Zuckerberg hearing: Facebook founder attacked by US politicians for site's 'bias' and failure to protect users - as it happened
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.After navigating nearly five hours of questions from 44 US senators on Tuesday about the abuse of citizen's data, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has done it all again on Wednesday.
Once again, he was attacked on a range of fronts: as well as the company's failure to protect its users data, politicians questioned the site's perceived bias against conservative voices, and its use for selling illegal materials like drugs.
The billionaire Facebook boss will testified before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, which was seeking answers following revelations that Cambridge Analytica harvested personal information from 87 million Facebook profiles for the purpose of voter profiling.
Please allow a moment for the live blog to load.
"We do nothing, or we overreact. And we're getting ready to overreact," says Rep Billy Long, warning Zuckerberg that he needs to go home and think about what he's doing.
We're returning to this difficult question for Zuckerberg, about whether people are being tracked around the rest of the internet. Zuckerberg says again that people are in control, but that on "security" it might track how people use the site even if they haven't logged in.
Back again to the question of whether Facebook is listening to what people say around their phone, which Zuckerberg has denied. Larry Bucshon, a Republican representative, points out a new example of that – he was talking to someone about one of their relatives who has died, and they were shown a slideshow of pictures of that person.
"We're not collecting information verbally through the microphone and we don't have contract with anyone who is," Zuckerberg says. The only time the microphone is used is to make videos, he says.
But Bucshon keeps going – saying there are plenty of examples of this happening. "It's pretty obvious to me that someone is listening to the audio on their phones – and I see that as a pretty big issue, because for example if you're in your doctors office, your corporate boardroom, or areas of your home" then that could be an issue.
He says he's glad Facebook says he isn't. But that this might be an industry-wide issue.
We're having a break now, which will be over in about 10-15 minutes, I think. Then there's another 12 people left to ask questions, each of which have about 4 minutes each.
Zuckerberg is IN HIS SEAT, and we're kicking off. So there'll be about an hour or so left.
We're kicking off with something heavy and a bit different: How does Facebook fight terrorism?
Zuckerberg says 99% of that content is removed.
But it's pointed out that there's plenty of stuff still there: on YouTube as well as Facebook. So what is the mechanism that Facebook is using? Is it AI? The 20,000 security staff they brag about having?
"It's a good question. It's a combination of technology and people. We have a counter-terrorism team of 200 people, who are just focused on counter-terrorsm. And there are other content reviewers. In addition to that we have a number of AI tools that we're developing."
How are they helping block the recruiting? They're talking to them onFacebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp.
"We identify what the content is they're talking, flag that, and take that down."
Markwayne Mullin is coming at this from an interesting perspective: saying that he presumes that everything could be public, when he's writing on the internet. "All I can do is protect it the best I can."
(Most of the representatives have now left, it seems – a lot of the seats have become empty over the break.)
Scott Peters is suggesting that it might be useful to have financial penalties over data. He says that there's a conflict between making money and keeping data safe – and so taking money back might keep people from abusing data like this.
Zuckerberg says there isn't really a conflict between money and privacy. He says people want to use their data and also keep it secure.
Peters suggests that isn't right: sometimes data gets away from us. So if we made sure it affected the bottom line people might pay a little more attention.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments