Transcript
0:00 And you were under oath when you testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, >> I assume. So, I don't remember this that well. but I can read this if you want me to answer questions about it. >> And I'm going to ask you about the what you said before the this Senate committee. They you were asked, 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 algorithm doesn't it says don't spread back content and you will eat immediately remove those messages? And your answer, sir, on the next page highlighted, Senator, yes, incitement of violence is against our policy and there are no exceptions to that, including for politicians. Is that what you testified to, sir?
0:50 That's what this says here. So, I have no reason to believe that's wrong. >> All right. And he they asked you Senator Marky asked you there are exceptions, did you say? And you said there are not exceptions, didn't you, sir? >> I'm not sure if that's mistrans. I I think that this is I I agree with what is written here. I'm not sure. I would say there are not exceptions. I'd probably say there are no exceptions, but >> Okay. You're just quibbling with the grammar. Yes.
1:17 >> Okay. Thanks. and then tab six please Gordon which is pliff's exhibit states exhibit 203. this is states exhibit 203 and it's tiny tiny because that's how it printed out but we have blown it up on at the back the two parts that I want to ask you about. You recognize that as a snapshot of your Facebook page?
1:49 >> that looks right. >> And you when you wanted to communicate things to people, you posted things on Facebook yourself, sir, didn't you? >> Yes, that's one of the ways I communicate. >> and when you post on Facebook, do you write the posts? >> usually. Yes. are those posts run by your communications department? >> depending on the content of them, I run them by different teams internally. >> Okay. this is a post from June 26th of 2020. And if you will turn to the blown up part, one of the things you said in this Facebook post was that even if a politician or government official says it, if we determine that content may lead to violence or deprive people of their right to vote, we will take that content down. Similarly, there are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I'm announcing here today.
2:45 Isn't that what you said, sir? >> You're asking about the part that you highlighted here. >> Yes, sir. >> And your question was just is that said one's question is that's what you said in your post. >> Yeah, I was just asking you if your question was are you asking me if you were correctly reading apart from the post. >> Correct. >> It sounds like it. >> All right. and then if I can have exhibit 202, please have seven. And Mr. Zuckerberg, you recognize plaintiff's trial exhibit 202 as another one of your posts.
3:17 >> Okay. >> Mr. Zuckerberg did you not say in that post our current policy is that if content is actually inciting violence then the right mitigation is to take that content down not let people continue seeing it behind a flag there is no exception to this policy for politicians or newsworthiness >> I you are correctly reading what is in the post and then if we can have tab eight please what I want to ask you Facebook newsroom posts because that was another way that Facebook communicated its policies to its users. Is that right?
3:57 >> Yes. It's newsroom is sort of like our corporate blog. >> Okay. and I want to ask you about one of your posts from that. This is exhibit Thank you, council. >> 2011. And I want to ask you about the on the first page. >> All right. But I'll read it. >> So I want to ask you about two parts of that first paragraph. >> Okay. Let me read it. >> Okay. And I want to ask you about the first sentence first that's highlighted in yellow.
4:29 >> Okay. Is there are there other parts of this that you want to ask about? >> That's it. Just the first part on that. Okay. it's under the the caption cross check and it says the first sentence says we want to make clear that we remove content from Facebook no matter who posts it when it violates our standards. There are no special protections for any group whether on the right or the left. Isn't that what it says, sir?
4:56 >> Yes, you read that correctly. >> And that's what Facebook was putting out as its policy on that date. Is that correct? I I think that that's a fair interpretation. >> All right. And the date of that was July 17, 2018. >> Yes. >> and then the second part of that talks about something called crosscheck. And I I'm going to talk to you some more about that in a bit. But cross check often in the records of Facebook is instead of the word cross has an X and the word check behind it. Is that right?
5:31 I think I've seen it referred to that way. >> Okay. and this part says what's highlighted in blue there. Cross check. The system described in dispatches simply means that some content from certain pages or profiles is given a second layer of review to make sure we've applied our policies correctly. Did I read that correctly, Mr. Zuckerberg? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. people who paid to advertise on Facebook did not like having their content checked or removed, did they?
6:08 >> I'm not sure what you're referring to. >> Okay. Did >> I think that's a pretty standard part of the way the service works? >> Yes, sir. Did people like having their content flagged or removed? >> I'm not sure anyone likes being told that their content is unacceptable. >> Okay. Among the powerful people who complained about having their content removed, flagged or demoted were politicians. Among the powerful people who complained to Facebook about having their content removed, flagged or demoted were politicians.
6:38 >> I think that's right. I mean a very broad set of people have complained about things that they think limit free expression and that includes politicians but I don't think it's you know especially for politicians. >> I'm going to go through the list of other people who've complained too. Politicians who were not in office yet but running for office have complained about having their content. >> Yes. Among many other people >> political pundits who were commenting on either the right or the left have complained about having their content flagged. Right.
7:09 yes, among others. >> And celebrities who had a big following on Facebook have complained about having their content flagged or demoted, haven't they? >> In some cases. >> and despite your promise to treat politicians the same as ordinary users, Facebook created something known as a white list, which shielded politicians from being fact checked, didn't it? >> I'm not sure what that's referring to. >> Okay. You are unfamiliar with the white list at Facebook that shielded politicians from being fact checked.
7:41 >> I'm not familiar with what you're referring to as a white list. I think the the terms around the policy around misinformation and factchecking specifically said for the fact what content was eligible to be to to be focused on. And we were trying to focus on like bad and harmful hoaxes, not parsing, you know, words and political speech. So, I think that that was the explicit direction that we gave the fact checkers because we wanted to focus on things that were kind of broad hoaxes.
