Exclusive: Mark Zuckerberg goes one-on-one with Dana Perino


>>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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

100 thoughts on “Exclusive: Mark Zuckerberg goes one-on-one with Dana Perino

  1. Notice how he keeps saying "free expression" and not "free speech," bc his company and Google certainly don't believe in the latter.

  2. I think maybe he’s waking up. His wife is Chinese. Look at what’s happening with Hong Kong. I really think he means well and wants to help civilization to evolve and progress. It’s what his non profit is focussed on. That said, time will tell. It’s a lot of concentrated power and wealth and it could really go either way.

  3. Liberals are corrupt and deceitful, they destroyed many countries starting with Russia 100 years ago, Lenin was a liberal before he became a communist

  4. Mark is a lying scum bag. His whole agenda is to put Democrats e.g. Socialists in power…..plain and simple. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!! Democrats are the enemy.

  5. He's sitting in a room surrounded by financial titans of industry. Of course being a Rockefeller his own family's lineage is also pictured. His own family had a hand in the creation of our secret government and the Deep State. Personally I wouldn't trust the man, no matter what.

  6. Zuckerberg is a lying sack of sheet. No bias? Bull sheet! What are Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson banned, others shadow banned and demonitized, and Louis Farrakhan still active? Liberal piece of sheet!

  7. These liberal morons don't get it that the Chinese copy cat companies are gonna replace their companies if they are not patriotic.

  8. What a crap interview. He is a dirty little weasel of a liar. The FB and Twitter police are a bunch of leftist commie SJWs who think they are the law on what is the truth. And if these leftists didn't hear it on CNN then it's propaganda. I received a 30 day ban for posting an actual News Paper. Obviously fb work with China to censor and people would be stupid to think fb don't work with other goverments, in USA's case, the deep state communists. Because I wouldn't stop posting news fb disagree with I am now shadow banned, going from over half a million reach to 1000 if I am lucky. FB makes me wanna give up on social media. Mark should adopt a new policy, people who report a post because it is offensive should be banned.

  9. He carefully doesn't say "Freedom of Speech" and instead consistently repeats again and again "Freedom of Expression."
    Changing speech is a common tactic to changing thought. eg. "Climate Change" instead of "Climate Warming".
    Doubleplusungood.
    Mark my words – "Freedom of Expression" will be repeated more and more on the left in the future.
    I'm not sure where that leads or why, but he's shying away from "Freedom of Speech" for a reason.

  10. They would never let me interview this pinhead . Because I would zero on the control issues and get a straight answer on censorship and why his mom still cuts his hair

  11. I'm not exactly sure it's all Mark's fault on Facebook anymore. I haven't heard of them censoring anyone in a while. I hope he brings it back to freedom.

  12. I prefer total freedom of speech on all platforms. If someone does something terrible because of what was said, that is the fault of the person doing said act. I think it's actually safer to let people talk to see their mind than censor them and have no idea that that mindset is even out there. Hiding it doesn't make it go away.

  13. He talks about “free speech,” but he is the leader in silencing those he doesn’t like. I left his garbage behind years ago. People are catching on quick and leaving as well. Maybe Tom will be his friend after it goes.

  14. The only election interference that really exist is banning one side. Bots and lies shouldn't have much weight in actually winning an election but shutting off conservatives does. Or anyone actually. Shouldn't ban any opinion on social media. Imo

  15. I took my own poll. Half the people I know have never been on face book. The rest agree that they don't use it nearly as much as they use to. We all say this platform should stay out of politics. its very Bias. At least in my neighborhood its not very popular. About 60 people at a school event polled

  16. Like many of you commenting, I'm skeptical, but we have to give me credit. He said the right things. Tech should not be censoring politics. It's on each of us to critically think to determine what is garbage and what is truth.

  17. Hey fuckerberg you can't give people a voice, and sell them a service for a voice, it doesn't work like that, you can give or sell not both.

  18. This man is so full of BS. He rails about freedom of expression, but his puppets who hide behind computer screens monitoring everyone else makes the decision who they think can be heard and who can't. This is the same person who wants to buy up all the land around his in Hawaii thinking he's God. What a hypocrite who thinks he's the arbiter of right and wrong. This is why the Federal government needs to step in and put the clamp down on these tech giants like FB. They are out of control silencing people's voices that don't line up with their ideologies.

  19. Yeah….more BS…from the guy that 'stole, manipulated and lied' to develop FAKEBOOK! I've Never had a Fakebook acct, and Never have ANY intention too….

  20. Whatever, this guy is not telling the truth! If his mouth is moving he is lying! I bet he is worried about loosing everything. He looks like a robot!

  21. I loved this guy in zombieland. Also, he's worried that Trump won't win which explains why he's allowing Fox news to interview him. Don't worry Jesse, it's going to be a landslide. KAG 2020

  22. It must be difficult to go cap in hand begging conservatives who see your platform as always at risk of completely destroying their income, reputation and families even over posts from over a decade ago, to return to using it with the same kind of devil may care reckless abandon they used to with the same bright eyed naive optimism they used to when it was all new.
    It also must be frustrating because the only people (dumb enough) to still use Facebook regularly only post bland, vanilla uncontroversial things when they can be bothered posting at all. 🤔

  23. I'm so sick of answers that are really non answers. Who does he think he is talking to? A naive public who falls for these talking heads? He didn't have to sell out the average facebook user; He could have been pro decency and wealthy. He chose not to.

  24. He has that melted plastic Android look that I just don't trust in a guy. I could be deleted from YouTube for typing that…. 💩🚽🙊🙉🙈

  25. If you listen closely Mark Zuckerberg he is saying the government should regulate speech. This is representative of the new bias against free speech and free thought. After all it doesn't matter what you think if you can't say it.

  26. I think I figured out his hair style. Not joking here. It's so bad and unconventional (for this century anyway), that it serves Mark well as a MAJOR DISTRACTION! It's almost impossible to NOT let your mind wander when listening to him talk – I wanted to look away; I TRIED to look away. But alas, I could not.

  27. As long as you fall in line with me! FB jail/30 day bans would not exist if you really supported free speech. Pull your head out.

  28. If u gave people a voice you would. Be fair to the republicans and you are not. And its funny that you have become a turncoat because demmies want to break down your monopoly… You are a arragont bastard. I know i also live in prineville Oregon.

  29. I'll believe it when you start reinstating accounts of people like Tommy Robinson, Laura Loomer, Gavin McInnes and SO MANY MORE. Until then, you can "miss me with your nonsense".

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *