRESSED. IT SEEMS ARE YOU THE ARBITERS OR THE PUBLISHERS MAKING EDITORIAL DECISIONS ABOUT SPEECH. SO YES OR NO, I WOULD ASK THIS OF EACH OF THE THREE OF YOU, ARE THE DEMOCRATS CORRECT YOU ALL ARE THE LEGITIMATE REFEREES OVER OUR POLITICAL SPEECH. MR. ZUCKERBERG, ARE YOU THE REF? >> SENATOR, I CERTAINLY THINK NOT AND DO I NOT WANT US TO HAVE THAT ROLE. >> MR. DORSEY, ARE YOU THE REF? >>. >> NO. >> MR. PACHAI, ARE YOU THE REF IF. >> SENATOR, I DO THINK WE MAKE CONTENT MED RACING DECISION. BUT WE PROTECT USERS. WE BELIEVE AND SUPPORT MAXIMIZING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. >> I'LL TAKE THAT AS THREE NOs. AND AGREE WITH THAT, ARE YOU NOT THE REFEREES OF OUR POLITICAL SPEECH. THAT'S WHY ALL THREE OF YOU HAVE TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT AND FAIR WITH YOUR CONTENT MODERATION POLICIES AND YOUR CONTENT SELECTION ALGORITHMS. BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT, IT IS AS I SAID LARGELY A BLACK BOX. THERE IS REAL MISTRUST AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE BEING FAIR OR TRANSPARENT AND THIS EXTENDS TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE KIND OF AMPLIFICATION AND DECISIONS YOUR PLATFORMS MAY MAKE ON ELECTION DAY AND THE POST-ELECTION PERIOD IF THE RESULTS OF YOUR ELECTION ARE TOO CLOSE TO CALM SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE AGAIN FOR MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS WHO KEEP USING THIS REALLY BAD REFEREE AALOGY GOOGLE, FACEBOOK AND TWITTER ARE FOUGHT THE REFEREES OVER OUR DEMOCRACY. NOW, A SECOND QUESTION, THE PACT ACT, WHICH I REFERENCED EARLIER INCLUDES PROVISIONS TO GIVE USERS DUE PROCESS AND AN EXPLANATION WHEN CONTENT THEY POST IS REMOVED SO THIS IS AGAIN A YES OR NO QUESTION. DO YOU AGREE THAT USERS SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS AND AN EXPLANATION WHEN CONTENT THEY POST HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN? MR. ZUCKERBERG. >> SENATOR. I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD PRINCIPLE TO HAVE. >> THANK YOU. MR. DORSEY. >> ABSOLUTELY. WE BELIEVE IN A FAIR AND STRAIGHT APPEALS PROCESS. >> GREAT. MR. PACHAI. >> YES, SENATOR. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, MR. DORSEY, YOUR PLATFORMS KNOWINGLY SUPPRESSED OR LIMITED THE VISIBILITY ABOUT THE CONTENT ON HUNTER BIDEN'S ABANDONED LAPTOP. MANY IN THE COUNTRY ARE JUSTIFIABLY CONCERNED. HOW OFTEN THE SUPPRESSION OF MAJOR NEWS ARTICLES OCCURS ONLINE. I WOULD SAY MR. ZUCKERBERG, WOULD YOU COMMIT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECORD A COMPLETE LIST OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT FACEBOOK SUPPRESSED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS ALONG WITH AN EXPLANATION WHY EACH ARTICLE WAS SUPPRESSED OR THE DISTRIBUTION WAS LIMITED? >> SENATOR, I CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP WITH YOU AND YOUR TEAM THE DISCUSS THAT, WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKING PROGRAM AS YOU ARE SAYING. WE TRY NOT TO BE ARBITERS OF THE WHAT IS TRUE OURSELVES, BUT WE HAVE BART IN OTHER WORDS WITH FACT CHECKERS AROUND THE WORLD TO HELP ASSESS THAT, TO PREVENT MISINFORMATION AND VIRAL HOAXES FROM BECOMING WIDELY DISTRIBUTED ON OUR PLATFORM AND I BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION THEY FACT CHECK IS PUBLIC. SO I THINK THERE IS PROBABLY ALREADY A RECORD OF THIS THAT CAN BE REVIEWED. >> BUT IF YOU CAN DO THAT AS IT APPLIES TO NEWSPAPERS, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THERE DOORS CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD YOU XH ET TO DO THE SAME ON TWITTER? >> WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE OPEN TO IT. WE WILL INVEST A STEP FURTHER, WHICH IS ALLIANCE WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND MUCH MORE TRANSPARENCY AROUND OUR PROCESS, THE CONTENT MODERATION PROCESS AND ALSO THE RESULTS, THE OUTCOMES AND DOING THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS. I DO AGREE IT'S MORE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT LENDS ITSELF TO MORE TRUST. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME EITHER. I OFTEN HEAR FROM CONSERVATIVE AND RELIGIOUS AMERICANS WHO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF YOUR COMPANIES, THE GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF YOUR COMPANIES AND THE POLITICAL DONATIONS OF YOUR EMPLOYEES, WHICH OFTEN ARE IN THE 80 TO 90% TO DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS AND YOU CAN SEE WHY THIS LACK OF IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AMONG THE EXECUTIVES AND EMPLOYEES OF YOUR COMPANY COULD BE PROBLEMATIC AND MAY BE CONTRIBUTING TO SOME OF THE DISTRUST AMONG CONSERVATIVE AND REPUBLICAN USERS. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD ASK IS AND MR. ZUCKERBERG, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PERSON THAT'S IN CHARGE OF ELECTION INTEGRITY AND SECURITY AT FACEBOOK IS A FORMER JOE BIDEN STAFFER. IS THERE SOMEONE THAT'S CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO IS IN THE SAME SORT OF ELECTION INTEGRITY ROLE AT FACEBOOK AND WHAT, HOW DO YOU ALL RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT THAT THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN TERMS OF THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OR DIVERSITY IN YOUR COMPANIES. >> AND HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE LACK OF TRUST THAT CREATES AMONG CONSERVATIVES. >> LET'S SEE IF WE CAN HAVE THREE BRIEF ANSWERS THERE. >> SENATOR, I THINK HAVING BALANCED IS VALUABLE. WE TRY TO DO THAT. I'M NOT AWARE OF THE EXAMPLE YOU SAY OF SOMEONE IF CHARGE OF THIS PROCESS WHO WORKED FOR BIDEN IN THE PAST. SO WHAT WE CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> WE CAN FOLLOW UP FOR THE LIST, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. >> MR. DORSEY. >> WELL, THIS IS RIGHT. I DO BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE MORE TRANSPARENCY AROUND OUR PROCESS AND OUR PRACTICES AND IT'S INDEPENDENT OF THE VIEWPOINTS THAT OUR EMPLOYEES HOLD. >> WE HAVE OBJECTIVE POLICIES AND ENFORCEMENT? >> MR. PACHAI. >> IN THESE TEAMS, THERE ARE PEOPLE REPUBLICAN AND LIBERTARIAN AND SO ON. WE HAVE COME WIDELY IMPORTANT THIRD PARTY ORGANIZATIONS WHEN WE DEVELOP OUR POLICY, AS A CEO, I AM COMMITTED TO RUNNING IT. HAPPY TO ENGAGE MORE IN ANSWER. >> THANK YOU. THE RANKING MEMBER HAS NOW DEFERRED TO SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. SIR, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THANK YOU TO THE RANKING MEMBER. I WANT TO GEN BY ASSOCIATING MYSELF WITH THE VERY THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS MADE BY THE RANKING MEMBER AS TO THE NEED FOR BROADER CONSIDERATION AND ISSUES OF PRIVACY AND COMPETITION AND LOCAL NEWS. THEY ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT. AND ALSO WITH COMMENTS MADE BYPY COLLEAGUES, SENATOR KLOBUCHAR ABOUT ANTI-TRUST REVIEW AND WE WILL BE EXAMINING SOME OF THESE TOPICS IN NOVEMBER. YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN AN ADVOCATE OF REFORM SECTION 230 FOR LITERALLY 15 YEARS WHEN I WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, I RAISED THIS ISSUE OF THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY BUT NO LONGER SEEMS APPROPRIATE. SO I REALLY WELCOME THE BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS WE HAVE SEEN NOW, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE REVIEW. BUT, FRANKLY, I AM APPALLED THAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE HOPING THIS HEARING REALLY DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION WHEN THEY SEEM TO WANT TO BULLY AND BREW BEAT THE PLATFORMS HERE TO TRY TO HELP THEM TOWARDS PRESIDENT TRUMP. THE TIMING SEEMS INEXPLICABLE EXCEPT TO GAIN THE REF IN EFFECT, I RECOGNIZE THE REFEREE ANALOGY IS NOT COMPLETELY EXACT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, TO BULLY AND BROW BEAT THESE PLATFORMS TO FAVOR SENATOR -- PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TWEETS AND POSTS. AND I AM CONCERNED PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BROKEN ALL THE NORMS AND HE HAS PUT ON YOUR PLATFORMS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION I'M GOING TO HOLD UP ONE OF THEM. THIS ONE YOU SEE PERTAINS TO COVID. WE HAVE LEARNED TO LIVE WITH IT. HE SAYS. JUST LIKE WE ARE LEARNING TO LIVE WITH COVID, TALKING ABOUT THE FLU. WE HAVE LEARNED TO LIVE WITH IT IN MOST POP LAYINGS FAR LESS LETHAL. HE HAS SAID THAT CHILDREN I WOULD SAY ALMOST DEFINITELY BUT ALMOST ARE IMMOO UNFROM THIS DISEASE. HE HAS SAID ABOUT THE ELECTIONS, BIG PROBLEMS OF DISCREPANCIES WITH MAIL-IN BALLOTS ALL OVER THE USA. MUST HAVE FUN ON NOVEMBER 3rd. FORTUNATELY THE PLATFORMS ARE ACTING TO LABEL OR TAKE DOWN THESE KINDS OF POSTS. BUT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN -- THEY'VE LOST THEIR PHONES OR THEIR VOICES AND THE PLATFORMS IN MY VIEW HAVE -- >> WE JUST LOST YOUR VOICE THERE IN MID-SENTENCE, RICHARD. >> LET'S SUSPEND FOR A MINUTE. THERE YOU ARE. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. JUST START BACK ONE SENTENCE BEFORE, WAIT, WE HAD YOU UP UNTIL THEN. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS DISINFORMATION THE RECKONING SILENCE, NOW WE HAVE HEARING THAT IS IN EFFECT DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE AND BROW BEAT THE PLATFORMS THAT HAVE LABELLED DISINFORMATION FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. >> WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF A MASS EV ONSLAUGHT OF THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS INDICATED THAT HE WILL POTENTIALLY INTERFERE BY POSTING DISINFORMATION ON ELECTION DAY AND THE MORNING AFTER THE RUSSIANS HAVE GONE ALREADY INTERFERING INTO OUR ELECTION. WE HAVE ALL RECEIVED BRIEFINGS THAT ARE CHILLING ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TAPPED FBI AND THE CSIS HAS RECENTLY ISSUED PUBLIC ALERTS THAT QUOTE FOREIGN ACTORS AND CYBER CRIMINALS LIKELY TO SPREAD DISINFORMATION REGARDING 2020 RESULTS. THEY ARE MAKING 2016 LOOK LIKE CHILD'S PLAY IN WHAT THEY ARE DOING SO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE RUBS HAVE A PLAN WHICH INVOLVES DISINFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION ELECTIONS, HAVE A BRAND. I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE A PLAN FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, TWITTER, A PLAN, IF THE PRESIDENT USES YOUR PLATFORMS TO SAY ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION THERE IS IS RIGGING OR FRAUD WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN EVIDENCE OR ATTEMPTS TO SAY THAT THE ELECTION IS OVER AND VOTING, A COUNTING OF VOTES MUST STOP, EITHER ON NOVEMBER 4th OR SOME DAY SUBSEQUENT? AND I WOULD LIKE ANSWERS ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAVE A PLAN, A YES OR NO? >> SORRY. WE DO, WHERE POLICY IS RELATED TO ALL OF THE CAREERS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. CANDIDATES OR CAMPAIGNS TRYING TO DELEGITIMIZE METHODS OF VOTING OR THE ELECTION. CANDIDATES TRYING TO PREMATURELY DECLARE VICTORY AND CANDIDATES TRYING TO SPREAD VOTER SUPPRESSION MATERIAL THAT IS MISLEADING ABOUT HOW, WHEN OR WHERE TO VOTE. SO WHERE WE HAVE TAKEN A NUMBER OF STEPS ON THAT FRONT. >> PERHAPS WE CAN TAKE M MR. PACHAI NEXT AND THEN MR. DORSEY. >> SENATOR, YES, WE DEFINITELY ARE -- WE HAVE BEEN PLANING FOR A WHILE. WE RELY ON GRACING UP TO MOMENTS LIKE THAT. I ASK THAT WE CLOSELY PARTNER WITH OUR ASSOCIATED PRESS TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PROVIDE USERS THE MOST ACCURATE INFORMATION POSSIBLE. >> YES. WE ALSO HAVE A PLAN, SO OUR PLAN AND ENFORCEMENT IS POINTING TO SPECIFICALLY STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS. SO WE WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR CRUZ. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING THREE WITNESSES WE HAVE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY COLLECTIVELY POSE I BELIEVE THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT TO FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA AND THE GREATEST THREAT WE HAVE TO FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. YESTERDAY I SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME SPEAKING WITH MR. ZUCKERBERG AND MR. PACHAI. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF BOTH OF THEIR COMPANIES. I WOULD KNOW FACEBOOK AT A MINIMUM IS MAKING EFFORTS AT DEFENDING FREE SPEECH. I APPRECIATE THEIR DOING SO. GLOOGLE. I AGREE WITH THE CONCERNS THAT SENATOR KLOBUCHAR RAISED. I THINK GOOGLE HAS MORE POWER THAN ANY COMPANY ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET AND THE ANTI-TRUST CONCERNS ARE REAL. THE IMPACT OF GOOGLE PROFOUND AND I EXPECT WE WILL HAVE CONTINUED AND ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GOOGLE'S ABUSE OF THAT POWER AND ITS WILLINGNESS TO MANIPULATE SEARCH OUTCOMES TO INFLUENCE AND CHANGE ELECTION RESULTS. BUT TODAY I WANT TO FOCUSPY QUESTIONING ON MR. DORSEY AND ON TWITTER. BECAUSE OF THE THREE PLAYERS BEFORE US, I THINK TWITTER'S CONDUCT HAS BY FAR BEEN THE MOST EGREGIOUS. MR. DORSEY, DOES TWITTER HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS? >> NO. >> YOU DON'T BELIEVE TWITTER HAS ANY ABILITY TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS? >> NO, WE ARE ONE PART. [ INAUDIBLE ] . >> SO YOU ARE TESTIFYING TO THIS COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW THAT TWITTER SILENCES PEOPLE, BLOCKS POLITICAL SPEECH THAT HAS NO IMPACT ON ELECTIONS? >> PEOPLE HAVE CHOSE ABOUT OUR COMMUNICATIONS CHANNELS. >> NOT IF THEY DON'T HEAR INFORMATION. IF YOU DON'T THINK HAVE YOU THE POWER TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS, WHY DO YOU BLOCK ANYTHING? >> WHERE WE HAVE POLICIES THAT ARE FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE MORE VOICES ON THE PLATFORM ARE POSSIBLE. WE SEE A LOT OF ABUSE AND HARASSMENT WHICH ENDS UP SILENCING PEOPLE AND MAKING THEM LEAVE FROM THE PLATFORM. >> MR. DORSEY, I FIND YOUR OPENING ANSWERS ABSURD ON THEIR FACE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE LAST TWO WEEKS, IN PARTICULAR AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE LONG BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT TWITTER'S PATTERN OF SILENCING AND SILENCING AMERICANS WITH WHOM TWITTER DISAGREES, TWO WEEKS AGO, TWITTER AND A LESSER EXTENT FACEBOOK CROSSED A THRESHOLD THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL IN OUR COUNTRY. TWO WEEKS AGO TWITTER MADE THE EUN NEW LATERAL DECISION TO SENSOR THE NEW YORK POST IN A SERIES OF TWO BLOCKBUSTER ARTICLES BOTH ALLEGING EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION AGAINST JOE BIDEN. THE FIRST CONCERNING UKRAINE. THE SECOND CONCERNING COMMUNIST CHINA AND TWITTER MADE THE DECISION, NUMBER ONE TO PREVENT USERS, ANY USER FROM SHARING THOSE STORIES AND NUMBER TWO, YOU WENT EVEN FURTHER AND BLOCKED THE NEW YORK POST FROM SHARING ON TWITTER ITS OWN REPORTING. WHY DID TWITTER MAKE THE DECISION TO SENSE OAR THE NEW YORK POST? >> 23 HAD MATERIALS. >> WHEN IS THAT POLICY ADAPTED? >> IN 2018 I BELIEVE. >> WHAT WAS THE POLICY? >> SO THE SPOILS AROUND LIMITING THE SPREAD OF MATERIALS THAT ARE HACKED. WE DIDN'T WANT TWITTER TO BE A DISTRIBUTOR FOR HACKED MATERIALS. WITH EFOUND THAT THE NEW YORK POST BECAUSE IT SHOWED SCREEN SHOTS. IT WAS UNCLEAR THAT IT FELL UNDER THIS POLICY. >> SO IN YOUR VIEW, IF IT'S UNCLEAR, THE SOURCE OF A DOCUMENTED ASSISTANCE, THE FORK POST DOCUMENTED WHAT IT SAID THE SOURCE WAS WHICH IT SAID IT WAS A LAPTOP. SO THEY WEREN'T HIDING WHAT THEY CLAIMED TO BE THE SOURCE? >> IS IT YOUR POSITION WHEN YOU CAN'T TELL THE SOURCE BLOCKS PRESS STORIES? >> NO, NOT AT ALL. WE OUR TEAM MADE A FAST DECISION. THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION, HOWEVER, OF BLOCKING ARTICLES AND TWEETS AND IN DM IN DIRECT MESSAGES, WE BELIEVE WAS UNCORRECT. AND WE CHANGED IT. >> TODAY. NOW THE THEY HAVE TO LOG INTO THEIR ACCOUNT, WHICH THEY CAN DO AT THIS MINUTE, DOUGH LIT THE ORIGINAL TWEET, WHICH FELL UNDER OUR ORIGINAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND TWEET EXACT SAME MATERIAL AND IT WOULD -- >> MR. DORSEY, YOUR ABILITY IS YOU HAVE THE POWER TO FORCE A MEDIA OUTLET -- LET'S BE CLEAR. THE "NEW YORK POST" ISN'T JUST SOME RANDOM GUY TWEETING. IT HAS THE FOURTH HIGHEST CIRCULATION OF ANY PAPER IN AMERICA, 200 YEARS OLD, THE "NEW YORK POST" FOUNDED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND YOUR POSITION IS THAT YOU CAN SIT IN SILICON VALLEY AND DEMAND OF THE MEDIA THAT YOU CAN TELL THEM WHAT STORIES THEY CAN PUBLISH AND YOU CAN TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT REPORTING THEY CAN HEAR. IS THAT RIGHT? >> NO. THIS WAS A -- EVERY PERSON, EVERY ACCOUNT, EVERY ORGANIZATION THAT SIGNS UP TO TWITTER AGREES TO A TERMS OF SERVICE. A TERMS OF SERVICE IS -- >> SO MEDIA OUTLETS DICTATES IF THEY WISHNOWS TO COMMUNICATE WI READERS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> NO. WE RECOGNIZED AN ERROR IN THIS POLICY -- >> YOU ARE STILL BLOCKING THEIR POSTS. RIGHT NOW TODAY YOU ARE BLOCKING THEIR POSTS. >> WE ARE NOT BLOCKING THE POSTS. ANYONE CAN -- >> CAN THE "NEW YORK POST" POST ON A TWITTER ACCOUNT? >> IF THEY GO INTO THEIR ACCOUNT -- >> NO IS YOUR ANSWER TO THAT. NO, UNLESS THEY AGREE WITH YOUR DICTATES. LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. YOU CLAIMED IT WAS BECAUSE OF HACKED MATERIALS POLICY. I FIND THAT FACIALLY HIGHLY DUBIOUS AND CLEARLY EMPLOYED IN A DEEPLY PARTIAL WAY. DID TWITTER BLOCK THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE "NEW YORK TIMES'" STORY A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT PURPORTED TO BE BASED ON COPIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS? >> WE DIDN'T FIND THAT A VIOLATION OF OUR TERMS OF SERVICE. IN POLICY IN PARTICULAR, IT WAS REPORTING ABOUT THE MATERIAL. IT WASN'T DISTRIBUTING THE MATERIAL. >> OKAY. THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT TRUE. THEY POSTED A THEY PURPORTED TO BE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIALS AND FEDERAL LAW, FEDERAL STATUTE MAKES IT A FEDERAL FELL FELONY TO DISTRIBUTE YOU SOMEONE'S TAX RETURNS WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE. THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, YET TWITTER GLEEFULLY ALLOWED PEOPLE TO CIRCULATE THAT. BUT WHEN THE ARTICLE WAS CRITICAL OF JOE BIDEN TWITTER ENGAGED IN RAMPANT CENSORSHIP AND SILENCING. >> AND, AGAIN, WE RECOGNIZED ERRORS IN THAT POLICY. WE CHANGED IT WITHIN 24 HOURS. THIS IS -- >> BUT YOU ARE STILL BLOCKING THE "NEW YORK POST." YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED IT. >> WE HAVE CHANGED. THEY CAN LOG INTO THEIR ACCOUNT, DELETE THE TWEET -- >> YOU FORCED THE PILOT "POLITICO" REPORTER TO TAKE DOWN HIS POST, RIGHT? >> WITHIN THAT 24-HOUR PERIOD, YES. AS THE POLICY HAS CHANGED, ANYONE -- >> SO TWITTER TAKES THE VIEW YOU CENSOR THE "NEW YORK POST," CENSOR "POLITICO," "THE NEW YORK TIMES" OR ANY OTHER MEDIAOUT LET. MR. DORSEY, WHO THE HELL ELECTED YOU AND PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF WHAT THE MEDIA ARE ALLOWED TO REPORT AND WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO HEAR AND WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN BEHAVING AS A DEMOCRATIC SUPERPAC SILENCING NEWS TO THE CONTRARY TO YOUR POLITICAL BELIEFS? >>ET >> LET'S GIVE MR. DORSEY A FEW SECONDS TO ANSWER THAT AND WE SEGMENT. >> WELL, WE'RE IN THE DOING THAT. AND THIS IS WHY I OPENED THIS HEARING WITH CALLS FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY. WE REALIZE WE NEED TO EARN TRUST MORE. WE REALIZE THAT MORE ACCOUNTABILITY IS NEEDED TO SHOW OUR INTENTIONS AND TO SHOW THE EVIDENCE. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. >> SO I HEAR THE CONCERNS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THEM, BUT WE WANT TO FIX IT WITH TO MORE TRANSPARENCY. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR CRUZ. THE RANKING MEMBER HAS DEFERRED NOW TO SENATOR SCHATZ, WHO JOINS US REMOTELY. SIR, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER. YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL HEARING AT AN UNUSUAL TIME. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A HEARING SO CLOSE TO AN ELECTION ON ANY TOPIC, LET ALEN ON SOMETHING SO OBVIOUSLY A VIOLATION OF OUR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW AND THE RULES OF THE SENATE TO STAY OUT OF ELECTION EARRING. WE NEVER DO THIS AND THERE IS A GOOD REASON WE DON'T HAUL PEOPLE BEFORE US TO YELL AT THEM FOR NOT DOING OUR BIDDING DURING AN ELECTION. IT IS A MISUSE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS A SCAR ON THIS COMMITTEE AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE. WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY IS AN ATTEMPT TO BULLY THE CEOs OF PRIVATE COMPANIES INTO CARRYING OUT A HIT JOB OF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BY MAKING SURE THAT THEY PUSH OUT FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC MISINFORMATION MEANT TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION. TO OUR WITNESSES TODAY, YOU AND OTHER TECH LEADERS NEED TO STAND UP TO THIS IMMORAL BEHAVIOR. THE TRUTH IS, AND BECAUSE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ACCUSE YOU, YOUR COMPANIES, AND YOUR EMPLOYEES OF BEING BIASED OR LIBERAL, YOU HAVE INSTITUTIONALLY BENT OVER BACKWARDS AND OVERCOMPENSATED AM YOU HAVE HIRED REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES, HOSTED PRIVATE DINNERS WITH REPUBLICAN LEADERS AND IN CONTRAVENTION GIVEN SPECIAL DISPENSATION TO RIGHT-WING VOICES AND THROTTLED PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM. SIMPLY PUT, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THIS PLAY. AND SO TOURING ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL ELECTIONS IN AMERICAN HISTORY, MY COLLEAGUES ARE TRYING TO RUN THAT PLAY AGAIN, AND IT IS AN EMBARRASSMENT. I HAVE PLENTY OF QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES ON SECTION 230 ON ANTITRUST, ON PRIVACY, ON ANTI-SEMITISM, ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH JOURNALISM. BUT WE HAVE TO CALL THIS HEARING WHAT IT IS. IT'S A SHAM. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY EIGHT YEARS IN IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE I AM NOT GOING TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE THIS IS NONSENSE. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK THIS TIME. THIS PLAY MY COLLEAGUES ARE RUNNING IS NOT START TODAY AND IT'S NOT JUST HAPPENING HERE IN THE SENATE. IT IS A COORDINATED EFFORT BY REPUBLICANS ACROSS THE GOVERNMENT. LAST MAY PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER DESIGNED TO NARROW THE PROTECTIONS OF SECTION 230 TO DISCOURAGE PLATFORMS FROM ENGAGING IN CONTENT MODERATION ON THEIR OWN SITES. AFTER IT WAS ISSUED, PRESIDENT TRUMP STARTED TWEETING THAT SECTION 230 SHOULD BE REPEALED AS IF HE UNDERSTANDS SECTION 230. IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TWEETED REPEAL SECTION 230 FIVE TIMES. IN ADDITION TO OTHER TWEETS THAT IN WHICH HE THREATENED THE TECH COMPANIES. A FEW WEEKS LATER PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHDRAW THE NOMINATION OF FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. FOX O'REILLY. HE QUESTIONED THE FCC'S SECTION 230 AND THE STATUTE IS NOT UNCLEAR ON THIS. PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN NOMINATED NATHAN SIMMING TON, WHO WAS THE DRAFTER OF NTI A's PETITION TO THE FCC REGARDING SECTION 230. AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE ENTHUSIASTICALLY PARTICIPATED. SINCE JUNE OF THIS YEAR, SIX REPUBLICAN-ONLY BILLS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED, ALL OF WHICH THREATEN PLATFORMS' ABILITY TO MONITOR CONTENT ON THEIR SITE. AS THE ELECTION DRAWS CLOSER THIS REPUBLICAN EFFORT HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE AGGRESSIVE. SEPTEMBER 23rd DOJ UNVEILED ITS OWN SECTION 230 DRAFT THE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE ROW - CURRENT LAW AND DISCOURAGE PLATFORMS FROM MODERATING CONTENT ON THEIR OWN SITE. SEPTEMBER 14th AND OCTOBER 1st, RESPECTIVELY, SENATORS HOLLY AND KENNEDY TRIED TO PASS THEIR REPUBLICAN-ONLY SECTION 230 BILLS LIVE UNANIMOUS CONSENT. THAT MEANS THEY WENT DOWN TO THE FLOOR AND WITHOUT A LIVE HEARING, WITHOUT YOUANY INPUT F DEMOCRATS AT ALL THEY TRIED TO PASS SOMETHING SO FOUNDATIONAL TO THE INTERNET UNANIMOUSLY WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION AND ANY DEBATE. ON THE SAME DAY AS SENATOR KENNEDY'S ATTEMPT, SENATOR WICKER FORCES THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OR NEGOTIATION BEFOREHAND TO VOTE ON SUBPOENAING THE CEOs OF TWITTER, FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE TO TESTIFY. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. TWO WEEKS LATER OCTOBER 14 JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS ON HIS OWN ISSUES A STATEMENT THAT APPEARED TO SUPPORT THE NARROWING OF THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION ON SECTION 230. THE VERY NEXT DAY THE FCC CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT THE FCC WOULD SEEK TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF SECTION 230. ON THAT DAY SENATOR GRAHAM ANNOUNCED THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WOULD VOTE TO SUBPOENA THE TECH COMPANIES OVER THE CONTENT MODERATION. IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS, IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING, IS THAT SENATOS CRUZ, BARTO ROMO TALKING ABOUT A BLOCKBUSTER STORY FROM THE "NEW YORK POST," SENATOR HOLLY IS ON FOX AND ON THE SENATE'S FLOOR AND THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE ITSELF IS TWEETING OUT A CAMPAIGN-STYLE VIDEO THAT SORT OF ALARMINGLY SAYS HUNTER BIDEN'S EMAILS, TECH CENSORSHIP. ON OCTOBER 2ST SENATOR HAWLEY REATTEMPTED TO PASS HIS BILL ON SECTION 230 VIA UC AGAIN WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ANY COMMITTEE MARKIAM OR VOTE. ON FRIDAY, SENATOR GRAHAM ANNOUNCED THE CEOs OF FACEBOOK AND TWITTER WOULD TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 17th. THIS IS BULLYING AND IT IS FOR ELECTORAL PURPOSES. DO NOT LET THE UNITED STATES SENATE BULLY YOU INTO CARRYING THE WATER FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO ADVANCE MISINFORMATION. AND DON'T LET THE SPECTOR OF REMOVING SECTION 230 PROTECTIONS OR AN AMENDMENT TO ANTITRUST LAW OR ANY OTHER KINDS OF THREATS CAUSE YOU TO BE A PARTY TO THE SUBVERSION OF OUR DEMOCRACY. I WILL BE GLAD TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD-FAITH BIPARTISAN HEARINGS ON THESE ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTION IS OVER. BUT THIS IS NOT THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. SENATOR SCHATZ. NEXT IS SENATOR FISCHER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GENTLEMEN, I AM NOT HERE TO BULLY YOU TODAY, AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT HERE TO READ ANY KIND OF POLITICAL STATEMENT RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION. TO ME THIS HEARING IS NOT A SHAM. I AM HERE TO GAIN SOME CLARITY ON THE POLICIES THAT YOU USE. I AM HERE TO LOOK AT YOUR PROPOSALS FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE YOUR PLATFORMS HAVE BECOME AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FOR BOTH CANDIDATES BUT ALSO, MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR OUR CITIZENS AS WELL. YOUR PLATFORMS ALSO HAVE ENORMOUS POWER TO MANIPULATE USER BEHAVIOR. AND TO DIRECT CAN'T, CONTENT, AND TO SHAPE NARRATIVES. MR. DORSEY, I HEARD YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. I READ IT. YOU ALSO TWEETED THAT THE CONCEPT OF GOOD FAITH IS WHAT IS BEING CHALLENGED BY MANY HERE TODAY. SOME YOU HAVE DON'T TRUST WE'RE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. THAT'S THE PROBLEM I WANT TO FOCUS ON SOLVING. MR. DORSEY, WHY SHOULD WE TRUST YOU? WITH SO MUCH POWER? IN OTHER WORDS, WHY SHOULDN'T WE REGULATE YOU MORE? >> WELL, THE SUGGESTIONS WE'RE MAKING AROUND MORE TRANSPARENCY IS HOW WE WANT TO BUILD THAT TRUST. WE DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BE PUBLISHING MORE OF OUR PRACTICE OF CONTENT MODERATION. WE HAVE MADE DECISIONS TO MODERATE CONTENT. WE HAVE MADE DECISIONS TO MODERATE CONTENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENABLING AS MANY VOICES OP OUR PLATFORM AS POSSIBLE. AND I ACKNOWLEDGE AND COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE CONCERNS THAT IT FEELS LIKE A BLACK BOX, AND ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO BRING TRANSPARENCY TO IT, INCLUDING PUBLISHING OUR POLICIES, OUR PRACTICES, ANSWERING VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW CONTENT IS MODERATED, AND THEN DOING WHAT WE CAN AROUND THE GROWING TREND OF ALGORITHMS MODERATING MORE OF THE CONTENT. AS I SAID, THIS ONE IS A TOUGH ONE TO ACTUALLY BRING TRANSPARENCY TO. EXPLAINABILITY IN A.I. IS A FIELD OF RESEARCH, BUT IT IS FAR OUT. AND I THINK A BETTER OPPORTUNITY IS GIVING PEOPLE MORE CHOICE AROUND THE ALGORITHMS THEY USE, INCLUDING PEOPLE TURN OFF THE ALGORITHMS COMPLETELY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO. >> RIGHT. BUT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE WHEN THEY SEE THAT WHAT MANY CONSIDER YOU ARE MAKING VALUE JUDGMENTS ON WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON YOUR PLATFORMS. YOU SAY USERS CAN REPORT CONTENT AND THEN YOU TAKE ACTION, BUT CERTAINLY YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED, THEY'RE VERY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT THEY SEE AS MANIPULATION ON YOUR PART. AND TO SAY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE TRANSPARENCY, YEAH, THAT'S -- SIR, I SAY WITH RESPECT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH JUST TO SAY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT TRANSPARENCY THERE AND YOU'RE NOT INFLUENCING PEOPLE BECAUSE, AS ANY TIME A FREE PRESS IS BLOCKED ON BOTH SIDES, WHAT WE WOULD VIEW, AND THE POLITICAL WORLD IS BOTH SIDES HERE, WHEN VIEWS AREN'T ABLE TO BE EXPRESSED, THAT DOES HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE. >> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, AND I AGREE THAT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. I DON'T THINK TRANSPARENCY ALONE ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS. I THINK WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND FAST, EFFICIENT APPEALS PROCESS AND WE NEED TO LOOK DEEPLY AT ALGORITHMS AND HOW THEY ARE USED AND PEOPLE HAVE CHOICE HOW TO USE THE ALGORITHMS OR WHETHER THEY USE THEM. >> BUT ULTIMATELY SOMEBODY MAKES A DECISION. WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP? WITH THE ALGORITHMS? WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP? WHO IS GOING TO MAKE A VALUE JUDGMENT? BECAUSE IN MY OPINION IT IS A VALUE JUDGMENT. >> WELL, ULTIMATELY I AM ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT THE COMPANY MAKES. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE PROVIDING CLEAR FRAMEWORKS THAT ARE OBJECTIVE AND THAT CAN BE TESTED AND THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE CHECKPOINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM SO THAT WE CAN LEARN QUICKLY IF WE'RE DOING SOMETHING IN ERROR. >> AND WHEN YOUR COMPANY AMPLIFIES SOME CONTENT OVER OTHERS, IS IT FAIR FOR YOU TO HAVE LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR YOUR ACTIONS? >> WE BELIEVE SO. KEEP IN MIND, A LOT OF OUR ALGORITHMS RECOMMENDING CONTENT IS FOCUSED ON SAVING PEOPLE TIME. WE ARE RANKING THINGS, THE ALGORITHMS BELIEVE PEOPLE WOULD FIND MOST RELEVANT, MOST VALUABLE -- >> BUT IT'S YOUR VALUE JUDGMENT ON WHAT PEOPLE WOULD FIND MOST RELEVANT? >> NO. IT'S BASED ON ENGAGEMENT METRICS, BASED ON WHO YOU FOLLOW, BASED ON ACTIVITY YOU TAKE ON ON THE NETWORK. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, WITH YOUR EVER EXPANDING CONTENT, MODERATION POLICIES, ARE YOU MATERIALLY INVOLVED IN THAT CONTENT? >> SENATOR, YES. I SPEND A MEANINGFUL AMOUNT OF TIME ON MAKING SURE WE GET OUR CONTENT POLICIES AND ENFORCEMENT RIGHT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE MADE TO SECTION 230 TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS REGARDING CONTENT MODERATION THAT YOU HAVE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING? >> SENATOR, I WOULD OUTLINE A COUPLE. FIRST, I AGREE WITH JACK THAT INCREASING TRANSPARENCY INTO THE CONTENT MODERATION PROCESS WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT STEP FOR BUILDING TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY. ONE THING THAT WE ALREADY DO AT FACEBOOK IS EVERY QUARTER WE ISSUE A TRANSPARENCY REPORT WHERE, FOR EACH OF THE 20 OR SO CATEGORIES OF HARMFUL CONTENT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS, TERRORISM, CHILD EXPLOITATION, INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE, PORNOGRAPHY, DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTENT, WE ISSUE A REPORT ON HOW WE'RE DOING, WHAT THE PREVALENCE OF THAT CONTENT IS ON OUR NETWORK, AND WHAT PERCENT OF IT OUR SYSTEMS ARE ABLE TO TAKE DOWN BEFORE SOMEONE EVEN HAS TO REPORT IT TO US. WHAT THE PRECISION IS, AND BASICALLY HOW ACCURATE OUR SYSTEMS ARE DEALING WITH IT THE AND GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE EVERYONE ACROSS THE INDUSTRY IS REPORTING ON A BASELINE LIKE THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS NOT JUST ABOUT ANECDOTES OF, OKAY, I SAW A PIECE OF CONTENT AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE I AGREE HOW THAT WAS MODERATED. IT WOULD ALLOW THE CONVERSATION TO MOVE TO DATA SO THAT WAY WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THESE PLATFORMS ARE PERFORMING OVERALL AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. >> THANK YOU -- >> AT ISSUE WITH YOUR ANSWER, I THINK, WOULD THE TIME INVOLVED, THAT IT WOULDN'T BE AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AS YOU CALL IT. I HOPE THAT ALL THREE OF YOU GENTLEMEN CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MY TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR FISCHER. APPRECIATE THAT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE NOW, SENATOR CANTWELL'S QUESTIONING AFTER WHICH WE ARE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE OUR WITNESSES WITH A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. SO, SENATOR CANTWELL, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> SURELY CAN. >> CAND CAN SIGEE ME? >> YES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT HEARING. I AGREE WITH MANY OF THE STATEMENTS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HAD, THAT THIS HEARING DID NEED TO TAKE PLACE AT THIS MOMENT, THAT THE IMPORTANT DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE KEEP A THRIVING INTERNET ECONOMY AND HOW WE CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT HATE SPEECH AND MISINFORMATION IS TAKEN DOWN FROM THE WEB. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROBABLY BETTER HAVE BEEN DONE IN JANUARY THAN NOW. BUT HERE WE ARE TODAY, AND WE HAVE HEARD SOME ASTOUNDING THINGS THAT I DEFINITELY MUST REFUTE. FIRST OF ALL, I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE LIGHTLY ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO UNDERMINE MAIL-IN VOTING. MAIL-IN VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS SAFE. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THE STATE OF OREGON HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR MAIL-IN SYSTEM. SO I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE SECRETARIES OF STATE, THERE WILL BE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WHO HAVE WORKED HARD WITH STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS AND OTHERS WHO WILL BE TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT TO PROTECT IT. I AM ALSO GOING TO NOT DEMEAN AN ORGANIZATION JUST BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE HEADQUARTERED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON OR TO HAVE BUSINESS THERE, THAT SOMEBODY CLAIMS JUST BECAUSE THE GEOGRAPHY OF A COMPANY SOMEHOW MAKES IT UBER POLITICAL FOR ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE OR ANOTHER, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT. I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I SEE MANY OF YOU COMING TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR REPUBLICAN FUNDRAISERS WITH THESE OFFICIALS. I KNOW YOU KNOW DARN WELL THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF REPUBLICANS THAT WORK IN HIGH-TECH FIRMS. SO THE NOTION THAT SOMEHOW THESE PEOPLE ARE CROSSING THE AISLE BECAUSE OF SOMETHING IN CREATING CENSORSHIP, THE NOTION THAT FREE SPEECH IS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SAY THINGS AND IT DOESN'T TAKE -- MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE A HISTORY LESSON FROM HIGH SCHOOL AGAIN. BUT, YES, FREE SPEECH MEANS THAT PEOPLE CAN MAKE OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS. SO I THINK THAT THE CEOs ARE TELLING US HERE WHAT THEIR PROCESS IS FOR TAKING TOWN HEALTH CARE INFORMATION THAT'S NOT TRUE, THAT IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC, AND INFORMATION THAT IS A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS HEARING COULD HAVE HAPPENED AT A LATER DATE AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THE MISINFORMATION THAT IS COMING ACROSS TODAY THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERMINE OUR ELECTION PROCESS. IT IS SAFE. IT IS THE BACKBONE OF WHAT DISTINGUISHES AMERICA FROM OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. WE DO KNOW HOW TO HAVE A SAFE AND FAIR ELECTION. AND ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE'RE DOING THAT IS TO HAVE THESE INDIVIDUALS WORK WITH OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES GLIESHLGTS MAESD IT VERY CLEAR THEY SUCCESSFULLY HELPED STOP A THREAT ON THE GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION WAS PASSED ON. SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO BE ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM AND INFORMATION AND WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO PUT OUR SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL TO CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT ENGINE IS THERE, OR WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO PREMATURELY TRY TO GET RID OF 230 AND SQUASH FREE SPEECH. AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. SO, MR. ZUCKERBERG, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO YOU BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME WHERE THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN MIRAMAR ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT USING INFORMATION AGAINST A MUSLIM MINORITY AND YOU TOOK ACTION AND REFORMED THE SYSTEM. AND JUST RECENTLY, IN SEPTEMBER, FACEBOOK AND TWITTER ANNOUNCED THEY HAD SUSPENDED NETWORKS ACCOUNTS LINKED TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND FOR USE OF TECHNIQUES LAUNDERING RUSSIAN-BACKED WEBSITE ACCOUNTS AND DER RIS I HAVE PROPAGANDA WE ASSOCIATED WITH STATE-RUN ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS. COULD YOU PLEASE, MR. ZUCKERBERG, TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO MAKE SURE STATE-RUN ENTITIES DON'T INTERFERE IN U.S. ELECTIONS? >> YES, THANK YOU, SENATOR. SINCE 2016, WE HAVE BEEN BUILDING UP SOME VERY SOPHISTICATED SYSTEMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN STOP FOREIGN FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS, NOT JUST IN THE U.S. BUT ALL AROUND THE WORLD. A LOT OF THIS INVOLVES BUILDING UP A.I. SYSTEMS TO IDENTIFY WHEN CLUSTERS OF ACCOUNTS AREN'T BEHAFRG IN A WAY A NORMAL PERSSON WAS, FAKE ACCOUNTS IN A COORDINATED WAY. A LOT IS ABOUT FORMING PARTNERSHIPS. THE TECH COMPANIES HERE TODAY WORK MORE CLOSELY TOGETHER TO SHARE SIGNALS ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE DIFFERENT PLATFORMS TO BE ABLE TO TO COMBAT THESE THREATS AS WELL AS WORKING MORE CLOSELY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD. THE NET RESULT IS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE TAKEN DOWN MORE THAN 100 NETWORKS THAT WERE POTENTIALLY ATTEMPTING TO SPREAD MISINFORMATION OR INTERFERE. A LOT OF THEM WERE COMING FROM RUSSIA OR IRAN, A GROWING NUMBER FROM CHINA AS WELL. AND AT THIS POINT I'M PROUD THAT OUR COMPANY AND AS WELL AS THE OTHERS IN THE INDUSTRY I THINK HAVE BUILT SYSTEMS THAT ARE VERY EFFECTIVE AT THIS. WE CAN'T CSTOP COUNTRIES LIKESS INTERFERING. BUT WE HAVE BUILT UP SYSTEMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY MUCH FASTER WHEN THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT, AND I THINK THAT THAT SHOULD GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A GOOD AMOUNT OF CONFIDENCE LEADING INTO THIS ELECTION. >> AND IS IT TRUE THAT THOSE ENTITIES ARE TRYING TO FIND DOMESTIC SOURCES TO HELP WITH THAT MISS NFRG? >> SENATOR, YES. THE TACTICS OF THESE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS ARE CERTAINLY EVOLVING, INCLUDING TRYING TO FIND PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THEIR COUNTRY, AND IN SOME CASES WE'RE SEEING DOMESTIC INTERFERENCE OPERATIONS AS WELL, AND THE SYSTEMS HAVE HAD TO EVOLVE TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY AND TAKE THOSE DOWN AS WELL. OF THE 100 OR SO NETWORKS THAT I JUST CITED THAT WE TOOK DOWN, ABOUT HALF WERE DOMESTIC OPERATIONS AT THIS POINT. THAT'S IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, NOT PRIMARILY IN THE U.S. BUT THIS IS A GLOBAL PHENOMENON THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE PUSHING FORWARD AGGRESSIVELY ON. >> THANK YOU. MR. PINCHAI, I'D LIKE TO TURN TO YOU FOR A SECOND BECAUSE I DO WANT INFORMATION FROM FACEBOOK ON THIS POINT, TOO, BUT I'D LIKE TO TURN TO YOU. THERE IS INFORMATION NOW FROM MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS THAT IT MAY BE AS MUCH AS 30 TO 50% OF GOOGLE AD REVENUE THAT BROADCASTERS AND NEWS PRINT ARE LOSING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 AND 50% OF THEIR REVENUE THAT THEY COULD BE GETTING TO NEWSPAPERS AND BROADCASTING, LOSING IT TO THE FORMATS THAT GOOGLE HAS AS IT RELATES TO THEIR PLATFORM AND AD INFORMATION. CAN YOU CONFIRM WHAT INFORMATION YOU HAVE ABOUT THIS, AND DO YOU THINK THAT GOOGLE IS TAKING AD REPU REVENUE FROM THESE NEW SOURCES IN AN UNFAIR WAY? >> SENATOR, IT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC. IT'S A COMPLEX TOPICS. I THINK JOURNALISTS HAVE CALLED ATTENTION TO IT, PARTICULARLY LOCAL JOURNALISM IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE INTERNET HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUSLY DISRUPTING FORCE AND THE PANDEMIC HAS EXACERBATED IT. GOOGLE, I WOULD MAKE THE CASE THAT WE BELIEVE IN RAISING NEWS ACROSS OUR PRODUCTS BECAUSE WE REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF JOURNALISM. WE SEND A LOT OF TRAFFIC TO NEWS PUBLISHERS. ALL THE AD TECHNOLOGY QUESTIONS I'M GETTING ASKED TODAY, THE AD TECHNOLOGY SHARE THE MAJORITY OF REVENUE BACK TO PUBLISHERS. WE ARE INVESTING IN SUBSCRIPTION PRODUCTS. WE HAVE COMMITTED $1 BILLION IN NEW LICENSING OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS TO NEWS ORGANIZATIONS. WE HAVE SET UP LOCAL EMERGENCY FUNDS THROUGH COVID-19 FOR LOCAL JOURNALISTIC CONTRIBUTIONS. I CAN GIVE YOU PLENTY OF EXAMPLES, BUT THE UNDERLYING FORCES WHICH ARE IMPACTING THE INDUSTRY, WHICH IS THE INTERNET, WHETHER IF NOT GOOGLE, ADVERTISEMENTS -- >> YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A CLOCK ON, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE. >> A MINUTE AND A HALF OVER. SO LET'S SEE -- >> OKAY. JUST LEAVE IT WITH THIS. MR. PINCHAI, YOU HIT ON THE KEY WORD. MAJORITY. I DON'T THINK THAT YOU DURING THE MAJORITY OF THE REVENUE TO THESE BROADCAST ENTITIES. I DO THINK IT'S A PROBLEM. YES, THIS HE HAD TO MAKE IT THROUGH THE TRANSFORMATION, WHICH IS A ROCKY TRANSFORMATION. THE MESSAGE FROM TODAY'S HEARING IS THE FREE PRESS NEEDS TO LIVE AND BE SUPPORTED BY ALL OF US, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO KUSS DISCUSSING HOW WE CAN MAKE SURE THEY GET FAIR RETURN ON THEIR VALUE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN. MOST OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE NOT YET HAD A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS IN RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. ORDER. WE UNDERSTAND THAT SENATOR MORAN IS NEXT. SIR, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU FOR YOU AND SENATOR CANTWELL HOSTING THIS HEARING. LET ME ADDRESS INITIALLY THE TOPIC THAT SEEMS TO BE PRIMARY TODAY AND THAT OF DATA PRIVACY. LET ME ASK ALL THREE WITNESSES HOW MUCH MONEY DOES YOUR COMPANY SPEND ANNUALLY ON A CONTENT MODERATION? HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK IN GENERAL IN THE AREA OF CONTENT MODERATION, INCLUDING BY PRIVATE CONTRACT. LET ME START WITH THOSE TWO QUESTIONS. ULTIMATELY, I WANT TO ASK YOU HOW MUCH MONEY DOES YOUR COMPANY SPEND IN DEFENDING LAWSUITS STEMMING FROM USER CONTENT ON THE PLATFORM. >> OKAY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU WANT TO GO FIRST THERE? >> SENATOR, WE HAVE MORE THAN 35,000 PEOPLE WHO WORK ON CONTENT AND SAFETY REVIEW, AND I BELIEVE OUR BUDGET IS MULTIPLE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR ON THIS. I THINK UPWARDS OF 3 OR MAYBE EVEN MORE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IS A GREATER AMOUNT IN REVENUE THAN WE ARE SPENDING THAN THE WHOLE REVENUE OF OUR COMPANY WAS THE YEAR BEFORE WE FILED TO GO PUBLIC IN 2012. >> SENATOR, WE USE BOTH A COMBINATION OF HUMAN REVIEWERS AND A.I. MODERATION SYSTEMS. WE HAVE OVER 10,000 REVIEWERS. WE ARE INVESTING THERE SIGNIFICANTLY. I WOULD AGAIN, I AM NOT SURE OF THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT I WITH SAY ON THE ORDER OF OVER $1 BILLION WE SPEND ON THESE THINGS. >> THANK YOU, MR. DORSEY. >> I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS, BUT WE WANT TO MAINTAIN AGILITY BETWEEN THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE WORKING ON THIS AND ALSO JUST BUILDING BETTER TECHNOLOGY TO AUTOMATE IT. SO OUR GOAL IS FLEXIBILITY HERE. >> LET ME ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN ABOUT HOW MUCH WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT YOUR COMPANY IS CURRENTLY SPENDING ON DEFENDING LAWSUITS RELATED TO USER CONTENT? >> IN THE SAME ORDER, OKAY. >> SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. BUT I CAN GET BACK TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> SENATOR, WE SPEND A LOT ON LEGAL LAWSUITS, BUT NOT SURE WHAT OF IT APPLIES TO CONTENT-RELATED ISSUES, BUT HAPPY TO FOLLOW. >> THANK YOU. >> AND I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. >> LET ME USE YOUR ANSWERS TO HIGHLIGHT SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO BE A TOPIC OF YOUR CONVERSATION AS WE DEBATE THIS LEGISLATION. WHATEVER THE NUMBERS ARE, YOU INDICATE THAT THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT. IT'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY AND ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEE TIME, CONTRACT LABOR TIME IN DEALING WITH MODIFICATION OF CONTENT. THESE EFFORTS ARE EXPENSIVE AND I WOULD HIGHLIGHT FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE ANY LESS EXPENSIVE, PERHAPS LESS IN SCALE, BUT NOT LESS IN COST FOR STARTUPS AND SMALL BUSINESSES. AND AS WE DEVELOP OUR POLICIES IN REGARD TO THIS TOPIC, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ENTREPRENEURSHIPS, STARTUP BUSINESSES AND SMALL BUSINESS ARE CONSIDERED IN WHAT IT WOULD COST IN THEIR EFFORTS TO MEET THE KIND OF STANDARDS THAT -- TO OPERATE IN THIS SPHERE. LET ME QUICKLY TURN TO FEDERAL PRIVACY. I CHAIR THE CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY SECURITY ACT. WE TRIED FOR MONTH TO DEVELOP A BIPARTISAN PIECE OF LEGISLATION. WE WERE CLOSE, BUT UNSUCCESSFUL IN DOING SO. LET ME ASK MR. ZUCKERBERG. FACEBOOK ENTERED INTO A CONSENT ORDER WITH THE FTC IN JULY OF 2012 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT, AND LATER AGREED TO PAY A $5 BILLION PENALTY ALONG WITH A ROBUST SETTLEMENT ORDER IN 2018 FOLLOWING THE CAMBRIA ANALYTICA INCIDENT THAT VIOLATED THE 2012 ORDER. MY LEGISLATION WOULD PROVIDE THE FTC WITH FIRST-TIME CIVIL PENALTY AUTHORITY. DO YOU THIS I THIS ENFORCEMENT TOOL FOR THE FC WOULD BETTER DETER UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES THAN THE CURRENT REGIME? >> I WOULD FNEED TO UNDERSTAND T IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL BEFORE WEIGHING IN ON THIS. BUT I THINK THAT THE SETTLEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE FTC WE ARE GOING TO BE SETTING UP AN INDUSTRY-LEADING PRIVACY PROGRAM. WE HAVE I THINK MORE THAN 1,000 ENGINEERS WORKING ON THE PRIVACY PROGRAM NOW, AND WE ARE BASICALLY IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM WHICH IS SORT OF THE EQUIVALENT OF SARBANES OXLEY'S FINANCIAL REGULATION AROUND KIND OF INTERNAL AUDITING CONTROLS AROUND PRIVACY AND PROTECTING PEOPLE'S DATA AS WELL. I THINK THAT THAT SETTLEMENT WILL BE QUITE EFFECTIVE IN ENSURING THAT PEOPLE'S DATA AND PRIVACY ARE PROTECTED. >> MR. PINCHAI, GOOGLE, YOUTUBE'S $170 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE FTC IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF KOPA INVOLVED PERSISTENT IDENTIFIERS. HAD HOW SHOULD FEDERAL LEGISLATION ADDRESS PERSISTENT IDENTIFIERS FOR CONSUMERS OVER THE AGE OF 13? >> SENATOR, WE TODAY HAVE INVESTED -- WE HAVE DONE TWO THINGS AS A COMPANY. INVESTED IN ONE-OF-A-KIND SPECIAL PRODUCT CALLED YOUTUBE KIDS. OBVIOUSLY ON THE YOUTUBE MAIN PRODUCT TODAY THE INTERNET GETS USED, FAMILIES DO VIEW CONTENT AND PART OF OUR SETTLEMENT WAS ADAPTING SO THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE FOR THOSE USE CASES AS WELL. YOU KNOW, PRIVACY IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AREAS WE INVEST IN AS A COMPANY. WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF ENGINEERS WORKING ON IT. WE BELIEVE IN GIVING USERS CONTROL, CHOICE AND TRANSPARENCY. ANY TIME WE ASSOCIATE DATA WITH USERS WE ARE TRANSPARENT, THEY CAN SEE WHAT DATA IS THERE. WE GIVE THEM DELETE CONTROLS. WE GIVE DATA PORTABILITY OPTIONS AND LAST YEAR WE ANNOUNCED AN IMPORTANT CHANGE FOR ALL NEW USERS. WE DELETE THE DATA AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT THEM NEEDING TO DO ANYTHING. AND WE GO THROUGH PRIVACY CHECKUP. A BILLION PEOPLE HAVE GONE THROUGH PRIVACY CHECKUPS. IT'S AN AREA WHERE WE'RE INVESTING SIGNIFICANTLY. >> THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T SEE MY TIME CLOCK. TIME FOR ONE MORE? >> YOU REALLY DON'T. YOUR TIME JUST EXPIRED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SENATOR MARKEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, VERY MUCH. TODAY TRUMP HIS REPUBLICAN ALLIES AND PROPAGANDA -- ON FOX NEWS. TODAY MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ON THE SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE ARE SIMPLY DOING THE PRESIDENT'S BIDDING. LET'S BE CLEAR. REPUBLICANS CAN AND SHOULD JOIN US IN ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEMS POSED BY BIG TECH. BUT INSTEAD MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE DETERMINED TO FEED A FALSE NARRATIVE ABOUT ANTI-CONSERVATIVE BIAS MEANT TO INTIMIDATE BIG TECH SO IT WILL STAND IDLY BY AND ALLOW INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION AGAIN. HERE IS THE TRUTH. VIOLENCE AND HATE SPEECH ONLINE ARE REAL PROBLEMS. ANTI-BIAS [ INAUDIBLE ] A PROBLEM. OUR ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION ARE REAL PROBLEMS. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE BIAS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE BIG TECH BUSINESS MODEL WHICH PUTS PROFITS AHEAD OF PEOPLE IS A REAL PROBLEM. