>> Dana: NOW MARK ZUCKERBERG
RUNS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL
COMPANIES ON THE PLANET,
FACEBOOK.
IT'S EVERYWHERE.
ODDS ARE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT
RIGHT NOW.
I GOT TO SIT DOWN WITH MARK
ZUCKERBERG FOR A RARE INTERVIEW.
WE TALKED ABOUT 2020, TAXES ON
THE CONSERVATIVES.
WE TALKED ABOUT FREE SPEECH AND
WHETHER HE THOUGHT IT'S UNDER
ATTACK.
>> IT'S AN IMPORTANT MOMENT TO
STAND UP FOR VOICE AND FREE
EXPRESSION HERE AND AROUND THE
WORLD.
A LOT OF -- EVERY WEEK THERE'S
DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT COME UP
OPEN THE INTERNET.
I FEEL LIKE WE DISCUSS OUR
POLICIES BY TALKING ABOUT
SPECIFIC ISSUES AND CASES.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR
ME TO LAY OUT MY FULL VIEWS AND
GIVING PEOPLE A VOICE, WHAT THAT
HAS MEANT HISTORICALLY, HOW IT'S
EMPOWERED PEOPLE AND THE CROSS
ROADS THAT WE'RE AT TODAY.
BECAUSE WE'RE IN A TIME OF
SOCIAL TENSION, THE IMPULSE AND
A LOT OF PEOPLE PULLS BACK ON
THIS FREE EXPRESSION.
THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME IN
HISTORY THAT HAS HAPPENED.
WE SAW THAT IMPULSE IN THE CIVIL
RIGHTS MOVEMENT, DURING TENSION
AFTER THE WORLD WARS.
YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS LOOK BACK
AND REGRET IT WHEN WE PULL BACK
ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
I WORRY WE'RE AT A MOMENT TODAY
WHERE WE MAY DO THE SAME.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOW TO
STAND UP FOR FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO DO.
>> Dana: IS THAT TRUE EVEN WITH
TECHNOLOGY AS TECHNOLOGY HAS
CHANGED THAT THERE WAS INITIAL
RESISTANCE?
>> OH, YEAH.
LOOK, IT'S NOT JUST TECHNOLOGY.
WE'VE HAD THIS EXPLOSION OF AN
ABILITY TO EXPRESS OURSELVES.
THAT'S CULTURAL NORMS, LEGAL
PROTECTIONS AND IT'S TECHNOLOGY.
MOST AMERICANS ARE AWARE OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
OUR LEGAL RIGHTS TO CALL OUT
THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE WRONG
HAVE DRAMATICALLY EXPANDED.
LIBEL LAWS THAT -- IF YOU CALLED
SOMETHING OUT IF IT WAS
NEGATIVE, EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE
WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
AND THEN IS THE STANDARD SHIFTED
IF THE CREW TEAK WAS IF YOU
COULD PROVE IT TRUE, IT WOULD BE
OKAY.
RELATIVELY RECENTLY HISTORICALLY
SPEAKING THAT WE GOTTEN THE
ABILITY TO CRITIQUE AND CALL OUT
THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE BROADLY
WRONG.
NOW YOU HAVE THESE MOVEMENTS
ONLINE, WHETHER IT'S THE ME TOO
MOVEMENT OR DIFFERENT THINGS
LIKE THAT WHERE PEOPLE ARE
SHARING STORIES THAT ACTUALLY
WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST THE LAW
TO WRITE DOWN 100 YEARS AGO.
THIS IS THIS AMAZING EXPANSION
OF VOICE THAT I THINK LEADS TO
PROGRESS AND WE NEED TO DEFEND
THAT.
>> Dana: DO YOU THINK THAT
SOCIAL MEDIA HAS IN SOME WAYS
BROUGHT OUT THE WORST IN PEOPLE?
THAT WE CAN BE MEAN TO EACH
OTHER, WE CAN BE BULLYING
TOWARDS EACH OTHER AND IF IT'S
ANONYMOUS ESPECIALLY.
YOU THINK THERE'S A DOWN SIDE TO
IT?
>> THERE'S CERTAINLY ISSUES.
I THINK -- YOU ASKED ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY.
YOU KNOW, WITH THE INTERNET, A
LOT OF PEOPLE SAY HEY, THIS MAY
BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM
EVERYTHING THAT HAS COME BEFORE
IT.
MAYBE WE SHOULD IGNORE OUR
HISTORICAL PRECEDENT AROUND
DEFENDING FREE EXPRESSION.
I THINK THAT THAT'S PROBABLY
OVERLY BROAD.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE SAME
CRITIQUE WAS MADE ABOUT EVERY
TECHNOLOGY FROM THE PRINTING
PRESS TO THE RADIO, TO TV.
THERE'S SPECIFIC THINGS THAT ARE
DIFFERENT ABOUT THE INTERNET
THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
MANY MORE PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE
AND SOME PEOPLE CHOOSE TO USE
THEIR VOICE TO ORGANIZE
VIOLENCE.
PEOPLE WITH SPREAD
MISINFORMATION.
PEOPLE CAN FOR NEW TYPES OF
COMMUNITIES THAT HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO LEAD TO
POLARIZATION.
YOU CAN LIVE STREAM EVENTS NOW
WHICH HELPS US CAPTURE MOMENTS.
IT ALSO HELPS PEOPLE STREAM
THINGS LIKE TERRIBLE ACTS OF
VIOLENCE.
FOR EACH OF THESE THINGS, THE
INTERNET PLATFORMS AND FACEBOOK
ESPECIALLY, WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ADDRESS THESE HARMS AND MAKE
SURE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THESE
RISKS.
I FEEL LIKE WE CAN DO THAT IN A
WAY THAT STILL PROTECTS FREEDOM
OF EXPRESSION.
IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE ADDRESS THE ISSUES
AND ALSO TO PUSH BACK ON
BROADENING THE DEFINITION OF
WHAT PEOPLE CONSIDER DANGEROUS
ONLINE BEYOND WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY.
>> Dana: IT'S INTERESTING IT'S
COMING THIS WEEK.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ONE OF THEIR
DEBATES THIS WEEK AND IN WHICH
THERE WAS A LONG EXCHANGE WITH
SENATOR HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA AND
ELIZABETH WARREN.
KAMALA HARRIS SAYS SHE THINKS
THAT TWITTER SHOULD SHUT DOWN
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACCOUNT.
DO YOU THINK THAT IS A
RIDICULOUS IDEA?
>> IT'S HARD TO WEIGH-IN OPEN
TWITTER'S POLICIES.
IN GENERAL, NO.
MY BELIEF IS THAT IN A
DEMOCRACY, I DON'T THINK WE WENT
PRIVATE COMPANIES CENSORING
POLITICIANS IN THE NEWS.
I GENERALLY BELIEVE AS A
PRINCIPAL PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE
WHAT IS CREDIBLE AND WHAT THEY
WANT TO BELIEVE AND WHO THEY
WANT TO VOTE FOR.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD
BE SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TECH
COMPANIES OR ANY OTHER COMPANY
DOING.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I FEEL
VERY STRONGLY ABOUT.
I WORRY ABOUT A SOCIAL TREND
TODAY WHERE I SEE MORE PEOPLE
ACROSS THE SPECTRUM TRYING TO
LABEL DIFFERENT SPEECH OF
DANGEROUS.
IT MAY LEAD TO POLITICAL
OUTCOMES THAT THEY DON'T WANT.
THERE'S REAL DANGERS AND HARMS
ONLINE THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED.
WE DEFINITELY NEED TO WORK ON
THAT.
WE ARE.
THERE'S A LOT THAT WE'RE DOING.
I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO DO IT IN
A WAY THAT WE STAND UP FOR EACH
OTHER'S RIGHT TO EXPRESS
OURSELVES AND BE HEARD.
>> SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN, YOU
HAD A BACK AND FORTH WITH HER
TWITTER.
SHE'S VERY FRUSTRATED WITH YOUR
NEW POLICY ABOUT NOT BEING
WILLING TO POLICE TRUTH AND
ADVERTISEMENTS, POLITICAL
ADVERTISEMENTS.
BASICALLY ASKING HOW COULD
FACEBOOK IN GOOD CONSCIOUS TAKE
MONEY FOR ADS AND ALLOW THEM TO
BE POSTED IF THEY KNOW THE
INFORMATION IS FALSE.
>> LOOK, I JUST THINK THAT IN A
DEMOCRACY, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
PEOPLE TO SEE FOR THEMSELVES
WHAT POLITICIANS ARE SAYING.
POLITICAL SPEECH IS THE MOST
SCRUTINIZED OUT THERE IT'S
ALREADY HAPPENING.
OUR POSITION ON THIS IS NOT AN
OUTLIER.
THE OTHER MAJOR INTERNET
PLATFORMS, GOOGLE, TWITTER,
YOUTUBE, OTHER MEDIA, WHETHER
IT'S FOX OR NBC OR ABC OR CBS,
ALL RAN THE SAME ADS, TOO.
>> YOU'RE SAYING FACEBOOK IS
NEUTRAL IN THIS.
THE NEUTRALITY THOUGH HELP BAD
ACTORS MORE THAN PEOPLE THAT ARE
TRYING TO GET THE GOOD
INFORMATION OUT?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
THIS IS CLEARLY A VERY SINCIVE
AREA.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I'VE LOOKED
AT OVERALL, GIVEN THIS KNOW CUSS
ON POLITICAL ADS, SHOULD WE BE
IN POLITICAL ADS AT ALL?
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BLOCK
COMPLETELY?
FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, THE
CONTROVERSY THAT THIS CREATES IS
CLEARLY NOT WORTH THE VERY SMALL
AMOUNT OF OUR BUSINESS THAT IS
BASED ON POLITICAL ADS.
IT'S NOT REALLY ANYWHERE NEAR A
BIG PART OF WHAT WE DO.
BUT THE REASON WHY I'VE STOOD UP
FOR THIS IS THERE'S REALLY TWO.
ONE IS PRINCIPLE AND ONE IS
PRACTICAL.
THE PRINCIPLE IS THAT ADS CAN BE
AN IMPORTANT PART OF VOICE.
IF YOU'RE A CHALLENGER POLITICAL
CANDIDATE OR IF YOU'RE RUNNING
AN ADVOCACY GROUP AND THE MEDIA
DOESN'T COVER WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT, ADS CAN BE A WAY
TO INJECT YOUR MESSAGE AND MAKE
IT BE PART OF THE DEBATE AND
SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO
DISCUSS.
SO BANNING POLITICAL ADS FAVORS
INCUMBENTS AND FAVORS WHOEVER
THE MEDIA CHOOSES TO COVER.
>> Dana: FUNNY YOU SAY THAT.
ELIZABETH WARREN SAID HE
WOULDN'T TAKE MONEY FROM CERTAIN
BIG TECH EXECUTIVES FOR HER
CAMPAIGN BUT SHE DOES DO A LOT
OF FUND-RAISING THROUGH GRASS
ROOTS ENGAGEMENT ON YOUR
PLATFORM.
>> SURE.
AS DO A LOT OF FOLKS.
THIS IS -- A LOT OF THE MOVEMENT
BUILDING.
THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
IS POSITIVE USE OF THE INTERNET.
NOW IDEAS AND FUND RAISERS AND
MOVEMENTS AND PEOPLE CAN GROW
BUSINESSES QUICKER THAN COULD
EVER HAPPEN BEFORE.
A LOT OF GOOD COMES FROM THIS
AND THERE'S HARM THAT WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE MITIGATE.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE GET IN FRONT OF
THINGS THAT COULD CAUSE REAL
DANGER.
WE HAVE A MASSIVE INVESTMENT IN
THIS TODAY.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE THAN
35,000 PEOPLE AT THE COMPANY WHO
WORK ON SECURITY ALL IN.
>> IS THAT IN REACTION TO THE
2016 ELECTION AND COMPLAINTS AND
THE CONCERNS ABOUT ELECTION
SECURITY AND RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE?
YOU THINK FACEBOOK IS IN A
BETTER POSITION FOR 2020 WITH
MORE PROTECTION?
>> YEAH, IT'S -- YOU KNOW, WE
INCREASED THE INVESTMENT IN
SECURITY FOR A LOT OF REASONS
OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
YOU KNOW, NOW OUR SECURITY
BUDGET TODAY IS GREATER THAN THE
WHOLE REVENUE WAS WHEN WE WENT
PUBLIC IN 2012.
QUITE AN INVESTMENT.
ONE OF THE AREAS IS ELECTION
SECURITY.
YOU KNOW, SINCE 2016, WE'VE
PLAYED A ROLE IN DEFENDING
AGAINST ELECTION INTERFERENCE
AGAINST THE WORLD.
IT WAS THE FRENCH ELECTION, THE
GERMAN FEDERAL ELECTION,
ELECTIONS IN MEXICO, BRAZIL AND
ACROSS THE E.U. RECENTLY.
WHAT WE SEE, THESE NATION
STATES, THEY KEEP GETTING MORE
SOPHISTICATED IN WHAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO DO.
BUT WE'RE ABLE TO BUILD A.I.
SYSTEMS THAT CAN SPOT CLUSTERS
OF ACCOUNTS THAT ARE NOT
BEHAVING THE WAY THAT PEOPLE
WOULD SO WE CAN SHUT THEM OFF.
WE HAVE BETTER PARTNERSHIPS WITH
GOVERNMENTS AND INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITIES AND ELECTION
COMMISSIONS AROUND THE WORLD SO
WE CAN FIND THIS STUFF AND SHUT
IT DOWN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS
IMPORTANT IS WE PUT IN A PROGRAM
OF VERIFICATION.
IF YOU WANT TO RUN A POLITICAL
AD TODAY, YOU HAVE TO BASICALLY
GIVE US A VALID GOVERNMENT I.D.
AND PROVE YOUR LOCATION SO WE
KNOW YOU'RE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
YOU'RE STILL ABLE TO FAKE
CONTROVERSY.
YOU STILL HAVE TO STAND BEHIND
THEM AND FACE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR POLITICAL
DISCOURSE.
>> Dana: YOU THINK THERE'S A
BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES IN
SILICON VALLEY?
>> I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU
SAY IT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE SERVICES
THEMSELVES -- I HAVEN'T SEEN A
LOT OF DATA THAT SUGGESTED THAT
THERE'S A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
IN FACT, A LOT OF CONSERVATIVE
MEDIA DOES QUITE WELL ON SOCIAL
MEDIA, NOT JUST FACEBOOK BUT THE
OTHERS AS WELL.
LOOK, I MEAN, CALIFORNIA IS AN
OVERWHELMINGLY LEFT-LEANING
PLACE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE POLITICAL
DONATIONS FROM THE TECH
COMPANIES, IT'S 90 PLUS% OF THEM
GO TO DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.
I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WOULD
ASK THE QUESTION OF ARE MY IDEAS
GETTING A FAIR SHAKE.
ALTHOUGH I CAN SAY ON THIS IS
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I CARE
DEEPLY ABOUT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN
BE A PLATFORM FOR ALL IDEAS.
I THINK THAT GIVING EVERYONE A
VOICE IS IMPORTANT.
THAT'S HOW WE MAKE PROGRESS.
THAT'S WHY I'VE TRIED TO HAVE A
DIVERSITY OF PEOPLE BOTH OF
VIEWS AND BACKGROUND AT THE
COMPANY.
LEADERSHIP POSITIONS, ON ALL THE
TEAMS THAT ARE MAKING RELEVANT
DECISIONS ABOUT CONTENT, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT I TAKE SERIOUSLY.
>> DO YOU GET PUSH BACK FOR THAT
STANCE OF YOURS FROM EMPLOYEES
AT YOUR COMPANY?
>> I MEAN, SOMETIMES.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE
DEBATED BACK AND FORTH.
LOOK, I THINK THERE'S LOTS OF
ELEMENTS OF -- I WANT TO MAKE
SURE A LOT OF DIFFERENT VIEWS
ARE REPRESENTED AT THE COMPANY.
IT'S NOT JUST POLITICAL VIEWS.
IT'S RELIGIOUS VIEWS AND
DIFFERENT RACIAL BACKGROUND AND
DIFFERENT KINDS OF VIEWS.
WE ARE ALSO A VERY GLOBAL
COMPANY.
WE'RE BASED IN THE U.S. AND
PROUD OF THAT.
A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE
SERVE ARE OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.
I THINK THAT IS ALL PART OF
BUILDING A SERVICE WHERE YOU CAN
HELP BILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND
THE WORLD EXERCISE THEIR VOICE
AND FREE EXPRESSION TO HELP
BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND MAKE
THEIR COMMUNITIES BETTER.
>> Dana: BASICALLY THE
GOVERNMENT IS COMING AT YOU IN
THREE WAYS.
THEY THINK YOU'RE TOO BIG, TOO
NOSEY AND TOO IRRESPONSIBLE.
SOME WANT TO BREAK FACEBOOK UP.
THEY THINK ANTITRUST IS THE WAY
TO DO THAT.
SOME THINK THAT -- MAYBE YOU
AGREE -- CONTENT SHOULD POSSIBLY
BE REGULATED.
AND THEN OTHERS THINK YOU'RE NOT
RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH WITH PRIVATE
DATA AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT
YOU'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THOSE
IN TURN?
WASHINGTON IS GOING TO KEEP
KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT YOU THINK
THAT WASHINGTON HAS A BETTER
IDEA OF HOW TO DO THIS THAN YOU
DO.
>> SO I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER
OF REAL ISSUES RIGHT NOW.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, I WROTE AN
OP-ED CALLING FOR FOUR AREAS
WHERE I THOUGHT THE INTERNET
WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE
GOVERNMENT SETTING CLEARER
RULES.
IT WAS AROUND WHAT CONTENT IS
PERMISSIBLE IN ELECTIONS, IN
ADS, SOME ABOUT CONTENT IN
GENERAL.
PRIVACY AND DATA PORTABILITY.
WE AS A COMPANY HAVE THE
GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY HERE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE PROACTIVELY
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT HARM
OR DANGER HAPPENING ON OUR
PLATFORM.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T
THINK THAT PEOPLE WANT ANY GIVEN
PRIVATE COMPANY TO BE MAKING SO
MANY IMPORTANT DECISIONS ABOUT
SPEECH OR ELECTIONS.
RUNNING THE COMPANY, I THINK WE
MAKE TOO MANY IMPORTANT
DECISIONS ABOUT SPEECH.
SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE
ANSWER?
HAVING MORE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESSES, SOME CLEARER RULES
FOR THE INTERNET OR SOME NEW
INSTITUTIONS WHICH WE'RE TRYING
TO CREATE WITH THIS INDEPENDENT
OVERSIGHT BOARD THAT WE'RE
SETTING UP OURSELVES SO PEOPLE
IN OUR COMMUNITY CAN APPEAL
CONTENT DECISIONS AND IT WILL
MAKE A FINAL BINDING
DECISIONS --
>> Dana: LIKE CONSERVATIVE OR A
LIBERAL HAS A CONCERN --
>> ANYONE FROM ANY DIFFERENT
TAKE.
>> Dana: YOU DON'T THINK THE
COMPANY SHOULD BE BROKEN UP?
>> NO.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT
ANSWER.
I THINK THERE ARE REAL ISSUES.
THERE'S ISSUES AROUND PROTECTING
ELECTIONS AND WHAT POLITICAL
DISCOURSE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
THERE'S ISSUES AROUND WHAT
CONTENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
THERE'S PRIVACY QUESTIONS AND
ALSO QUESTIONS AROUND PEOPLE
SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO TAKE
THEIR DATA TO OTHER APPs FOR --
TO FACILITATE INNOVATION AND
COMPETITION AND ACADEMIC
RESEARCH.
THAT WAY WE CAN ADVANCE SOCIETY
THAT WAY.
BUT I BASICALLY THINK EACH OF
THOSE PROBLEMS REQUIRES WORK ON
OUR PART, BUT ALSO CLEARER RULES
THAT HAVE TO COME FROM EITHER
THE GOVERNMENT OR SOME KIND OF
INDEPENDENT SELF-REGULATORY
SITUATION.
RIGHT NOW WHAT I THINK IS
HAPPENING IS -- I THINK PEOPLE
ARE NOT SEEING ENOUGH PROGRESS
ON SOME OF THAT REGULATION.
I THINK WE MADE A LOT OF
PROGRESS IN TERMS OF PROTECTING
INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS.
CERTAINLY A LOT OF CHALLENGES
THAT WERE THERE A FEW YEARS AGO.
WE CAN LOOK AT ELECTIONS AROUND
THE WORLD AND SEE THAT OUR
SYSTEMS ARE BETTER.
>> Dana: DO YOU REGRET IT WASN'T
READY BEFORE?
>> WE CERTAINLY WERE TOO SLOW TO
BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE
MISINFORMATION OPERATIONS THAT
RUSSIA WAS RUNNING IN 2016.
>> Dana: BERNIE SANDERS HAS SAID
THAT YOU DON'T THINK
BILLIONAIRES SHOULD EXIST.
MAYBE YOU SAID I DON'T BELIEVE I
EARNED THIS MUCH MONEY.
DO YOU BELIEVE YOU EARNED YOUR
MONEY FAIR AND SQUARE?
>> WHAT I SAID, I DON'T BELIEVE
IN SOME COSMIC SENSE THAT NUMBER
DESERVES TO HAVE BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT
DON'T REALLY GOOD THINGS.
AND HELP A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
YOU GET WELL-COMPENSATED FOR
THAT.
AT SOME LEVEL, THAT'S REALLY A
LOT OF WEALTH.
NOW, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT I
AGREE WITH SOME OF THE POLICY
PRESCRIPTIONS THAT SOME OF THESE
FOLKS ARE PUTTING FORWARD.
SOME PEOPLE THINK, OKAY, THE
ISSUE OR THE WAY TO DEAL WITH
THIS ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH IS
TO LET'S HAVE THE GOVERNMENT
TAKE IT ALL AND NOW THE
GOVERNMENT CAN BASICALLY DECIDE,
YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE MEDICAL
RESEARCH THAT GETS DONE OR -- I
PERSONALLY BELIEVE -- I SPEND A
BUNCH OF TIME AS OUR
PHILANTHROPIC INITIATIVE THAT I
RUN WITH MY WIFE.
BASICALLY I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT
THERE'S DIFFERENT PHILANTHROPIES
AND DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT
CAN PUT COMPETING IDEAS OUT
ABOUT HOW TO DO RESEARCH OR
SCIENCE IN DIFFERENT PLACES.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE WHAT WE'RE DOING
>> Dana: BACK NOW TO MY
INTERVIEW WITH MARK ZUCKERBERG.
I ASKED HIM ABOUT PRIVACY AND
WHETHER PEOPLE CAN FEEL SAFE
WITH THEIR INFORMATION ONLINE.
I ASKED HIM WHAT IS THE BIGGEST
PROBLEM HE'S TRYING TO SOW RIGHT
NOW.
HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.
>> RIGHT NOW, THE BALANCE THAT
I'M TRYING TO GET RIGHT IS WHILE
WE'RE WORKING THROUGH SOME OF
THESE BIG SOCIAL ISSUES, AROUND
SPEECH AND CONTENT AND PRIVACY
AND DATA PORTABILITY, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO
DEFEND PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO HAVE
A VOICE AND STAND UP FOR FREE
EXPRESSION.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY -- WE ARE AT
ACROSS ROADS NOW NOT ONLY IN OUR
COUNTRY AND OUR CULTURE WHERE A
LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE AN IMPULSE TO
PULL BACK ON THAT BUT AROUND THE
WORLD.
WE'RE SEEING THIS WITH
INCREASINGLY -- SOME OF THE
TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS OUT OF
CHINA AND THE CENSORSHIP THERE.
THIS IS A MOMENT WHERE WE REALLY
NEED TO STAND UP FOR PEOPLE'S
VOICE AND FREE EXPRESSION.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS CRITICAL
TO OUR PROGRESS.
>> Dana: PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY.
WHAT CAN YOU TELL THEM TO ASSURE
THEM THAT THEIR INFORMATION IS
SAFE, IT'S NOT GOING TO --
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WAKE UP AND
FIND OUT THEIR DATA HAS BEEN
SOLD TO ANOTHER COMPANY OR
LEAKED.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR THAT?
>> SURE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE
DON'T SELL DATA.
WE HAVE A LONGSTANDING AND VERY
STRONG SECURITY PROGRAM AGAINST
HACKING.
WE ALSO ENTERED INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE FTC TO
BASICALLY BUILD A MUCH MORE
RIGOROUS PRIVACY PROGRAM AT THE
COMPANY.
YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THIS AS
WHERE WE'RE DOING THIS SAME
INTERNAL CONTROLS AND AUDITS
AROUND PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DATA AS
WE DO AS A PUBLIC COMPANY AROUND
ALL THE FINANCIAL DATA AND
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE.
SO IT'S A VERY RIGOROUS PROGRAM.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF OUR
RESOURCES.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN
1,000 PEOPLE WORKING ON THIS.
AND WE JUST THINK THIS IS
IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYONE CAN HAVE ABSOLUTE
CONFIDENCE WHEN USING OUR
SERVICES THAT WE HAVE REALLY
STRONG SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO MAKE
SURE --
>> Dana: PRIORITY NUMBER 1.
>> YEAH.
ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW THAT'S PART
OF THE TOP PRIORITY AND THE MOST
CRITICAL THING WE'RE WORKING ON,
IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM.
IT'S A NEW STANDARD FOR THE
INDUSTRY.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
LOOK, HISTORICALLY WE -- I
UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE HAVE A
LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.
AND IN THE PAST, WE'VE MADE
MISTAKES.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN
EARN PEOPLE'S TRUST AND WE'LL DO
THAT OPERATING AT A LEVEL OF
