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

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

Author:

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

  • Okay Mark let's see you put your money where your mouth is and go all Chuck Norris on your shadow banning buddies at Google YouTube…

  • This guy, Zuckerberg, is a joke. Freedom of speech has been used to aid and abet and influence the lynching of minorities throughout the centuries because there were no laws or organizations to protect against hurtful or untruthful campaigns. For example, newspapers printed back during the 1800s through the 1960s, including the civil rights movement (MLK period) spread lies against POC that were a farce and purposely never fact checked, which means whites were enticed, and even encouraged, to commit criminal acts against POC. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with free speech when it is credible and factual. Mark Zuckerberg, you are a twisted, uneducated, over-privileged, simpleton who is way out of line for even using MLK’s speech as reference point to push your agenda of supporting Trump (and hate). …which adds credence to the whole point of free speech (without fact checking), because it will prohibit dumb*sses such as yourself from speaking publicly without having profound knowledge of the subject.

  • AR-Sith F.Austin says:

    YOU AREN'T A PRIVATE COMPANY! YOU'VE OUTPACED AND OUTGROWN EVERY PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY THAT FUNCTIONED IN THE CAPACITY YOU NOW DO EXPONENTIALLY ON A GLOBAL LEVEL! You should have your anti-American traitorous lying gaggle of censorship Nazis you call a "private company" taken from your fake robotic hands.

  • AR-Sith F.Austin says:

    So he admits his company meddles in every election in the. world and censors groups they don't like. Could it be because your company is directed by the Deep State arms of the intelligence agencies in the CIA and NSA much like they controlled the press with Project Mockingbird in the CIA globally for decades? Yeah, that's right because that is exactly what you technocratic elitist socipath evil bastards do is lie and attempt to control every aspect of humanities lives and culture.

  • Businesses should stay out of the government business. Our government is common law, a citizen run government originally. Businesses should not be allowed to partake in our personal votes for offices, especially for the President's office. Businesses use their donations for voting as a bribery. It is illegal and should never be allowed in our election system.

  • Mark Zuckerberg is intimidating and silencing Nigerians opposing pesident Muhammadu Buhari administration., any post on facebook that says anything not in suport of Buhari and his government in Nigeria always offends Mark Zuckerberg and his facebook. He's not concerned with many Nigerians that loses their lives on daily bases, all he cares is blocking people who speaks against the corrupt Nigeria government. So painful.

  • Clown in action asset .. he speaks out of both faces .. people should drop Facebook .. you give your info to them freely .. now they are using it against you . People gotta wake up before it’s too late .. 🤔

  • alientruthseeker666 says:

    So Zuckerberg says that
    Political polarization
    is a bad thing? Its only bad, when platforms like FACEBOOK help to polarize the populace against another political party! And that is exactly what FACEBOOK does!

    Facebook should only play the role as a medium of the conveyance of communication between its subscribers….NOT to referee or dictate what is communicated!

  • alientruthseeker666 says:

    Zuckerberg is a LIAR!! He literally just lied about so many things in this interview. Lets compare the facts to what he says…….hmm…he is a LIAR! This is a paid advertisement for Zuckerberg and FACEBOOK.

  • 12dollarsand78cents says:

    The 1.6K vs. 1.6K Up and down surprises me.
    I think both that Dana Perino and Mark Zukerberg were honest and open.
    I think they are both great people. One getting a bit more power than they should.

  • He keeps saying free expression not free speech. I think he said free expression 20 times and free speech once. Am I splitting hairs here?

  • The Justice Homestead says:

    Zuckerberg is a liar, Facebook has restricted my business over a MAGA hat discount. They significantly reduced my post reach then try to sell it back and has artificially lowered my business score.

  • Zuckerberg doesn’t understand Free Speech. Free Speech is not filtered by anyone. Zuckerberg wants to be the arbiter of his truth.

  • We have kept fighting for break up big tech lake Facebook they have to much power, they keep soothing down conservative voices.

  • The comments, all of them dispise him. You cannot put the globalist back in the bottle. The spark went from a small fire and now is roaring forest fire that cannot be contained….there is no damage control…no coup….no censor ship or propaganda can stop the people from really fundamentally changing this country by dog piling this lucifiarian gang of sociopaths.

  • Great direct questions by Dana Perino many of which could have been answered by a yes or no reply but Zuckerberg always responds with "here is what I believe" in order to give himself more time to construct a more vague evasive answer. If a guy like this came to your door to sell insurance or a vacuum cleaner you would immediately feel mistrustful and be trying to figure out how to close the door without being rude.

  • Facebook is committing fraud – What the correct label should be describing be is Profiling / data gathering of private citziens / Data mining – selling information book.

    – Face book should be paying its users Since they sell/share profiles data sets of its users. To then Target its users in numerous ways , one way is how to extract more money out of them.