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE BIAS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT THE COMPANIES BEFORE US TODAY ARE TAKING TOO MANY POSTS DOWN. THE ISSUE IS THAT THEY ARE LEAVING TOO MANY DANGEROUS POSTS UP. IN FACT, THEY ARE AMPLIFYING HARMFUL CONTENT SO THAT IT SPREADS LIKE WILDFIRE AND TORCHES OUR DEMOCRACY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP POSTED ON FACEBOOK THAT WHEN THE LOOTING STARTS, THE SHOOTING STARTS, YOU FAILED TO TAKE DOWN THAT POST. WITHIN A DAY, THE POST HAD HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SHARES AND LIKES ON FACEBOOK. SINCE THEN, THE PRESIDENT HAS GONE ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AND TOLD A HATE GROUP TO, QUOTE, STAND BY, AND HE HAS REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO COMMIT THAT HE WILL ACCEPT THE ELECTION RESULTS. MR. ZUCKERBERG, CAN YOU COMMIT THAT IF THE PRESIDENT GOES ON FACEBOOK AND ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE AFTER ELECTION RESULTS ARE ANNOUNCED, THAT YOU WILL MAKE SURE YOUR COMPANY'S ALGORITHMS DON'T SPREAD THAT CONTENT AND YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THOSE MESSAGES? >> SENATOR, YES. INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE IS AGAINST OUR POLICY, AND THERE ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, INCLUDING FOR POLITICIANS. >> THERE ARE EX SESSIONS, DID YOU SAY? >> THERE ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS. >> THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THERE COULD BE A MESSAGE THAT, MESSAGES THAT ARE SENT THAT COULD THROW OUR DEMOCRACY INTO CHAOS AND A LOT OF IT CAN BE AND WILL BE CREATED IF SOCIAL MEDIA SITES DO NOT POLICE WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IF PRESIDENT TRUMP SHARES RUSSIAN OR IRANIAN DISINFORMATION LYING ABOUT THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION AND YOU COMMIT THAT THAT YOU WILL MAKE SURE YOUR ALGORITHMS DO NOT AMPLIFY THAT CON CONTENT AND YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY TAKE THAT CONTENT DOWN? >> SENATOR, WE HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE THAT PREVENTS ANY CANDIDATE OR CAMPAIGN FROM PREMATURELY DECLARING VICTORY ARE TRYING TO DELEGITIMIZE THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION. IN THAT CASE WE WILL APPEND SOME FACTUAL INFORMATION TO ANY POST THAT IS TRYING TO DO THAT. SO IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY WON THE ELECTION WHEN THE RESULT ISN'T IN, FOR EXAMPLE, WE WILL APPEND A PIECE OF INFORMATION TO THAT SAYING THAT OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTSARE NOT IN YET. THAT WAY ANYONE WHO SEES THAT POST WILL SEE THAT CONTEXT IN LINE. ALSO, IF ONE OF THE CANDIDATES TRIES TO PREMATURELY DECLARE VICTORY OR CITE AN INCORRECT RESULT, WE HAVE A PRECAUTION WE HAVE BUILT IN TO PUT ON THE TOP OF THE FACEBOOK APP FOR EVERYONE WHO SIGNS IN IN THE U.S. INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACCURATE U.S. ELECTION RESULTS. I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN GET ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION. >> IT CANNOT BE STATED AS BEING ANYTHING LESS THAN KCRITICALLY IMPORTANT. DEMOC DEMOCRACY COULD BE SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED BEGINNING NEXT TUESDAY EVENING AND FOR SEVERAL DAYS AFTERWARDS, MAYBE LONGER, AND A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY IS GOING TO BE ON THE SHOULDERS OF FACEBOOK AND OUR OTHER WITNESSES TODAY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IF PRESIDENT TRUMP USES HIS FACEBOOK ACCOUNT TO CALL FOR ARMED PRIVATE CITIZENS TO PATROL THE POLLS ON ELECTION DAY, WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE ILLEGAL VOTER INTIMIDATION IN VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, WILL YOU COMMIT THAT YOUR ALGORITHMS WILL NOT SPREAD THAT CONTENT AND THAT YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY TAKE THAT CONTENT DOWN? >> SENATOR, MY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT CONTENT LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WOULD VIE LIGHT OUR VOTER SUPPRESSION POLICIES AND WOULD COME DOWN. >> OKAY. AGAIN, THE STAKES ARE GOING TO BE VERY HIGH, AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT AS A COMMITMENT THAT YOU WILL DO THAT BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE A SERIOUS QUESTION MARK PLACED OVER OUR ELECTIONS. WE KNOW FACEBOOK CARES ABOUT ONE THING. KEEPING USERS GLUED TO ITS PLATFORM. ONE OF THE WAYS YOU DO THAT IS WITH FACEBOOK GROUPS. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN 2017 YOU ANNOUNCED THE GOAL OF 1 BILLION USERS JOINING FACEBOOK GROUPS. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE FORUM PAGES HAVE BECOME BREEDING GROUNDS FOR HATE, ECHO CHAMBERS OF MISINFORMATION AND VENUES FOR COORDINATION OF VILE. AGAIN, FACEBOOK IS NOT ONLY FAILING TO TAKE THESE PAGES DOWN. IT'S ACTIVELY SPREADING THESE PAGES AND HELPING THESE GROUPS' RECRUITMENT EFFORTS. FACEBOOK'S INTERNAL RESEARCH FOUND 64% OF EXTREMIST GROUPS JOINED ARE DUE TO FACEBOOK'S RECOMMENDATION TOOLS. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WILL YOU COMMIT TO STOPPING ALL GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS ON YOUR PLATFORM UNTIL U.S. ELECTION RESULTS ARE CERTIFIED, YES OR NO? >> SENATOR, WE HAVE TAKEN THE STEP OF STOPPING RECOMMENDATIONS IN GROUPS FOR ALL POLITICAL CONTENT OR SOCIAL GROUPS AS A PRECAUTION FOR THIS. TO CLARIFY ONE THING. THE VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF GROUPS AND COMMUNITIES THAT PEOPLE ARE A PART OF ARE NOT EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS OR EVEN POLITICAL. THEY'RE INTEREST BASED AIN COMMUNITIES THAT I THINK ARE QUITE HELPFUL AND HEALTHY FOR PEOPLE TO BE A PART OF. I DO THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHM DOESN'T ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO JOIN EXTREMIST GROUPS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A NUMBER OF STEPS ON. I AGREE WITH YOU, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS ON THAT. >> YOUR ALGORITHMS ARE PRO MIGHT BE ONLINE SPACES THAT FOSTER POLITICAL VIOLENCE. AT THE VERY LEAST YOU SHOULD DISABLE THOSE ALGORITHMS THAT ARE RECRUITING USERS DURING THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR MARKEY. MR. ZUCKERBERG, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IN THESE SCENARIOS THAT SENATOR MARKEY WAS POSING, THE ACTION OF FACEBOOK WOULD NOT BE A FUNCTION OF ALGORITHMS IN THOSE CASES, WOULD IT? >> SENATOR, I THINK THAT THAT'S A -- THAT YOU'RE RIGHT AND THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. A LOT OF THIS IS MORE ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OF CONTENT POLICIES. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WERE ABOUT ALGORITHMS. I THINK GROUP RANKING IS AN ALGORITHM. BUT BROADLY I THINK A LOT IS CONTENT ENFORCEMENT. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. SENATOR BLACKBURN, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO THANK EACH OF YOU FOR COMING TO US VOLUNTARILY. WE APPRECIATE THAT. THERE ARE UNDOUBTABLY BENEFITS TO USING YOUR PLATFORMS AS YOU HAVE HEARD EVERYONE MENTION TODAY. THERE ARE ALSO SOME CONCERNS, WHICH WE ARE ALSO HEARING. PRIVACY, FREE SPEECH, POLITICS, RELIGION. AND I HAVE KIND OF CHUCKLED AS I HAVE SAT HERE LISTENING TO YOU ALL, THAT BOOK "VALLEY OF THE GODS," IT REMINDS YOU ALL ARE KIND OF IN CONTROL OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HEAR, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SEE, AND, THEREFORE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DICTATE WHAT IS COMING IN. WHAT INFORMATION IS COMING IN TO THEM. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE YOU ARE SET UP AS AN INFORMATION SOURCE, NOT AS A NEWS MEDIA. AND SO, THEREFORE, CENSORING THINGS THAT YOU ALL THINK UNSEEMABLY MAY BE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT UNSEEMLY TO PEOPLE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. BUT LET ME ASK EACH OF YOU VERY QUICKLY, DO ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY CONTENT MODERATORS WHO ARE CONSERVATIVES? MR. DORSEY FIRST, YES OR NO? >> WE DON'T ASK POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. >> YOU DON'T. MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> SENATOR, WE DON'T ASK FOR THEIR IDEOLOGY, BUT JUST TYPICALLY THERE ARE 35,000 OF THEM IN CITIES AND PLACES ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND WORLD. I IMAGINE YES. >> MR. PINCHAI? >> THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES BECAUSE WE HIRE THEM THROUGH THE UNITED STATES. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND LOOKING AT SOME OF YOUR CENSORING, MR. DORSEY, YOU ALL HAVE CENSORED JOE BIDEN ZERO TIMES. YOU HAVE CENSORED DONALD TRUMP 65 TIMES. SO I WANT TO GO BACK TO SENATOR GARDNER'S QUESTION. YOU CLAIMED EARLIER THAT THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL AND THREATS OF JEWISH GENOCIDE BY IRAN'S TERRORIST AYATOLLAH DON'T VIOLATE TWITTER'S SO-CALLED RULES AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR WORLD LEADERS LIKE IRAN'S TERRORIST LEADER TO HAVE A PLATFORM ON TWITTER. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WHO ELECTED THE AYATOLLAH? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> YOU DON'T KNOW? OKAY. I THINK THIS IS CALLED A DICTATORSHIP. SO ARE PEOPLE IN IRAN ALLOWED TO USE TWITTER OR DOES THE COUNTRY WHOSE LEADER YOU CLAIM DESERVES A PLATFORM BAN THEM FROM DOING SO? >> IDEALLY, WE WOULD LOVE FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAN TO USE TWITTER. >> WELL, IRAN BANS TWITTER AND MR. ZUCKERBERG, I KNOW YOU ARE AWARE THEY BAN FACEBOOK ALSO. SO, MR. DORSEY, IS DONALD TRUMP A WORLD LEADER? >> YES. >> OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR WORLD LEADERS TO HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR PLATFORM, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND SO WHY DID YOU DENY THAT PLATFORM VIA CENSOR SHIP TO THE U.S. PRESIDENT? >> WE HAVEN'T CENSORED THE U.S. PRESIDENT. >> OH, YES, YOU HAVE. HOW MANY POSTS FROM IRAN TERRORIST AYATOLLAH HAVE YOU CENSORED? HOW MANY POSTS FROM VLADIMIR PUTIN HAVE YOU CENSORED? >> WE HAVE LABELED TWEETS OF WORLD LEADERS. WE HAVE A POLICY OF NOT TAKING DOWN THE CONTENT, BUT SIMPLY THE CONTEXT AROUND IT. >> OKAY. AND THE U.S. PRESIDENT YOU HAVE CENSORED 65 TIMES. YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT DISINFORMATION AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE. THAT IS SOMETHING WE ALL WORRY ABOUT. OF COURSE, FOR ABOUT 1 #00 YEAR FOREIGN SOURCES HAVE BEEN TRYING TO INFLUENCE U.S. POLICY AND U.S. ELECTIONS. NOW THEY ARE ON TO YOUR PLATFORMS. THEY SEE THIS AS A WAY TO GET ACCESS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SO GIVEN YOUR REFUSAL TO CENSOR OR BAN FOREIGN DICTATORS WHILE REGULARLY CENSORING THE PRESIDENT, AREN'T YOU AT THIS VERY MOMENT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FLOODING THE NATION WITH FOREIGN DISINFORMATION? >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE NOT CENSORED THE PRESIDENT. WE HAVE NOT TAKEN THE TWEETS DOWN THAT YOU ARE REFERENCING. THEY HAVE MORE CONTEXT AND A LABEL APPLIED TO THEM. WE DO THE SAME FOR LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD. >> OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DO YOU SHARE ANY OF YOUR DATA MINING, AND THIS IS TO EACH OF THE THREE OF YOU, DO YOU SHARE ANY OF YOUR DATA MINING WITH THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE? >> I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE QUESTION. BUT WE HAVE A DATA PLATFORM THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS. NOT SURE OF THE CUSTOMER LIST. >> OKAY. AND YOU SAID YOU DON'T KEEP LISTS. I MAKE THAT NOTE. >> KEEP LISTS OF ACCOUNTS THAT WE WATCH. I DON'T KEEP A LIST OF ACCOUNTS THAT WE WATCH. >> ALL RIGHT. OKAY. MR. PINCHAI, IS BLAKE LeMOYNE ONE OF YOUR ENGINEERS STILL WORKING WITH YOU? >> SENATOR, I AM FAMILIAR WITH THIS NAME. I AM NOT SURE IF HE IS CURRENTLY AN EMPLOYEE. >> WELL, HE HAS HAD VERY UNKIND THINGS TO SAY ABOUT ME. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU ALL STILL KEPT HIM WORKING THERE. ALSO, I WANT TO MENTION WITH YOU, MR. PINCHAI, THE WAY YOU ALL HAVE CENSORED SOME THINGS. GOOGLE SEARCH FOR JOE BIDEN GENERATED APPROXIMATELY 30,000 IMPRESSIONS. FOR BREITBART LINKED. THIS WAS ON MAY 1. AND AFTER MAY 5th, BOTH THE IMPRESSIONS AND THE CLICKS WENT TO ZERO. I HOPE THAT WHAT YOU ALL REALIZE FROM THIS HEARING IS THAT THERE IS A PATTERN. YOU MAY NOT BELIEVE IT EXISTS, BUT THERE IS A PATTERN OF SUBJECTIVE MANIPULATION OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE FROM YOUR PLATFORMS. WHAT HAS DRIVEN ADDITIONAL ATTENTION TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT MORE OF A FAMILY'S FUNCTIONAL LIFE IS NOW BEING CONDUCTED ONLINE. BECAUSE OF THIS, MORE PEOPLE ARE REALIZING THAT YOU ARE PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS. YOU'RE TRYING TO, MR. ZUCKERBERG, YEARS AGO YOU SAID FACEBOOK FUNCTIONED MORE LIKE A GOVERNMENT THAN A COMPANY. AND YOU'RE BEGINNING TO INSERT YOURSELF INTO THESE ISSUES OF FREE SPEECH. MR. ZUCKERBERG, WITH MY TIME THAT IS LEFT, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU MENTIONED EARLY IN YOUR REMARKS THAT YOU SAW SOME STHINGS AS COMPETING EQUITIES. IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT A GIVEN RIGHT OR IS THAT A COMPETING EQUITY? >> I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN FREE EXPRESSION. SORRY IF I WAS ON MUTE THERE. BUT I DO THINK THAT, LIKE ALL EQUITIES, IT NEEDS TO -- IT IS BALANCED AGAINST OTHER EQUITIES LIKE SAFETY AND PRIVACY. AND EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, STILL BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME LIMITS ON SPEECH WHEN IT COULD CAUSE IMMINENT RISK OF PHYSICAL HARM, THE KIND OF FAMOUS EXAMPLE USED IS THAT YOU CAN'T SHOUT FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER. SO I THINK THAT GETTING THOSE EQUITIES AND THE BALANCE RIGHT -- >> RIGHT, MY -- >> IS THE CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE. >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. PERHAPS WE CAN -- >> WE BELIEVE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND WE ARE GOING TO -- YES, WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS TO FOLLOW UP. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMANISM CAN'T SEE THE CLOCK. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR UDALL. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, AND SENATOR CANTWELL, REALLY APPRECIATE THIS HEARING. I WANT TO START BY LAYING OUT THREE FACTS. THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS FOUND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IS INTENT ON ELECTION INTERFERENCE IN THE UNITED STATES. THEY DID IT IN 2016. THEY'RE DOING IT IN 2020. THE INTELLIGENCE ALSO SAYS THEY WANT TO HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP. THEY DID SO IN 2016. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T LIKE THIS TO BE SAID, BUT IT'S A FACT. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE RUSSIAN STRATEGY THIS TIME AROUND IS GOING AFTER HUNTER BIDEN. SO I RECOGNIZE THAT THE DETAILS OF HOW TO HANDLE MISINFORMATION ON THE INTERNET ARE TOUGH, BUT I THINK THE COMPANIES LIKE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK THAT TOOK ACTION TO NOT BE A PART OF A SUSPECTED RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE OPERATION WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING. AND LET ME BE CLEAR. NO ONE BELIEVES THESE COMPANIES REPRESENT THE LAW OR REPRESENT THE PUBLIC. WHEN WE SAY WORK THE REFS, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS THE REFEREE. THE FCC, THE CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENCY, AND THE SUPREME COURT ARE THE REFEREES. IT'S VERY DANGEROUS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, JUSTICE THOMAS, AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS AND AT THE FCC TO THREATEN NEW FEDERAL LAWS IN ORDER TO FORCE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO AMPLIFY FALSE CLAIMS TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS. AND MY QUESTION TO ALL THREE OF YOU, DO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND OTHER FOREIGN NATIONS CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT TO USE YOUR COMPANIES' PLATFORMS TO SPREAD MISINFORMATION AND INFLUENCE THE 2020 ELECTION? CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU ARE SEEING? PLEASE START, MR. DORSEY, MR. PINCHAI, AND MR. ZUCKERBERG, YOU CA CAVE GAVE A PARTIAL ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO EXPAND ON THAT ANSWER. >> YES, WE CONTINUE TO SEE INTERFERENCE. WE RECENTLY DISCLOSED ACTIONS WE TOOK ON BOTH RUSSIA AND ACTIONS ORIGINATING OUT OF IRAN. WE HAVE MADE THOSE DISCLOSURES . WE CAN SHARE THOSE WITH YOUR TEAM. THIS REMAINS, AS YOU HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS ON THE PANEL, AND AS MARK HAS DETAILED, ONE OF OUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES AND SOMETHING WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON ELIMINATING AS MUCH PLATFORM MANIPULATION AS POSSIBLE. >> SENATOR, WE DO CONTINUE TO SEE COORDINATED INFLUENCE OPERATION ATTEMPTS. WE HAVE BEEN VERY VIGILANT. WE APPRECIATE THE COOPERATION WE GET FROM INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND AS COMPANIES WE ARE SHARING INFORMATION. TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, AND WE PUBLISH TRANSPARENCY REPORTS, IN JUNE WE IDENTIFIED EFFORTS, ONE FROM IRAN, A GROUP APB 35 TARGETING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, ONE FROM CHINA, APB 31 TARGETING THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN. MOST OF THIS WERE PHISHING ATTEMPTS. OUR SPAM FILTERS REMOVED MOST OF THE EMAILS OUT FROM REACHING USERS. WE NOTIFIED INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF ACTIVITY WE SEE. I THINK IT'S AN AREA WE WOULD NEED STRONG COOPERATION WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES MOVING FORWARD. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG. >> SENATOR, LIKE JACK AND SUNDAR, WE ALSO SEE CONTINUED ATTEMPTS BY RUSSIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY IRAN AND CHINA, TO RUN THESE KIND OF INFORMATION OPERATIONS. WE ALSO SEE AN INCREASE IN KIND OF DOMESTIC OPERATIONS AROUND THE WORLD. FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD PARTNERSHIPS ACROSS THE INDUSTRY, WITH THE COMPANIES HERE TODAY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO SHARE SIGNALS TO IDENTIFY THESE THREATS SOONER, AND ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THREATS THAT THE FBI HAS ALERTED OUR COMPANY AND THE PUBLIC TO WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF A HACK AND LEAK OPERATION IN THE DAYS OR WEEKS LEADING UP TO THIS ELECTION. SO YOU HAVE BOTH THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM THE FBI AND IN PRIVATE MEETINGS ALERTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO AT LEAST OUR COMPANY, I ASSUME THE OTHERS AS WELL, THAT SUGGESTED THAT WE BE ON HIGH ALERT AND SENSITIVITY, THAT IF A TROVE OF DOCUMENTS APPEARED, THAT WE SHOULD VIEW THAT WITH SUSPICION, THAT IT MIGHT BE A PART OF A FOREIGN MANIPULATION ATTEMPT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING. I AM HAPPY TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL AS WELL IF THAT'S HELPFUL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THIS ONE IS A REALLY SIMPLE QUESTION. I THINK A YES OR NO. WILL YOU CONTINUE TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THIS KIND OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE EVEN IF POWERFUL REPUBLICANS THREATEN TO TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION AGAINST YOUR COMPANIES? MR. ZUCKERBERG, WHY DON'T WE START WITH YOU AND WORK THE OTHER WAY BACK. >> SENATOR, ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR DEMOCRACY AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS WORK. >> SENATOR, ABSOLUTELY. PROTECTING OUR CIVIC AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES IS FUNDAMENTAL TO WHAT WE DO. WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. >> YES, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK AND PUSH BACK ON ANY MANIPULATION OF THE PLATFORM. >> THANK YOU FOR THOSE ANSWERS. MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PREVENT DISINFORMATION AND MALICIOUS ACTORS SPREADING CONSPIRACY THEORIES, DANGEROUS HEALTH DISINFORMATION AND HATE SPEECH EVEN IF PREVENTING ITS SPREAD MEANS LESS TRAFFIC AND POTENTIALLY LESS ADVERTISING REVENUE FOR FACEBOOK? >> SENATOR, IN GENERAL, YES. I THINK THAT FOR FOREIGN COUNTRIES TRYING INTERFERE IN DEMOCRACY, I THINK THAT THAT IS A RELATIVELY CLEAR CUT QUESTION WHERE I WOULD HOPE THAT NO ONE DISAGREES THAT WE DON'T WANT FOREIGN COUNTRIES OR GOVERNMENTS TRYING TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, WHETHER THROUGH DISINFORMATION OR FAKE ACCOUNTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AROUND HEALTH MISINFORMATION, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC. IT'S A HEALTH EMERGENCY. I CERTAINLY THINK THAT THIS IS A HIGH SENSITIVITY TIME. SO WE'RE TREATING WITH EXTRA SENSITIVITY ANY MISINFORMATION THAT COULD LEAD TO HARM AROUND COVID THAT WOULD LEAD PEOPLE TO NOT GET THE RIGHT TREATMENTS OR NOT TAKE THE RIGHT SECURITY PRECAUTIONS. WE DO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HARMFUL MISINFORMATION AND INFORMATION THAT'S JUST WRONG, AND WE TAKE A HARDER LINE AND MORE EN -- ENFORCEMENT AGAINST HARMFUL INFORMATION. >> SENATOR CAPITO. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. I WOULD SAY THAT ANY TIME THAT WE CAN GET THE THREE OF YOU IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHETHER IT'S SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE APELECTION OR SEVERAL DAYS AFTER, IS EXTREMELY USEFUL, AND CAN BE VERY PRODUCTIVE. SO I APPRECIATE THE THREE OF YOU COMING AND THE COMMITTEE HOLDING THIS HEARING. AS WE'VE HEARD, AMERICANS TURN EVERY DAY TO YOUR PLATFORMS FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A THOUGHT OUT TO MR. ZUCKERBERG BECAUSE THE LAST TIME HE WAS IN FRONT OF OUR COMMITTEE I ASKED HIM TO SHARE THE PLENTY OF FACEBOOK INTO RURAL AMERICA AND HELP US WITH OUR FIBER DEPLOYMENTS INTO RURAL AMERICA. WHEN WE SEE IN THIS COVID ENVIRONMENT, WE SEE HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS, AND HE FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK HIM AND HIS COMPANY FOR HELPING PARTNER WITH US IN WEST VIRGINIA TO GET MORE PEOPLE CONNECTED. AND I THINK THAT IS AN ESSENTIAL -- YI WOULD MAKE A SUGGESTION WHEN WE GET TO THE END WHEN WE TALK ABOUT -- WHAT I THINK WE CAN DO WITH THE MILLIONS AND BILLION DOLLAR FINES THAT SOME OF YOUR COMPANIES HAVE BEEN PENALIZED ON, WE COULD MAKE A GREAT JUMP AND GET TO THAT LAST HOUSEHOLD. BUT THE TOPIC TODAY IS ON OBJECTION AL CONTENT AND HOW YOU MAKE THOSE JUDGMENTS. QUICKLY EACH ONE OF YOU, I KNOW THAT IN SECTION 230 IT SAYS THAT IT'S THE TERM IS OBJECTION AL CONTENT OR OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE. WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF REDEFINING THAT MORE SPECIFICALLY? THAT'S AWFUL BROAD AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO ANSWER. WE'LL START WITH MR. DORSEY ON HOW DO YOU DEFINE OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE AND OBJECTION TOABLE AND HOW CAN WE IMPROVES THAT DEFINITION SO IT'S EASIER TO FOLLOW? >> OUR INTERPRETATION OF OBJECTIONABLE IS ANYTHING THAT IS LIMITING POTENTIALLY THE SPEECH OF OTHERS. OUR POLIICES ARE FOCUSED ON MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE FEEL SAFE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES AND WHEN WE SEE ABUSE, HARASSMENT, MISLEADING INFORMATION, THESE ARE ALL THREATS AGAINST THAT AND IT MAKES PEOPLE WANT TO LEAVE THE INTERNET. IT MAKES PEOPLE WANT TO LEAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS ONLINE. SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT, IS MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE FEEL SAFE ENOUGH AND FREE ENOUGH TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN WHATEVER WAY THEY BRITISH. >> SO THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT. MUCH HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT THE BLOCKING OF THE "NEW YORK POST." DO YOU HAVE AN INSTANCE, A FOR INSTANCE OF WHEN YOU ACTUALLY BLOCKED SOMEBODY THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED POLITICALLY LIBERAL ON THE OTHER SIDE IN THE POLITICAL REALM IN THIS COUNTRY? DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT SORT OF OFFSET WHERE THE "NEW YORK POST" CRITICISM HAS COME FROM? >> WELL, WE DON'T HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE IDEOLOGY OF ANY ONE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT. AND THAT IS ALSO NOT HOW OUR POLICIES ARE WRITTEN OR ENFORCEMENT TAKEN. I AM SURE THERE AR A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES. BUT THAT IS NOT OUR FOCUS. WE ARE LOOKING PURELY AT THE VIOLATIONS OF OUR POLICIES, TAKING ACTION AGAINST THAT. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE, HOW WOO REFINE THE DEFINITION OF THAT TO MAKE IT MORE OBJECTIVE THAN SUBJECTIVE? >> SENATOR, THANK YOU. WHEN I LOOK AT THE WRITTEN LANGUAGE IN SECTION 230 AND THE CONTENT THAT WE THINK SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED ON OUR SERVICES, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE BUCKET IN OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE CON CONTENT INCLUDE GENERAL BULLYING AND HARASSMENT OF PEOPLE ON THE PLATFORM. SO SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO WHAT JACK WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT A MINUTE AGO. AND I WOULD WORRISOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT SUGGEST GETTING RID OF THE PHRASE OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE FROM SECTION 230 WOULD LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO REMOVE BULLYING AND HARASSING CONTENT FROM OUR PLATFORMS, WHICH I THINK WOULD MAKE THEM WORSE PLACES FOR PEOPLE. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN HOW WE THINK THROUGH THAT. >> THANK YOU. MR. PINCHAI? >> SENATOR, MAYBE I WOULD ADD THAT THE CONTENT IS SO DYNAMIC. IT GETS 500 HOURS PER MINUTE VIDEO ZWUPLOADED EVERY DAY. TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, A FEW YEARS AGO THERE WAS AN ISSUE AROUND TEENAGERS CONSUMING TIDE PODS. IT WAS CAUSING REAL HARM. AND WHEN WE RUN INTO THOSE SITUATIONS, WE ARE ABLE TO ACT WITH CERTAINTY AND PROTECT OUR USERS. THE CHRISTCHURCH SHOOTING WHERE THERE WAS A LIVE SHOOTER, YOU KNOW, LIVE-STREAMING HORRIFIC IMAGES, IT WAS A LEARNING MOMENT FOR ALL OUR PLATFORMS. WE WERE ABLE TO INTERVENE, SFWEN WITH CERTAINTY, AND SO THAT'S WHAT OTHERWISE OBJECTIONABLE ALLOWS. AND I THINK THAT FLEXIBILITY IS WHAT ALLOWS US TO FOCUS. WE STATE WITH CLEAR POLICIES WHAT WE ARE DOING, BUT I THINK IT GIVES PLATFORMS OF ALL SIZES FLEXIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR USERS. >> THANK YOU. I THINK I'M HEARING FROM ALL THREE OF YOU REALLY THAT THE DEFINITION IS FAIRLY ACCEPTABLE TO ALL. IN MY VIEW SOMETIMES YI THINK I CAN GO TOO MUCH TO THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER -- THE BEHOLDER BEING EITHER YOU ALL OR YOUR REVIEWERS OR A.I. AND THEN IT GETS INTO A REGION WHERE MAYBE IT BECOMES SO VERY SUBJECTIVE. I WANT TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC. IN MY PERSONAL CONSIDERAVERSATI WITH TWO OF YOU, YOU EXPRESSED THE NEED TO HAVE THE 230 PROTECTIONS BECAUSE OF THE PROTECTIONS TO THE SMALL INNOVATORS. YOU SIT IN FRONT OF US AND I THINK ALL OF US ARE WONDERING WHO -- HOW MANY SMALL INNOVATORS AND WHAT KIND OF MARKET SHARE COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE WHEN WE SEE THE DOMINANCE OF THE THREE OF YOU. SO HOW -- I UNDERSTAND YOU STARTED AS SMALL INNOVATORS. I GET THAT. HOW CAN A SMALL INNOVATOR REALLY BREAK THROUGH AND WHAT DOES 230 REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH THE ABILITY OF A -- I'M SKEPTICAL ON THE ARGUMENT, QUITE FRANKLY. WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER THAT, MR. ZUCKERBERG, DO YOU WANT TO START? >> SURE, SENATOR. I DO THINK THAT WHEN WE WERE GETTING STARTED WITH BUILDING FACEBOOK, IF WE WERE SUBJECT TO A LARGER NUMBER OF CONTENT LAWSUITS BECAUSE 230 DIDN'T EXIST, THAT WOULD HAVE LIKELY MADE IT PROHIBITIVE FOR ME AS A COLLEGE STUDENT IN A DORM ROOM TO GET STARTED WITH THIS ENTERPRISE. AND I THINK THAT IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO MODIFY 230 AT THIS POINT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S STILL WORKING AS INTENDED. BUT I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT FOR SMALLER COMPANIES THAT ARE GETTING STARTED, THE COST OF HAVING TO COMPLY WITH ANY REGULATION IS EITHER WAIVED UNTIL A CERTAIN SCALE OR IS AT A MINIMUM TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS A SERIOUS FACTOR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT PREVENTING THE NEXT SET OF IDEAS FROM GETTING BUILT. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. >> THANK YOU. >> SENATOR BALDWIN. >> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY MAKING TWO POINTS. I BELIEVE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE CALLED THIS HEARING IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A FALSE NARRATIVE, FABRICATED BY THE PRESIDENT, TO HELP HIS RE-ELECTION PROSPECTS. NUMBER TWO, I BELIEVE THAT THE TECH COMPANIES HERE TODAY NEED TO TAKE MORE ACTION, NOT LESS, TO COMBAT MISINFORMATION, INCLUDING MISINFORMATION ON THE ELECTION, MISINFORMATION ON THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, AND MISINFORMATION AND POSTS MEANT TO INCITE VIOLENCE. AND THAT SHOULD INCLUDE MISINFORMATION SPREAD BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THEIR PLATFORMS. SO, I WANT TO START WITH ASKING THE COMMITTEE CLERK TO BRING UP MY FIRST SLIDE. MR. DORSEY, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT TWITTER HAS DONE TO FLAG OR EVEN TAKE DOWN FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT COVID-19 SUCH AS THIS OCTOBER 11th TWEET BY THE PRESIDENT CLAIMING HE HAS IMMUNITY FROM THE VIRUS AFTER RETRACTING IT AND RECOVERING, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY TELLS US. JUST YESTERDAY MORNING THE PRESIDENT TWEETED THIS. THAT THE MEDIA IS INCORRECT PLAY FOCUSED ON THE PANDEMIC AND THAT OUR NATION IS, QUOTE, ROUNDING THE TURN ON COVID-19. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, IN THE PAST WEEK THE SEVEN-DAY NATIONAL AVERAGE OF NEW CASES REACHED ITS HIGHEST LEVEL EVER. IN MY HOME STATE OF WISCONSIN CASE COUNTS CONTINUE TO REACH RECORD LEVELS. YESTERDAY, WISCONSIN SET A NEW RECORD WITH 64 DEATHS AND 5,462 NEW CONFIRMED CASES OF COVID-19. THAT IS NOT ROUNDING THE TURN. BUT IT'S ALSO NOT A TWEET THAT WAS FLAGGED OR TAKEN DOWN. MR. DORSEY, GIVEN THE VOLUME OF MISLEADING POSTS ABOUT COVID-19 OUT THERE, DO YOU PRIORITIZE REMOVAL BASED ON SOMETHING LIKE THE REACH OR AUDIENCE OF A PARTICULAR USER OF TWITTER? >> I COULD BE MISTAKEN, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE TWEET THAT YOU SHOWED ACTUALLY DID HAVE A LABEL POINTING TO -- BOTH OF THEM, POINTING TO OUR COVID RESOURCE HUB IN OUR INTERFACE. SO, WE, IN REGARDS TO MISLEADING INFORMATION, WE HAVE POLIICES AGAINST MANIPULATING THE MEDIA IN SUPPORT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND IN COVID INFORMATION. AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND CIVIC INTEGRITY. WE TAKE ACTION ON IT. IN SOME CASES IT'S LABELING. IN SOME CASES IT'S REMOVAL. >> WHAT ADDITIONAL STEPS ARE YOU PLANNING TO TAKE TO ADDRESS DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING TWEETS LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S ROUNDING THE TURN TWEET? >> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GIVING PEOPLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. AND THAT ULTIMATELY WE'RE CONNECTING THE DOTS. WHEN THEY SEE INFORMATION LIKE THAT, THAT THEY HAVE AN EASY WAY TO GET, YOU KNOW, AN OFFICIAL RESOURCE OR MANY MORE VIEWPOINTS ON WHAT THEY ARE SEEING. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO REFINE OUR POLICY, WE'LL CONTINUE TO REFINE OUR ENFORCEMENT AROUND MISLEADING INFORMATION AND WE ARE LOOKING DEEPLY AT HOW WE CAN EVOLVE OUR PRODUCT TO DO THE SAME. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE ONGOING ISSUE OF RIGHT-WING MILITIAS USING THE FACEBOOK AS A PLATFORM TO ORGANIZE AND PROMOTE VILE. COULD THE COMMITTEE CLERK PLEASE BRING UP MY SECOND SLIDE? ON AUGUST 25th, A SELF-DESCRIBED MILITIA GROUP CALLED KENOSHA GUARD CREATED A FACEBOOK EVENT PAGE ENTITLED ARMED CITIZENS TO PROTECT OUR LIVES AND PROPERTY, ENCOURAGING ARMED INDIVIDUALS TO GO TO KENOSHA AND, QUOTE, DEFEND THE CITY DURING A PERIOD OF CIVIL UNREST FOLLOWING THE POLICE SHOOTING OF JACOB BLAKE. THAT EVENING A 17-YEAR-OLD FROM ILLINOIS DID JUST THAT AND ENDED UP KILLING TWO PROTESTERS AND SERIOUSLY INJURING A THIRD. COMMENTERS IN THIS GROUP WROTE THAT THEY WANTED TO KILL LOOTERS AND RIOTERS AND SWITCH TO REAL BULLETS AND PUT A STOP TO THESE RIOTING IMPETUOUS CHILDREN. WHILE FACEBOOK HAS ALREADY HAD A POLICY IN PLACE BANNING MILITIA GROUPS, THIS PAGE REMAINED IN PLACE. ACCORDING TO PRESS REPORTS, FACEBOOK RECEIVED MORE THAN 450 COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS PAGE, ABOUT YOU YOUR CONTENT MODERATORS DID NOT REMOVE IT. SOMETHING YOU SUBSEQUENTLY CALLED AN OPERATIONAL MISTAKE. RECENTLY, AS YOU HEARD EARLIER IN QUESTIONS, THE ALLEGED PLOT TO KIDNAP MICHIGAN GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INTIMIDATION OR EVEN VIOLENCE AT VOTING LOCATIONS SHOW THAT THE PROLIFERATION OF THE THREAT OF VILE ON FACEBOOK REMAINS A VERY REAL AND URGENT PROBLEM. MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN LIGHT OF THE OPERATIONAL MISTAKE AROUND KENOSHA, WHAT STEPS HAS FACEBOOK TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT YOUR PLATFORM IS NOT BEING USED TO PROMOTE MORE OF THIS TYPE OF VILE? >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. WE HAVE STRENGTHENED OUR POLICIES TO PROHIBIT ANY MILITARIZED SOCIAL MOVEMENT. ANY KIND OF MILITIA LIKE THIS, WE HAVE ALSO BANNED CONSPIRACY NETWORKS. SO QANON BEING THE LARGEST EXAMPLE OF THAT. THAT IS COMPLETELY PROHIBITED ON FACEBOOK AT THIS POINT WHICH, YOU KNOW, IN THIS PERIOD WHERE I'M PERSONALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF INCREASED CIVIL UNREST, MAKING SURE THAT THOSE GROUPS CAN'T ORGANIZATE ON FACEBOOK. IT MAY CUT OFF SOME LEGITIMATE USES, BUT I THINK IT WILL ALSO PRO CLUED GREATER POTENTIAL FOR ORGANIZING ANY HARM. BY MAKING THE POLICY SIMPLER, WE WILL ALSO MAKE IT SO THERE ARE FEWER MISTAKES IN CONTENT MODERATION. SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A MUCH STRONGER PLACE ON THE POLICIES ON THIS AT THIS POINT. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR BALDWIN. SENATOR LEE. I WANT TO READ A FEW QUOTES FROM EACH OF YOU. >> EACH OF THE THREE WITNESSES AND FROM YOUR COMPANIES, AND THEN I MAY ASK FOR A RESPONSE. SO, MR. ZUCKERBERG, THIS ONE IS FROM YOU. YOU SAID, QUOTE, WE BUILT FACEBOOK TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. OUR COMMUNITY'S SUCCESS DEPENDS ON EVERYONE FEELING COMFORTABLE SHARING WHAT THEY WANT. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR OUR MISSION OR FOR OUR BUSINESS TO SUPPRESS POLITICAL CONTENT OR PREVENT ANYONE FROM SEEING WHAT MATTERS MOST TO THEM. YOU SAID THAT, I BELIEVE, MAY 18, 2016. MR. DORSEY, ON SEPTEMBER 5th, 2018, YOU SAID LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT ONE IMPORTANT AND FOUNDATIONAL FACT. TWITTER DOES NOT USE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS. MR. PINCHAI, ON OCTOBER 28th, 2020, YOU SAID LET ME BE CLEAR, WE APPROACH OUR WORK WITHOUT POLITICAL BIAS, FULL STOP. NOW, THESE QUOTES MAKE ME THINK THAT THERE IS A GOOD CASE TO BE MADE THAT YOU'RE ENGAGING IN UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. I SEE THESE QUOTES WHY EAERE EAF YOU TELL CONSUMERS AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS PRACTICES, BUT THEN YOU SEEM TO DO THE OPPOSITE AND TAKE CENSORSHIP-RELATED ACTIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, AGAINST MEMBERS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION, AGAINST THE "NEW YORK POST," THE BABYLON FEED FD LIST, PRO-LIFE GRUPS AND COUNTLESS OTHER EXAMPLES. IN FACT, I THINK THE TREND IS CLEAR, THAT YOU ALMOST ALWAYS CENSOR, MEANING -- WHEN YOU USE THE WORD CENSOR, I'M MEANING BLOCK CONTENT, FACT CHECK, OR LABEL CONTENT OR DEMONTIZE WEBSITES OF CONSERVATIVE, REPUBLICAN, OR PRO-LIFE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS OR COMPANIES CONTRADICTING YOUR COMMERCIAL PROMISES. BUT I DON'T SEE THE SUPPRESSION OF HIGH-PROFILE LIBERAL COMMENTATORS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE YOU EVER KRENSERED A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR? HOW ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA? HOW ABOUT A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE? HOW ABOUT PLANNED PLANNED PARENTHOOD? OR NERALOR EMILY'S LIST? MR. ZUCKERBERG, MR. DORSEY, AND MR. PINCHAI, CAN ANY OF YOU, AND LET'S GO IN THAT ORDER, ZUCKERBERG, DORSEY, AND THEN PINCHAI, CAN YOU NAME FOR ME ONE HIGH-PROFILE PERSON OR ENTITY FROM A LIBERAL IDEOLOGY YOU HAVE KRENSERED AND WHAT PARTICULAR ACTION YOU TOOK IN. >> SENATOR, THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES THAT YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES OBJECT TO WHEN, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING IS LABELED AS FALSE THEY DISAGREE WITH OR -- >> YEAH, I GET THAT. I GET THAT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR. I AM ASKING IF YOU CAN NAME FOR ME ONE HIGH-PROFILE LIBERAL PERSON OR SOMPERSON YOU HAVE CENSORED. I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SAYING THERE ARE COMPLAINTS ON BOTH SIDES. I JUST WANT ONE NAME OF ONE PERSON OR ONE ENTITY. >> SENATOR, I NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT AND GET YOU MORE OF A LIST. BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY MANY ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WHERE PEOPLE THINK WE ARE MAKING CONTENT MODERATION DECISIONS THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH. >> I GOT THAT. I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS CALL COULD AGREE THAT THEY COULD IDENTIFY AT LEAST FIVE, MAYBE TEN, MAYBE MORE CONSERVATIVE EXAMPLES. WHAT ABOUT YOU, MR. DORSEY? >> WE CAN GIVE A MORE EXHAUSTIVE LIST. BUT, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF POLITICAL -- >> YEAH, BUT I'M NOT ASKING FOR AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. I AM ASKING FOR ONE, ONE INDIVIDUAL, ONE ENTITY. ANYONE? >> WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON TWEETS FROM MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE FOR ELECTION MISS INFO. >> CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY EXAMPLE? >> YES, TWO DEMOCRATIC -- TWO DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PEOPLE ON -- >> WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES? >> I WILL GET THOSE NAMES TO YOU. >> GREAT. GREAT. MR. PINCHAI, HOW ABOUT YOU? >> SENATOR, I'LL GIVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, BUT LET ME STEP BACK. WE DON'T CENTER. SENSOR. WE HAVE NMODERATION POLICIES -- >> I GET THAT, I USED WORD CENSOR AS A TERM OF ART AND I DEFINED THAT TERM. I AM NOT GOING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LIST. I WANT A NAME. ANY NAME. >> YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PRIORITIES, USA FROM VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S CAMPAIGN. COMPLIANCE ISSUES WITH WORLD SOCIALIST, A LEFT-LEANING PUBLICATION. WE CAN GIVE YOU SEVERAL EXAMPLES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A GRAPHIC CONTENT POLICY. WE DON'T ALLOW FOR ADS WHICH SHOW VIOLENT GRAPHIC CONTENT IN THOSE ADS. WE HAVE TAKEN DOWN ADS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CAMPAIGN AND I GAVE YOU A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. >> OKAY. AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO MR. ZUCKERBERG AND MR. DORSEY, AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT WITH RESPECT TO MR. PINCHAI THOSE ARE NOT NEARLY AS HIGH-PROFILE. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN IDENTIFY ANYONE PICKED AT RANDOM FROM THE PUBLIC EVEN PICKED AT RANDOM FROM THE PUBLIC AS FAR AS MEMBERS OF THE POLITICAL ACTIVE COMMUNITY IN EITHER POLITICAL PARTY WHO COULD IDENTIFY THOSE OFF THE TOP OF THE BAT. LOOK, THERE IS A DISPARITY BETWEEN THE CENSORSHIP AND, AGAIN I AM USING THAT AS A TERM OF ART AS I DEFINED IT A MOMENT AGO. BETWEEN THE CENSORSHIP BETWEEN CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL POINTS OF VIEW. ENORMOUS DISPARITY. NOW, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, YOU HAVE EVERY TO SET YOUR OWN TERMS OF SERVICE AND INTERPRET THEM AND MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT VIOLATIONS BUT GIVEN THE DISPARATE IMPACT ON YOUR PLATFORMS, IT SEEMS ONE, YOU'RE NOT HAVING YOUR TERMS OF SERVICE EQUALLY OR TWO, IN ANY EVENTIVELY, YOU'RE WRITING YOUR STANDARDS TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS. YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPERATE YOUR OWN PLATFORM BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT YOUR ACTIONS. AT LEAST IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU CAN'T PROMISE CERTAIN CORPORATE BEHAVIOR. AND THEN DECEIVE CUSTOMERS THROUGH CONTRADICTORY ACTIONS THAT JUST BLATANTLY CONTRADICT WHAT YOU'VE STATED AS YOUR CORPORATE BUSINESS MODEL OR AS YOUR POLICY. MR. ZUCKERBERG AND MR. DORSEY, IF FACEBOOK IS STILL A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS AND IF TWITTER, QUOTE, DOES NOT USE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY TO MAKE DECISIONS, THEN DO YOU STATE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU ALWAYS APPLY YOUR TERMS OF SERVICE EQUALLY, TO ALL OF YOUR USERS? >> SENATOR, OUR PRINCIPLE IS TO STAND FOR FREE EXPRESSION AND TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS. I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY INTENTIONAL EXAMPLES WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE OUR POLICIES IN A WAY THAT IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN FAIR AND CONSISTENT. BUT IT'S ALSO A BIG COMPANY. SO I GET THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY MISTAKES THAT ARE MADE FROM TIME TO TIME. BUT OUR NORTH STAR AND WHAT WE INTEND TO DO IS TO BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS AND TO GIVE EVERYONE A VOICE. >> OKAY. AND I APPRECIATE THAT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT INTENTIONAL EXAMPLE, BIG COMPANY, BUT AGAIN, THERE IS A DISPARATE IMPACT, THERE IS A DISPARATE IMPACT ON THE STAPLE AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT NEITHER YOU NOR JACK COULD IDENTIFY A SINGLE EXAMPLE. MR. DORSEY, HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? >> BRIEF ANSWER, PLEASE, MR. DORSEY? >> YES, WE OFFER OUR ENFORCEMENT AND OUR POLICY WITHOUT AN UNDERSTANDING OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. ANY TIME WE FIND EXAMPLES OF BIAS, IN HOW PEOPLE OPERATE OUR SYSTEMS, OR OUR ALGORITHMS, WE REMOVE IT. AND AS MARK MENTIONED, THERE ARE CHECKPOINTS IN THESE COMPANIES AND IN THESE FRAMEWORKS AND WE DO NEED MORE TRANSPARENCY AROUND THEM AND HOW THEY WORK, AND WE DO NEED MUCH MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND QUICK AND EFFICIENT APPEALS PROCESS TO GIVE US A FURTHER CHECKPOINT FROM THE PUBLIC. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR LEE. SENATOR DUCKWORTH? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU KNOW, I HAVE GIVEN MY LIFE TO PUBLIC SERVICE, TO UPHOLDING A SACRED OATH, TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND I'LL BE HONEST, IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL AND IT ALSO BREAKS MY HEART A LITTLE, AS I WATCH MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES JUST DAYS BEFORE AN ELECTION, SINK DOWN TO THE LEFT OF DONALD TRUMP. BY PLACING THE SELFISH INTERESTS OF DONALD TRUMP AHEAD OF THE HEALTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY, SENATE REPUBLICANS, WHETHER THEY REALIZE IT OR NOT, ARE WEAKENING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND PROVIDING AID TO OUR ADVERSARIES. AS MY LATE FRIEND CONGRESSMAN CUMMINGS OFTEN REMINDED US, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BETTER THAN THIS. LOOK, OUR DEMOCRACY IS UNDER ATTACK RIGHT NOW. EVERY AMERICAN, EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, SHOULD BE COMMITTED TO DEFENDING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS FROM HOSTILE FOREIG AGGRESSORS. DESPITE ALL OF THE RECENT TALK OF GREAT POWER COMPETITION OUR ADVERSARIES KNOW THEY STILL CANNOT DEFEAT US ON A CONVENTIONAL BATTLEFIELD YET WEAN MILE THE UNITED STATES MILITARY AND DEDICATED CIVIL SERVANTS ARE WORK AROUND THE CLOCK IN THE CYBER DOMAIN TO COUNTER HOSTILE ACTORS SUCH AS RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT WARN RUSSIA OR CRITICIZE RUSSIA. AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE CIVIL SERVANTS. THEIR EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE EXPLAINS WHY OUR FOREIGN ADVERSARIES HAVE SOUGHT ALTERNATIVE AVENUES OF ATTACKING OUR NATION. AFRAID TO FACE NUS CONVENTIONAL MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC WAYS, THEY LOOK FOR UNCONVENTIONAL MEANS TO WEAKEN OUR DEMOCRACY, AND THEY REALIZE THAT SOCIAL MEDIA COULD BE THE EXHAUST POINT OF OUR DEMOCRACY. SOCIAL MEDIA IS SO PERVASIVE IN THE DAILY LIVES OF AMERICANS AND TRADITIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS, THAT THEY CAN BE WEAPONIZED TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE, AND DESTABILIZE OUR INSTITUTIONS. YOU KNOW, AFTER RUSSIA WAS INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL IN DISRUPTING OUR DEMOCRACY FOUR YEARS AGO, ALL OF OUR ADVERSARIES LEARNED A CHILLING LESSON. SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO PUT PATRIOTISM ABOVE PROFIT. FACEBOOK AND TWITTER UTTERLY FAILED TO HINDER RUSSIA'S SWEEPING PART OF THE ELECTION WHICH USED PLATFORMS TO SPREAD DISINFORMATION AND TURN AMERICANS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. OF COURSE THE SITUATION HAS GRWN FAR WORSE TODAY AS EVIDENCED BY TODAY'S PARTISAN SHAM HEARING. WHILE CORPORATIONS MAY PLEAD IGNORANCE, PRIOR TO THE 2016 ELECTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS REPUBLICAN ENABLERS IN THE SENATE HAVE NO SUCH EXCUSE. SENATE REPUBLICANS CUT A DEAL TO BECOME THE PARTY OF TRUMP. AND NOW, THEY FIND THEMSELVES PLAYING A VERY DANGEROUS GAME. BY ENCOURAGING RUSSIA'S ILLEGAL HACKING, BY SERVING AS THE SPREADERS AND PROMOTERS OF DISINFORMATION COOKED UP BY FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES AND FALSELY CLAIMING CENSORSHIP WHEN RESPONSIBLE ACTORS ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE HOSTILE FOREIGN ADVERSARIES FROM INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTIONS, SENATE REPUBLICANS INSULT THE EFFORTS OF TRUE PATRIOTS WORKING TO COUNTER MALIGNED INTERFERENCE AND WEAKEN OUR SECURITY. THIS COMMITTEE IS PLAYING POLITICS AT A TIME WHEN RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICIALS SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING TO PRESERVE CONFIDENCE IN OUR SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. THE RECKLESS ACTIONS OF DONALD TRUMP AND SENATE REPUBLICANS DO NOT LET TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES OFF THE HOOK. LET THE COMPANIES TESTIFY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE, AND THE BASE OF THREATS ACROSS DEMOCRACY. SMALL D DEMOCRACY. FEDERAL LAW PROVIDES YOU RESPECTIVE COMPANIES, FEDERAL LAWS PROVIDES YOUR RESPECTIVE COMPANIES WITH THE AUTHORITY TO COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE PROPAGANDA, AND I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, GENTLEMEN, THAT I FULLY EXPECT EACH OF YOU TO DO SO. EACH OF YOU WILL BE ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT, SENATE REPUBLICANS, AND RIGHT WING MEDIA, FOR COUNTERING HOSTILE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO, YOU HAVE A DUTY TO DOT RIGHT THING. BECAUSE FACTS STILL EXIST. FACTS STILL MATTER. FACTS SAVE LIVES. AND THERE'S NO SIDE WHEN ONE SIDE REFUSES TO REJECT TRUTH AND INJECTS POISONOUS FALSE INFORMATION. SO IN CLOSING I WOULD LIKE EACH WITNESS TO PROVIDE A PERSONAL COMMITMENT THAT YOUR RESPECTIVE COMPANIES WILL COUNTER THE DANGEROUS INFORMATION THAT SUGGESTS MASKS DON'T WORK AND AGGRESSIVELY REMOVING THIS INFORMATION THAT IS PART OF FOREIGN ADVERSARIES EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION, OR UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY. DO I HAVE THAT COMMITMENT FROM EACH OF YOUR GENTLEMEN? >> WE'LL TAKE DORSEY, PICHAI AND THEN ZUCKERBERG. MR. DORSEY. >> WE DO. >> MR. PICHAI? >> SNO, ABSOLUTELY, YES. >> AND MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> YES, SENATOR, I AGREE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR INDUSTRY SUCCESS OR FAILURE IN ACHIEVING THIS GOAL WILL HAVE FAR-REACHING LIFE OR DEATH CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND THE FUTURE OF OUR DEMOCRACY. THANK YOU. AND I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> SENATOR YIELDS BACK. SENATOR JOHNSON? I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE QUESTION FOR ALL THREE OF THE WITNESSES, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE PUBLIC REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE DIFFERENT CHAT FORUMS IN COMPANIES AND ALSO COMPANY REPORTS WHERE THE FEW CONSERVATIVES THAT MIGHT WORK FOR YOUR COMPANIES HAS CERTAINLY BEEN HARASSED ON THOSE TYPES OF FORUMS. I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO HAVE TAKEN POLL OF YOUR EMPLOYEES BUT I JUST WANT TO GET KIND OF A SENSE, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS, BUT WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF THE MAJORITY OF YOUR COMPANY IS, LET'S SAY 50/50, CONSERVATIVE VERSUS LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE OR DO YOU THINK IT IS CLOSER TO 950% LIBERAL, 10% CONSERVATIVE? WE'LL START WITH MR. DORSEY. >> AS YOU MENTIONED, I DON'T KNOW THE MAKEUP OF OUR EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ASK OUR FOCUS ON. >> AND JUST WHAT DO YOU THINK OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, BASED ON YOUR CHAT ROOMS AND KIND OF PEOPLE YOU TALK TO? >> NOT SOMETHING I LOOK FOR. >> GREAT. OKAY, MR. PICHAI? >> SENATOR, WE HAVE OVER 100,000 EMPLOYEES, FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE HAVE HIRED GREAT EMPLOYEES IN OUR WORK FORCE OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA. IT DOES TEND TO BE PROPORTIONATELY TO THE AREAS WE ARE IN BUT WE DO HAVE MESSAGE BOARDS AT GOOGLE, WE HAVE GROUPS LIKE REPUBLICANS AND LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES, AND SO ON. AND WE HAVE DEFINITELY MADE AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE OF ALL VIEWPOINTS ARE WELCOME. ZUCKERBERG, WILL YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION HONESTLY, IS IT 90/0 OR 50/50? WHICH IS IT CLOSER TO? >> I WOULD DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER BUT I WOULD GUESS OUR EMPLOYEE BASE SKEWS LEFT LEANING. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY. MR. DORSEY, YOU STARTED YOUR OPENING COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE DON'T TRUST YOU. I AGREE WITH THAT. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. YOU ALL SAY YOU'RE FAIR AND YOU'RE CONSISTENT, YOU'RE NEUTRAL, MR. DORSEY, I THINK THE MOST INCREDIBLE ANSWER I'VE SEEN SO FAR IN THIS HEARING IS, WHEN SENATOR CRUZ ASKED DOES TWITTER HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS, DOES TWITTER HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS, AND YOU SAID NO, AND DO YOU STICK WITH THAT ANSWER? YOU ALL BELIEVE THAT RUSSIA HAS THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS, OR INTERFERE, BY USING YOUR SOCIAL PLATFORMS, AND MR. DORSEY, DO YOU STILL DENY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS? >> MY ANSWER WAS AROUND PEOPLE'S CHOICE AROUND OTHER COMMUNICATION CHANNELS. >> NO, YOUR ANSWER WAS, DOES, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION WAS, DOES TWITTER HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS AND YOU SAID NO. DO YOU STILL STAND BY THAT ANSWER? >> TWITTER IS A COMPANY, NO. NO. >> YOU DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, BY MODERATION POLICIES, BY I WOULD CALL IT CENSORING, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU DO, WITH YOUR POSTS, YOU DON'T THINK THAT CENSORSHIP, THAT MODERATION OF POLICIES, YOU DON'T THINK THAT INFLUENCES THE ELECTIONS BY WITHHOLDING WHAT I BELIEVE IS TRUE INFORMATION FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? YOU DON'T THINK THAT INTERFERES IN THE ELECTIONS? >> NOT OUR CURRENT MODERATION POLICIES. OUR CURRENT MODERATIONS ARE TO PROTECT THE CONVERSATION AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE ELECTIONS. >> FOR BOTH MR. ZUCKERBERG AND DORSEY, WHO CENSORED, CENSORED NEW YORK POST STORIES OR THROTTLED THEM BACK, DO EITHER ONE OF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE NEW YORK POST STORY IS PART OF RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION, OR THAT THOSE EMAILS AREN'T AUTHENTIC? DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER, THAT THEY'RE NOT AUTHENTIC OR THAT THEY ARE RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION? MR. DORSEY? >> WE DON'T. >> YOU HAVE NO, SO WHY WOULD, WHY WOULD YOU CENSOR IT? WHY DID YOU PREVENT THAT FROM BEING DISSEMINATED ON YOUR PLATFORM THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE FREE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS, AND PARTICULARLY TRUE IDEAS? >> WE BELIEVE THAT BOTH WERE HACKING MATERIALS POLICY. >> WHERE DO YOU SAY THEY WERE HACKED? THEY WEREN'T HACKED. >> WE, JUST A MOMENT, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS HACKED MATERIAL. >> YOU WERE WRONG. >> AND WE UPDATED OUR POLICY, AND OUR ENFORCEMENT WITHIN 24 HOURS. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> SENATOR, AS I TESTIFIED BEFORE, WE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE FBI'S INTELLIGENCE AND ALERT, FOR THEIR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND PRIVATE BRIEFINGS THAT THEY GAVE US. >> DID THE FBI CONTACT YOU AND SAY THE NEW YORK POST STORY WAS FALSE? >> SENATOR, NOT ABOUT THAT STORY SPECIFICALLY. >> WHY DID YOU THROTTLE IT BACK? >> THEY ALERTED US OF, TO BE ON HEIGHTENED ALERT AROUND A RISK OF HACK AND LEAK OPERATIONS AROUND RELEASE OF INFORMATION -- >> YOU'RE TRYING TO HIDE -- >> TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, WE DIDN'T CENSOR THE CONTENT. WE FLAGGED IT FOR FACT CHECKERS TO REVIEW. AND PENDING THAT REVIEW, WE TEMPORARILY CONSTRAINED ITS DISTRIBUTION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DIDN'T SPREAD WILDLY, WHILE IT WAS BEING REVIEWED. BUT IT'S NOT UP TO US EITHER TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, NOR WHETHER IT'S TRUE. WE RELY ON FACT CHECKERS TO DO THAT. >> MR. DORSEY, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR POLICIES TOWARD MISINFORMATION, AND THAT YOU WILL BLOCK MISINFORMATION IF IT'S AGAINST CIVIC INTEGRITY, ELECTION INTERFERENCE, OR VOTER SUPPRESSION. LET ME GIVE YOU A TWEET THAT WAS PUT UP ON TWITTER, IT SAYS SENATOR ROD JOHNSON IS MY NEIGHBOR, AND STRANGLED OUR DOG BUTTONS RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY 4-YEAR-OLD SON, AND 3-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER. THE POLICE REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE. THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE. BUT IMPORTANT TO RE-TWEET AND NOTE THAT THERE ARE MORE OF MY LIES TO COME. NOW, WE CONTACTED TWITTER, AND WE ASKED IT BE TAKEN DOWN. HERE'S THE RESPONSE. THANKS FOR REACHING OUT. WE ESCALATED THIS TO OUR SUPPORT TEAM FOR A REVIEW AND THEY HAVE DETERMINED THAT THIS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF OUR POLICIES. SO MR. DORSEY, HOW COULD A COMPLETE LIE, IT'S ADMITTED IT'S INTEGRITY, HOW CAN YOU -- LET'S FACE IT, THAT COULD DEFINITELY IMPACT MY ABILITY TO GET RE-ELECTED, HOW COULD THAT NOT BE A VIOLATION OF VOTER SUPPRESSION. OBVIOUSLY, IF PEOPLE THINK I'M STRANGLING MY NEIGHBOR'S DOG, THEY MAY NOT SHOW UP AT THE POLLS. THAT WOULD BE VOTER SUPPRESSION. SO WHY DIDN'T TWITTER, BY THE WAY, THAT TWEET WAS RE-TWEETED LIKE SOMETHING LIKE 17,000 TIMES, AND VIEWED BY OVER, AND LOVE, COMMENED, APPRECIATE, BY OVER 50,000 PEOPLE. HOW IS THAT NOT VOTER SUPPRESSION, HOW IS THAT NOT ELECTION INTERFERENCE, HOW IS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS CIVIC INTEGRITY. >> WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO OUR ENFORCEMENT, OUR NONENFORCEMENT IN THIS CASE OF THE TWEET, AND WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU WITH MORE CONTEXT. >> SO MR. ZUCKERBERG, IN THAT SAME JUNE HEARING, REAL QUICK, MR. DORSEY, YOU REFERRED TO THAT JUNE HEARING, WITH ALL KINDS OF GOOD IDEAS, THAT'S 16 MONTHS AGO, WHY HAVEN'T YOU IMPLEMENTED ANY OF THOSE TRANSPARENCY IDEAS THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE PRETTY GOOD 16 MONTHS AGO? >> WELL, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT ALGORITHMIC CHOICE AND WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED ONE OF THEM WHICH IS WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO TURN OFF THE RANKING, AND THE REST IS WORK, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. >> I'D GET TO IT IF I WERE YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE ANSWER, MR. DORSEY, AND MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT MR. DORSEY, DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION INDICATING THAT THE "NEW YORK POST" STORY ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN IS, HAS A RUSSIAN SOURCE? DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY? >> YES, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> AND IS THAT ALSO YOUR ANSWER, MR. ZUCKERBERG, THAT YOU HAVE NO INFORMATION AT ALL TO INDICATE THAT RUSSIA WAS THE SOURCE OF THIS "NEW YORK POST" ARTICLE? >> SENATOR, I WOULD RELY ON THE FBI TO MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT. >> BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SUCH INFORMATION, DO YOU? >> I DO NOT MYSELF. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THE ANSWER TO SENATOR JOHNSON'S QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR INDULGING ME THERE. SENATOR TESTER, YOU ARE NEXT, SIR. >> I WANT TA THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I WANT TO THANK, SUNDAR AND JACK AND MARK FOR BEING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THERE ARE MAJOR ISSUES OF GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK AND TWITTER IN THIS CONVERSATION, AND QUITE FRANKLY BIG TECH AS THE UNREGULATED WILD WEST THAT NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND WE DO NEED TO HEAR FROM ALL THREE OF YOU ABOUT A RANGE OF CRITICAL ISSUES THAT AMERICANS DESERVE ANSWERS, ON DATA PRIVACY AND ANTI-TRUST, THE PROLIFERATION OF MISINFORMATION ON YOUR PLATFORMS. AND IN A MOMENT, I'M GOING TO ASK ALL OF YOU TO COMMIT YOUR RETURN TO THIS COMMITTEE EARLY NEXT YEAR TO HAVE A HEARING ON THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES. BUT MY TRUTH THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE RAISING, LESS THAN A WEEK FROM ELECTION DAY FOR ONE SPECIFIC REASON, TO MAKE A LAST DITCH CASE, BASED ON SHODDY EVIDENCE, THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE CENSORING CONSERVATIVE VOICES. IT IS A STUNT, AND IT'S A CHEAP STUNT AT THAT. IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THIS HEARING IS DESIGNED TO CAST DOUBT ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND TO WORK WITH THE PLATFORMS TO ALLOW BAD INFORMATION TO STAY UP AS NOVEMBER 3rd APPROACHES. IT IS ALSO CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE DIRECTIVE TO HOLD THIS POLITICAL HEARING COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. AND IT IS A SAD DAY FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE, AND EQUAL PART OF AN INDEPENDENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, ALLOWS THE SENATE'S HALLS TO BE EARS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL STUNTS. THERE IS A NATIONAL ELECTION IN SIX DAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU HAVE NEARLY TWO YEARS TO HOLD THIS HEARING. AND IT'S HAPPENING SIX DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION. THE IDEA THAT WE CANNOT HAVE A HEARING ABOUT PUTTING THE REINS ON BIG TECH SIX DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, QUITE FRANKLY, DOESN'T PASS THE SMELL TEST. TODAY, THIS HEARING IS ABOUT ELECTORAL POLITICS. I KNOW IT, YOU KNOW IT, EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM KNOWS IT. AND I KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT OUT. I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND. BUT FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE PANEL, ONCE AGAIN, FOR BEING HERE, AND I'LL START BY ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT MAKE A MORE SINCERE EFFORT TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES THAT SURROUND BIG TECH DOWN THE ROAD. SO THE QUESTION FOR THE PANEL AND THIS IS A YES OR NO ANSWER, ARE YOU COMMITTED TO RETURNING TO TESTIFY AGAIN IN THE NEW CONGRESS? START WITH YOU, JACK. >> WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO, MYSELF, OR THE TEAM MENTIONED, ALWAYS HAPPY TO TALK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> SUNDAR? >> SENATOR, YES, WE HAVE ENGAGED MANY TIMES, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THAT ENGAGEMENT WITH CONGRESS. >> HOW ABOUT YOU, MARK? >> SENATOR, YES, I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, BUT HOPEFULLY NOT JUST TO THE CEOs OF THE COMPANIES BUT ALSO WITH EXPERTS WHO WORK ON THESE ISSUES, EVERY DAY, AS PART OF THEIR JOBS. >> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THE MORE INFORMATION, THE BETTER. BUT NOT BASED ON POLITICS. BASED ON REALITY. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. BECAUSE WE ARE IN A VERY UNREAL TIME WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICS. QUIT FRANKLY, WE ARE IN A TIME WHEN FAKE NEWS IS REAL. AND REAL NEWS IS FAKE. AND YOU GUYS TRY TO SHUT DOWN THE FAKE NEWS. WHETHER IT COMES FROM JOE BIDEN'S MOUTH, OR WHETHER IT COMES FROM DONALD TRUMP'S MOUTH. AND THE FACT IS, IF JOE BIDEN SAYS SOMETHING CRAZY AND OFFENSIVE STUFF, AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID, YOU WOULD GET FACT CHECKED IN THE SAME WAY. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE, YOU CAN NOD YOUR HEAD TO THAT? WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT IF JOE BIDEN SAID THE SAME STUFF THAT TRUMP SAID, THAT YOU WOULD DO THE SAME SORT OF FACT CHECKING ON HIM? >> WE TAKE MR. DORSEY, AND MR. PICHAI, AND MR. ZUCKERBERG IN THAT ORDER. >> IF WE FOUND VIOLATIONS OF OUR POLICY, WE WOULD DO THE APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT ACTION. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG? >> JUST GO AHEAD, THEN, MR. PICHAI? >> SENATOR, WE WOULD APPLY A POLICY, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHO IT IS FROM AND APPLY IT NEUTRALLY. >> THANK YOU. MARK? >> SENATOR, I AGREE WITH WHAT JACK AND SUNDAR SAID. WE WOULD ALSO APPLY OUR POLICIES TO EVERYONE, AND IN FACT, WHEN JOE BIDEN TWEETS, OR POSTS, AND CROSS-POSTS TO FACEBOOK ABOUT THE ELECTION, WE PUT THE SAME LABEL, ADDING CONTEXT ABOUT VOTING ON HIS POSTS AS WE DO FOR OTHER CANDIDATES. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. IN 2016, RUSSIAN, WITH FAKE ACCOUNTS TO SPREAD DISINFORMATION. AND THIS YEAR IT SEEMS THE SENIOR NETWORKS OF DISINFORMATION AND RELYING ON AMERICANS, INCLUDING SOME FOLKS IN CONGRESS, TO AMPLIFY AND DISTRIBUTE IT. WHAT TOOLS DO YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FORMS OF DISINFORMATION ON YOUR PLATFORMS WHEN IT'S SPREAD BY AMERICANS? JACK? >> WE'RE LOOKING AT, OUR POLICIES ARE AGAINST PLATFORM MANIPULATION PERIOD. NO MATTER WHERE IT COMES FROM. SO WHETHER THAT'S FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, WE SEE PATTERNS OF PEOPLE, OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE THE PLATFORM AND THE CONVERSATION, ARTIFICIALLY AMPLIFY INFORMATION. >> MARK? >> SENATOR, THE EFFORTS ARE A COMBINATION OF AI SYSTEMS THAT LOOK FOR ANOMALOUS BEHAVIOR, BY ACCOUNTS OR NETWORKS OF ACCOUNTS, A LARGE HUMAN EFFORT, WHERE WE HAVE 35,000 EMPLOYEES WHO WORK ON SECURITY AND CONTENT REVIEW, AND PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE'VE MADE WITH THE OTHER TECH COMPANIES HERE, AS WELL AS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND ELECTION OFFICIALS ACROSS THE WORLD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE INPUT SIGNALS AND CAN SHARE SIGNALS ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THE OTHER PLATFORMS AS WELL. >> SUNDAR? >> TWO THINGS TO ADD TOO TO THAT, TO GIVE DIFFERENT EXAMPLES, WE PARTNER WITH OVER A,000 CIVIC ENTITIES, ORGANIZATIONS, THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE LEVEL, TO PROTECT OUR CAMPAIGN'S DIGITAL, AND ADVANCED PRODUCTION PROGRAM AND TRAINING. AND OTHERS. THERE HAS BEEN AN ENORMOUS INCREASE IN COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TECH COMPANIES. AS COMPANIES, WE ARE SHARING A LOT OF INFORMATION. AND DOING MORE WORK TOGETHER THAN EVER. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO CLOSE WITH ONE THING. WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT HERE TODAY, WHERE WHEN YOU HIRE SOMEBODY, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ASK THEM THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND SUPPOSED TO ASK THEM WHO THEY HAVE DONATED TO AND THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A POLITICAL LITMUS TEST. IF YOU HIRE A BIDEN PERSON, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HIRE A TRUMP PERSON, AND WHY NOT HIRE A TESTER PERSON. AND LET'S TALK ABOUT BUSINESS. WE WANT TO REGULATE, AND IF THAT BUSINESS IS RUN BY A LIBERAL, WE'RE GOING TO REGULATE THEM DIFFERENT THAN IF THEY'RE RUN BY A CONSERVATIVE OUT THERE. THAT REMINDS ME A LOT OF THE SUPREME COURT. WHERE YOU HAVE TWO SETS OF POLLS, ONE FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND ONE FOR A REPUBLICAN. THIS IS BALONEY, FOLKS. GET OUT THE POLITICAL GARBAGE AND LET'S HAVE THE CONGRESS HERE DO ITS JOB. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR SCOTT? >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, FOR HOSTING THIS. I THINK FIRST OFF, IF YOU FOLLOWED ALL OF THIS DEBATE, WHICH YOU WILL CLEARLY COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THAT YOU CENSOR AND DEMOCRATS THINK IT IS PRETTY GOOD WHAT YOU'RE DOING. WE'RE BLESSED TO LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES. OUR DEMOCRACY, INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS AND LIBERTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. THIS ISN'T THE CASE AROUND THE WORLD. WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN COMMUNIST CHINA RIGHT NOW. PRESIDENT XI IS CREATING HORRIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AGAINST MINORITY COMMUNITIES AND CENSORS EVERYBODY WHO SPEAKS OUT AND THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY SURVEILS CITIZENS AND USES STATE RUN MEDIA TO PUSH PROPAGANDA AND HIDE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. TWITTER AND FACEBOOK ARE BANNED IN COMMUNIST CHINA. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S CONCERNING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE THAT BIG TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES ARE INTERFERING WITH FREE SPEECH. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ENTRUST YOUR COMPANIES WITH THEIR INFORMATION. THEY BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL PROTECT INFORMATION AND ALLOW THEM TO USE YOUR PLATFORMS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES FREELY. I DON'T THINK ANY ONE PERSON HAS SIGNED UP FOR ANY OF YOUR PLATFORMS AND EXPECTS TO BE BLOCKED OR TIPPED OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR -- KICKED OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS BUT IT'S BECOMING OBVIOUS THAT YOUR COMPANIES ARE UNFAIRLY TARGETING CONSERVATIVES. THAT'S CLEARLY THE PERCEPTION TODAY. FACEBOOK IS ACTIVELY TARGETING ADS BY CONSERVATIVE GROUPS AHEAD OF THE ELECTION. EITHER REMOVING ADS COMPLETELY, OR ADDING THEIR OWN DISCLOSURE TO CLAIM THAT IT DIDN'T PASS THEIR FACT CHECK SYSTEM. BUT THEIR FACT CHECK IS BASED ON REPORTS FROM KNOWN LIBERAL MEDIA GROUPS, LIKE FAX, WHICH CLEARLY IS A LIBERAL MEDIA GROUP. CENSORED MITCH McCONNELL AND PUT WARNINGS ON SEVERAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S TWEETS. AND UNTIL RECENTLY THEY COMPLETELY BLOCKED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM SHARING THE "NEW YORK POST" STORY ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP AND SUSPENDED THE NEW YORK POST ACCOUNT. AND THE NEW YORK POST IS ONE OF THE MOST CIRCULATED PUBLICATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS ISN'T SOME FRINGE MEDIA OUTLET FILLED WITH CONSPIRACY THEORIES. YET YOU ALLOWED MURDEROUS DICTATORS AROUND THE WORLD TO FREELY USE YOUR PLATFORM. LET ME GIVE YOU A FEW EXAMPLES. ON TWITTER, THE IRAN SUPREME LEADER AYATOLLAH TWEETED CALLING FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE ZIONIST REGIME, AND HE SAID, ON MAY 21, 2020, THE ELIMINATION OF THE ZION REGIME DOES NOT MEAN THE MASS FEAR OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE SHOULD HOLD A REFERENDUM, ANY POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT THEY VOTE FOR SHOULD GOVERN ALL OF PALESTINE. THE ONLY, UNTIL THE REMOVAL OF THE DESIGNIST REGIME IS FIRM ARMED RESISTANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, PERSONALLY, TO LET THAT STAY UP, AND WHY THE AYATOLLAH HAS NOT BEEN BLOCKED. IN MAY, 2019, MADURO, A MURDEROUS DICTATOR TWEETING, BACKING HIS MILITARY IN MARCH AFTER THREE PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND 130 INJURED DURING PROTESTS IN HIS COUNTRY. THE TWEET DESCRIBES THE MARCH AS A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF THE STRENGTH AND INTEGRITY OF THE GLORIOUS ARMED FORCES WHICH IS PREPARED TO DEFEND PEACE AND SOVEREIGNTY. I WOULD SAY THIS GLORIFIES VIOLENCE, WHICH TWITTER HAS FINED PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR, BUT TWITTER LET THAT STAND. PRESIDENT XI'S COMMUNIST REGIME, PUSHED BY THE FACT THAT THERE IS GENOCIDE AGAINST THE UYGHURS, FORCING MILLIONS IN INTERNMENT CAMPS BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS CAPPED ON TWITTER. MORE FAKE NEWS. WHAT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE HAS CREATED, THE TRUTH IS SIMPLY GOING AGAINST THE NARRATIVE WHEN NOT REPORTED BY SOME BIASED MEDIA. CLEAR LIE. IT HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED THAT THIS CLAIM BY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT IS FALSE. THAT TWITTER TOOK NO ACTION. YOUR COMPANIES ARE INCONSISTENTLY APPLYING THE RULES WITH AN OBVIOUS BIAS. THE COMPANIES ARE CENSORS FREE ■ SPEECH. YOU TARGET THE PRESIDENT, THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL, THE SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST OF PRO LIFE GROUP WHILE GIVING DICTATORS A FREE UNFETTERED PLATFORM. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HOLD YOUR COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE AND PROTECT AMERICANS' ABILITY TO SPEAK FREELY ON THEIR PLATFORMS. REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL VIEWS OR THE INFORMATION THEY CHOOSE TO SHARE. YOU CAN'T JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH VIEWPOINTS ARE ALLOWED ON YOUR PLATFORM, EXPECT TO KEEP SECTION 230. SO MR. DORSEY, YOU ALLOWED DANGEROUS DICTATORS ON YOUR PLATFORM. TELL ME WHY YOU FLAG CONSERVATIVES IN AMERICA, LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP, OR LEADER McCONNELL, BUT POTENTIAL, FOR POTENTIAL MISINFORMATION, WHILE ALLOWING DICTATORS TO SPEW THEIR PROPAGANDA ON YOUR PLATFORM. >> WE HAVE TAKEN ACTIONS AROUND LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD. AND CERTAINLY WITH SOME DICTATORS AS WELL. WE LOOKED AT, WE LOOKED AT THE TWEETS, WE REVIEW THEM, AND WE FIGURE OUT IF THEY VIOLATE OUR POLICY OR NOT. >> CAN YOU TELL ME ONE DID YOU AGAINST IRAN? THE AYATOLLAH? CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT ONE YOU'VE EVER DONE AGAINST THE AYATOLLAH, OR MADURO? >> I THINK WE'VE DONE MORE THAN ONE ACTUALLY, BUT WE CAN SEND YOU THAT INFORMATION. BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE A GLOBAL LEADER POLICY, THAT WE BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT, PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT THESE LEADERS ARE SAYING, AND THOSE TWEETS, WE MAY NOT, BUT THEY'RE LABELED, THAT THEY VIOLATE OUR TERMS OF SERVICE, TO SHOW THE INTEGRITY OF OUR POLICY AND OUR PLATFORM. >> WHEN THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT IN CHINA, WHICH WE ALL KNOW HAS PUT A MILLION PEOPLE, UYGHURS IN CAMPS, DID YOU NOTHING ABOUT THE TWEET WHERE THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE HELPING THEM LEAD A BETTER LIFE. I MEAN, I MEAN YOU CAN, JUST ANYBODY THAT FOLLOWS THE NEWS KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPEN TOGETHER UYGHURS. IT'S GENOCIDE WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO THE UYGHURS. AND I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING YOU'VE DONE ON CALLING THAT A LIE. >> WE DON'T HAVE A GENERAL POLICY AROUND MISINFORMATION. WE DON'T. WE RELY UPON PEOPLE CALLING THAT SPEECH OUT, CALLING THOSE REPORTS OUT, AND THOSE IDEAS, AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION, IS IF THERE IS SOMETHING FOUND TO BE IN CONTEST, THEN PEOPLE REPLY IT, PEOPLE RETWEET IT AND SAY THIS IS WRONG, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG. YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT TODAY AND SAY THIS IS ACTUALLY WRONG, AND WE BENEFIT FROM MORE OF THOSE VOICES CALLING THAT OUT. >> SO, BUT YOU BLOCK MITCH McCONNELL AND TRUMP'S TWEETS AND YOU JUST SAY, RIGHT, I MEAN, I MEAN HERE'S WHAT I'M GETTING, YOU GUYS HAVE SET UP POLICIES THAT YOU DON'T ENFORCE CONSISTENCY, AND THEN WHAT'S THE RECOURSE TO THE USER? I TALKED IT A LADY THIS WEEK, SHE JUST GOT HER FACEBOOK ACCOUNT JUST ELIMINATED, THERE'S NO RECOURSE, THERE'S NOTHING SHE CAN DO ABOUT IT. SO EVERY ONE OF YOU HAVE THESE POLICIES THAT YOU DON'T ENFORCE CONSISTENTLY, SO WHAT SHOULD BE THE RECOURSE? >> THE RECOURSE, CONSISTENTLY, AS I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS, WE ARE LOOKING AT MORE TRANSPARENCY AROUND OUR PROCESS. WE HAVE CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD AND EFFICIENT APPEALS, SO THAT THE WOMAN YOU TALKED TO COULD ACTUALLY APPEAL THE DECISION THAT WE MADE, AND THEN WE FOCUS ON ALGORITHMS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET -- >> THANK YOU, SENATOR SCOTT. SENATOR ROSEN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE THE WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AND I WANT TO FOCUS A LITTLE BIT, THANK YOU, MR. DORSEY, ON ALGORITHMS, BECAUSE MY COLLEAGUES, THE MAJORITY OF THE CALLS OF THIS HEARING IN ORDER TO ARGUE THAT YOU ARE DOING TOO MUCH TO STOP THE SPREAD OF DISINFORMATION, CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND HATE SPEECH ON YOUR PLATFORM, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. YOUR PLATFORMS RECOMMENDATIONS ALGORITHMS, WELL THEY DRIVE PEOPLE WHO SHOW AN INTEREST IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES FAR DEEPER INTO HATE. AND ONLY YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THIS. WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY IS ON THESE PLATFORMS, AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TELL MY COLLEAGUES, THE IMPORTANT FACTOR TO REALIZE, IS THAT PEOPLE ARE USER, ARE THE INITIATORS OF THIS CONTENT, AND THE ALGORITHMS ARE THE POTENTIATORS, AND PARTICULARLY THE RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHM, THE POTENTIATORS OF THIS CONTENT. NOW, I WAS DOING A LITTLE CLEANING IN MY GARAGE, LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE DURING COVID-19, I'M A FORMER COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, I ACTUALLY FOUND MY OLD HEX DECIMAL CALCULATOR AND RADIO STAFF, MY OWNER'S MANUAL HERE SO I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE POWER OF ALGORITHMS, AND WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO. HAVING DONE THAT MYSELF. AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO REMOVE BIGOTED, HATEFUL AND INCENDIARY CONTENT THAT WILL LEAD AND HAS LED TO VIOLENCE. SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR. IT'S REALLY NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN OR CANNOT DO, IT'S REALLY ABOUT WHAT YOU WILL OR WILL NOT DO. SO WE HAVE ADVERSARIES LIKE RUSSIA, THEY CONTINUE TO AMPLIFY PROPAGANDA, EVERYTHING FROM THE ELECTION TO CORONAVIRUS, WE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, ANTI-SEMITIC CONSPIRACY THEORIES, THEY DO IT ON YOUR PLATFORMS, WEAPONIZING DIVISION AND HATE TO DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR COMMUNITIES. THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WARNED US EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT RUSSIA IS NOW ACTIVELY INCITING WHITE SUPREMACIST VIOLENCE WHICH THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SAY IT POSES THE MOST LETHAL THREAT TO AMERICA. AND RECENT YEARS, WE'VE SEEN WHITE SUPREMACY AND ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE RISE. MUCH OF IT SPREADING ONLINE. AND ENABLES OVERSEAS BAD ACTORS TO DISSEMINATE THEIR HATEFUL MESSAGES TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE THE ALGORITHMS ON YOUR PLATFORMS, EFFECTIVELY REWARDING EFFORTS BY FOREIGN POWERS TO EXPLOIT DIVISIONS IN OUR COUNTRY. TO BE SURE, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK YOU'RE ALREADY DOING, IN THIS SPACE, AND I'M RELIEVED TO SEE THAT FACEBOOK HAS TAKEN THAT LONG OVERDUE ACTION OF BANNING HOLOCAUST CONTENT AND WHILE YOU'VE MADE SOME POLICY CHANGES, WHAT WE'VE SEEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WHAT STARTS ONLINE, DOESN'T END ONLINE. HATEFUL WORDS MORPH INTO DEADLY ACTIONS WHICH ARE THEN AMPLIFIED AGAIN AND AGAIN. IT'S A VICIOUS CYCLE. JUST YESTERDAY, WE COMMEMORATED THE TWO-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE TREE OF LIFE SHOOTING IN PITTSBURGH. THE DEADLIEST TARGETED ATTACK ON THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN AMERICAN HISTORY. THE SHOOTER HAD A LONG, THE SHOOTER IN THIS CASE, HAD A LONG HISTORY OF POSTING ANTI-SEMITIC CONTENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA SITES AND WHAT STARTED ONLINE BECAME VERY REAL FOR THE FAMILIES WHO WILL NOW NEVER AGAIN SEE THEIR LOVED ONES. SO THERE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY. WHEN ALGORITHMS ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTE TO RADICALIZATION AND HATE. SO MR. ZUCKERBEG, AND MR. DORSEY, WHEN YOU IMPLEMENT A POLICY BANNING HATE, OR DISINFORMATION CONTENT, HOW QUICKLY CAN YOU ADJUST YOUR ALGORITHMS TO REDUCE THIS CONTENT, AND PERHAPS WHAT I WANT TO ASK EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO REDUCE OR REMOVE THE RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHM OF HATE AND DISINFORMATION, SO THAT IT DOESN'T CONTINUE TO SPREAD? WE KNOW THOSE RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHMS CONTINUE TO DRIVE SOMEONE MORE SPECIFICALLY AND SPECIFICALLY AND SPECIFICALLY, GREAT WHEN YOU WANT TO BUY A NEW TWETER, IT'S GOING TO BE COLD OUT HERE, IT'S WINTER, NOT SO GREAT WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING THEM TOWARDS HATE. YOU CAN TALK TO US ABOUT THAT, PLEASE? MR. DORSEY, YOU CAN GO FIRST, PLEASE. >> AS YOU KNOW, ALGORITHMS, THESE ALGORITHMS, MACHINE LEARNING, AND DEEP LEARNING, ARE COMPLEX, THEY'RE COMPLICATED, AND THEY REQUIRE TESTING AND TRAINING. SO AS WE LEARN ABOUT HOW, ABOUT THEIR EFFECTIVENESS, WE CAN SHIFT THEM AND WE CAN ITERATE THEM. BUT IT DOES REQUIRE EXPERIENCE AND IT DOES REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, SO THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE NEED TO BUILD INTO THE ORGANIZATION IS, YOU KNOW, FAST LEARNING MINDSET, AND THAT AGILITY AROUND UPDATING THESE ALGORITHMS. SO WE DO TRY TO FOCUS THE URGENCY OF OUR UPDATES ON ANY SEVERITY OF HARM. AS YOU MENTIONED, SPECIFICALLY, IT LEADS TO OFFLINE HARM OR DANGEROUS SPEECH THAT GOES FURTHER. >> MR. ZUCKERBERG, I WILL ASK YOU TO ANSWER THAT AND I HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW, I GUESS THE NIMBLENESS OF YOUR ALGORITHMS. GO AHEAD. >> SENATOR, I THINK YOU'RE FOCUSED ON EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING, IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE SEE THE HARMFUL CONTENT. AND AS WE TALK ABOUT, PUTTING IN PLACE REGULATION, REFORMING SECTION 230 IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WANT TO HOLD COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR, I THINK THAT WHAT WE SHOULD BE JUMPING THE COMPANIES ON IS HOW MANY PEOPLE SEE HARMFUL CONTENT BEFORE THE COMPANIES ACT ON IT. AND I THINK BEING ABLE TO ACT ON IT QUICKLY AND BEING ABLE TO ACT ON CONTENT THAT IS POTENTIALLY GOING VIRAL OR GOING TO BE SEEN BY MORE PEOPLE BEFORE IT DOES SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE, GETS SEEN BY A LOT OF PEOPLE, IS CRITICAL. THIS IS WHAT WE REPORT IN OUR QUARTERLY TRANSPARENCY REPORTS. WHAT PERCENT OF THE CONTENT THAT A PERSON SEES IS HARMFUL IN ANY OF THE CATEGORIES OF HARM THAT WE TRACK. AND WE TRY TO HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE FOR BASICALLY DRIVING THE PREVALENCE OF THAT HARMFUL CONTENT DOWN. AND I THINK GOOD CONTENT REGULATION HERE WOULD CREATE A STANDARD LIKE THAT ACROSS THE WHOLE INDUSTRY. >> I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID, YOUR RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHMS NEED TO LEARN TO DROP, THE PREVALENCE OF THE HARMFUL CONTENT, I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, I WANT TO ASK THOSE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THE INFORMATION ABOT HOW NIMBLE YOU ARE ON DROPPING DOWN THAT PREVALENCE WHEN DO YOU SEE TRENDING, WHEN DO YOU SEE AN UPTICK, WHETHER IT'S BY BOX, ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS, DID BOTS, BY HUMAN BEINGS, WHATEVER IT IS, WE NEED TO DRIVE THAT PREVALENCE DOWN. SO CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MAYBE MORE SPECIFICALLY THEN ON THINGS YOU MIGHT BE DOING FOR ANTI-SEMITISM? WE KNOW THAT THAT IS WHITE SUPREMACY, THE BIGGEST DOMESTIC, ON THE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE TESTIFIED TO, THIS THE LARGEST THREAT OF COURSE, TO OUR NATION, AND I WANT TO BE SURE THAT, TO THIS, THAT THIS VIOLENCE IS NOT CELEBRATED AND AMPLIFIED ON YOUR PLATFORMS. >> WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF ANSWER TO THAT. SENATOR, TO WHOM ARE YOU ADDRESSING THE QUESTION? >> MR. ZUCKERBERG? I THINK I HAVE ONLY JUST A FEW SECONDS. >> SURE. >> SURE, SENATOR. THANK YOU. I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCE HERE. BUT IN GENERAL, FOR EACH CATEGORY OF HARMFUL CONTENT WHETHER IT IS TERRORIST PROPAGANDA OR INCITEFUL VIOLENCE OR HATE SPEECH, WE HAVE TO BUILD SPECIFIC SYSTEMS AND SPECIFIC AI SYSTEMS AND ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF I THINK HAVING TRANSPARENCY AND TRANSPARENCY REPORTS INTO HOW THESE COMPANIES ARE DOING IS THAT WE HAVE TO REPORT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS HOW EFFECTIVELY WE'RE DOING, AT FINDING THOSE TYPES OF CON TENT. SO YOU CAN HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW NIMBLE WE ARE. HATE SPEECH IS ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS TO TRAIN AN AI SYSTEM TO GET GOOD IDENTIFYING, BECAUSE IT IS LINGUISTCALLY NUANCED. WE OPERATE IN 150 LANGUAGES AROUND THE WORLD. WHAT WOULD OUR TRANSPARENT REPORTS SHOW THAT OVER THE LAS FEW YEARS, WE'VE GONE FROM PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING AND TAKING DOWN ABOUT 20% OF THE HATE SPEECH, ON THE SERVICE, TO NOW, WE ARE PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING I THINK IT'S ABOUT 94% OF THE HATE SPEECH THAT WE END UP TAKING DOWN, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT, BEFORE PEOPLE HAVE REPORTED IT TO US. SO HAVING THIS KIND OF A TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS PART OF WHAT I'M ADVOCATING FOR IN THE SECTION 230 REFORM, I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE A BROADER SENSE ACROSS THE INDUSTRY OF HOW ALL OF THE COMPANIES ARE IMPROVING IN EACH OF THESE AREAS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE ON THIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> AS DO I, SENATOR ROSEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHEN THIS HEARING CONVENED, I ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD LAST THREE HOURS AND 42 MINUTES. IT'S NOW BEEN THREE HOURS AND 41 MINUTES. FOUR OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO JOIN US, AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT MY PREDICTION WAS THE LEAST BIT ACCURATE. SO THANK YOU, ALL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I THANK OUR WITNESSES. AND DURING MY FIRST SERIES, DURING MY FIRST QUESTIN, TO THE PANELISTS, I REFERRED TO A DOCUMENT THAT I HAD ENTERED INTO THE RECORD DURING OUR COMMITTEE MEETING, I BELIEVE, ON OCTOBER 1st, ENTITLED SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES CENSORING PROMINENT CONSERVATIVE VOICES, THAT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN UPDATED, AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE RECORD AT THIS POINT. AND I BELIEVE WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF CLOSING THE HEARING. THE HEARING RECORD WILL REMAIN OPEN FOR TWO WEEKS. DURING THIS TIME, SENATORS ARE ASKED TO SUBMIT ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD. UPON RECEIPT, THE WITNESSES ARE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT THEIR WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE COMMITTEE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT BY NO LATER THAN WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25th, 2020. I WANT TO THANK OUR WITNESSES FOR THEIR COOPERATION, AND FOR BEARING WITH US DURING A VERY LENGTHY HEARING, AND I WANT TO THANK EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR COOPERATION IN THE CONDUCT OF THIS HEARING. WITH THAT, THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED. AND THE WITNESSES ARE THANKED. THIS HEARING IS NOW ADJOURNED.