  • I dont believe he is as malicious as ppl seem to make him. We are all sinners. Nobody is truly selfless. Facebook is a big company but it's not the only social media platform. It may not even be the biggest. Although there is alot I dont know about big tech. Facebook does help alot of ppl. Its net impact is a positive one. There are plenty of disabled ppl that Facebook is their window to the world. Where they physically cant get out and make friends they can be just as abled as anyone else online.

  • this deep state Rockefeller is under pressure for Facebook. Now he's found freedom of speech. Give me a break. WHO CUTS THIS DUDES HAIR?

  • It is VERY OBVIOUS to tell he is recalling and reciting pre determined "SAFE" responces to tough questions. His coaches did their homework well, the problem is Mark's ability to regurgitate them with out all the sudden stop-and-starts as he tries to follow the bouncing ball.

  • Zuckerberg is doing everything to avoid regulatory rules. This is a DARPA program called life log. Zucker becomes head and it changes to Facebook. He's a satanist and a total liar.

  • The last person you would want to hold such power over social media is him, he clearly doesn’t understand normal human beaviour

  • C.I.A CUT OUT POSTER BOY…GIVEN TECHNOLOGY OUR TAX DOLLARS AID PAID TO CREATE…INHERIT THE WORLD AND LOOSE YOUR ETERNITY….GOV..IS NOT GOING AFTER HIM…

  • We're at a time of social tension because of the insanity of Leftism. If you think that a bathroom sign that reads Gender Neutral, then you're a Leftist.

  • carlos koppenhagen says:

    zuckerberg you dont like other opinions then your own. while you say freedom you ecualy neam think as i do otherwise i smere ,expell you and silence you on your stinking facebook.whoo are you to diside for me what is fake news? what your tell now that is fake news.

  • what a wasted oppertunity….
    she should've hold his feet to the fire…
    not a soft ball interview… (as tim pool destroyed zack dorsey on joe rogan show )
    they should've let tucker take care of him

  • Let's just say after a meeting with President Trump Zuckerberg See's things differently!!! Maybe he'll be a good boy now! He Got Schooled!!!

  • In this country we have freedom of expression, yet even facebook limits that expression. Facebook limits conservatives' views by labeling it hate speech, just because they don't agree with it. That is literally taking away a group's/individual's right to freely express themselves. So, in retrospect, Zuckerberg is controlling your freedom to express yourself. It has come time to make facebook pay for their suppression of groups' and individuals' right to express themselves.

  • Shieena Living Waters says:

    I may not like what you say but i will defend your right to say it! Freedom of speech is an "everyone" issue. Its one of the few areas we should be able to unite over.

  • Gotta love a puff piece and softball questions that don't even scratch the surface of the violations this man perpetrates against US Citizens.

  • DIY- Cheap Healthy Cooking says:

    This is a great way for the zuck to build a hit list. Wow the comments are priceless. Why would he care to do this interview? Fear.
    Lots of it.

  • Faronthefiddler says:

    The problem with Mark is, he was educated in the public school system and went to a liberal university. He has already been comprimised. The ancestors of today's progressives, are comfortable in their graves.

  • Hey Mark! I can guarantee you haven't met each and every one of your coders or qa or public relations people. facebook is not neutral and your people need to be held accountable. Your algorithms which are designed to put ads in front of users is being used to promote echo chambers and feeds confirmation bias.

  • He doesn’t even look HUMAN to me anymore… I used to admire him as an entrepreneur. Now? SMH. Insidious and diabolical.

  • Such a weirdo, untrustworthy untruthful and you'd think he could get a different bowl for a hair style. Reminds me of that Star Trek robot, Data , seems fitting..

  • Understand this any of this company's is public our is doing public service. And basecly "no we do not whan't to control you only group's our people the main stream, and status quo government say's are not good" my question is do i ask to Facebook police the people? do i vote for that, any one of you ask that our vote for that in our country's?

  • PRETENTIOUS DOUCHEBAG…. YUP, THAT WHAT HE IS, SUCKER!!!! THIS PSYCHOPATH IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE. UR BILLION DOLLAR CAREER IS FULL OF BEING SUED BY UR OWN FRIENDS… I THOUGHT I AM A PATHETIC LONE RANGER…BUT U'RE WORSE, DOUCHEBAG.

  • Joelene Preising says:

    Yes this is a good time to sensor one group and push another Mr Sugar, tantalising how you leftists spin the truth, one cannot have any discussion with you lot just to illogical, this is the flavour of the day because there is now an interest in the online censorship of the big-tech guys.

  • As someone who has been on several self regulatory boards with good success and a certain amount of distasteful bureaucracy, I think Zuck's team should start the conversation in obscure public venues.

Leave a Reply

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