8:19 >> So, you told them not to fact check politicians. >> Well, we told them what we what zones we thought that they should focus on. And yes, I I think that we explicitly told them that the point of the factecking program wasn't to primarily focus on like parsing the words of politicians, but to stop broad misinformation from spreading on the platform. >> You actually created a list of in 2020 of over 4,300 individuals and entities located in the US who were not to be fact checked. Isn't that right? Sorry. When you say you, I assume you're not talking about me. You're talking about >> talking about your company. Yes.
8:58 >> I don't actually I'm not actually sure. >> Okay. Can we have let's see tab 12 and tab 10, please. Thanks. So, Mr. Zuckerberg, we submitted this is a I'm sorry, Hannah. This is a plaintiff's trial exhibit 598. We submitted questions to Meta in the form of discovery and asked for answers from your company about the both the white list and the cross check program and these are the answers that your company gave. if you will turn please sir to page 10 and we asked about Facebook's political whitelist and the answer was that as of November 3rd 2020 Facebook maintained a politician white list that contained over 4,300 individuals and entities located in the United States. Do you see that sir?
9:59 >> I do. Do you want me to read the rest of this document? >> not yet. No sir. That's the first That's the one part I'm going to ask you about. And if we can have now >> Yeah. tab. Yeah. This is exhibit B. Attached to this sir was a Thank you. a list that was the 4,300 individuals which was exhibit B to the discovery answers. This is pliff's trial exhibit 206. Hannah and sir, do you recognize this as the political white list that Meta maintained on November 3rd, 2020 where of the politicians who were not fact checked? I'm not sure I've seen the list before, but it makes sense to me that if our policy was to have the fact checkers focus on broad hoaxes and not political speech that we would have to operationalize that by creating a type of list that would direct the fact checkers what types of stuff to look at and whatnot.
10:59 >> Okay. So, you don't deny that this was the list that Facebook had in 2020. >> Yeah. I mean, I I don't deny it, but I also am saying that I don't think I've seen this before. So, I also can't confirm it. >> You weren't one of the facteers that was using this list to see who was exempted from factchecking. >> No, I was not a fact checker. >> Okay. and there were more people and more entities who were on this political white list who were outside the United States. Is that right?
11:27 >> I haven't gone through the list, so I I I can't tell specifically, but you've asked about groups like politicians. I mean my understanding are you asking specifically about this misinformation and factchecking piece or >> let me let me rephrase my question for you Mr. Zuckerberg in your answer to interrogatory what meta represented was that these are the 4,300 individuals and entities located in the United States. My question is simple. There were other lists of politicians located outside the United States. Is that right, sir?
11:56 >> What are you referring to? >> I'm referring to this exhibit 598. that page 10 that this exhibit B represents just political figures in the US. >> Okay. >> So my question is just there were other lists of politicians located in other countries. Is that right? That were also exempt from factchecking. >> I'm not sure I'm the right person to answer that question. I I mean I like you could probably find this information somewhere else and I don't know what lists we maintained.
12:29 >> Okay. on this the people on this list were treated differently than ordinary users, were they not? >> No, I don't think that's true. >> Okay. Over time, the list of whitelisted politicians got even longer, did it not? >> I I've already testified several times that I'm not really aware of what was on the list, so I certainly don't know what how it changed over time. >> Okay. if you will turn to page six in that document that you've got your hand on right there, sir. That's your answers to interrogatories.
13:03 We asked for the white list as of 2025 and the answer that Meta gave was exhibit A well two two answers. Facebook maintained a politician white list in August 29, 2025 that contained over 5,500 individuals and entities located in the United States. Do you see that, sir? >> I do, but I think I should read this document if you're going to ask me more questions about it.
13:36 >> Well, if you want to take a break, this is the answers interrogatories that your company gave. >> Okay. >> Under oath. >> I have no reason to believe that's incorrect. But if you want to ask me questions about a thing that I'm not aware of, then I should have the time to read it. >> Okay. Well, let me ask you about exhibit A. On page six, which is also highlighted, exhibit A, if I can have that, too. Gordon, is the list of the individuals and entities located in the United States that appeared in the politician whitelist closest in time to August 29 of 2025.
14:11 And that is trial exhibit number 205. And my question to you, Mr. Zuckerberg is do you dispute your company's answers to this interrogatory and that this is the white list that had increased in number by 2025? The pol politician white list. >> I have no reason to think that any of this stuff is inaccurate. But you're asking me questions about things that I'm not personally aware of the details. So if you want me to answer the questions, you're going to have to give me time to read the documents.
14:41 >> Okay. Let me ask you another question. the whitelist program wasn't the only system that Facebook and Meta set up that treated people differently, is it? >> I'm not sure what you're referring to. >> Sure. The other was the crosscheck program or the X-check program as it's referenced in some of your documents. Is that right? >> I mean, I I disagree with the characterization of the question. it's it's not treating people differently to say that we have a policy that is that's about broad misinformation and not parsing political speech.
15:13 >> Okay. >> No, no. I'm just saying that's the same program we that's the same program that was referenced in this newsroom post that we talked about earlier. Is that right? >> Are you asking if what you're referring to now is cross check is the same as what is referred to as cross check here? >> Yes, sir. >> I think so. >> Okay. let's talk about who was on the cross checklist as opposed to the politician list. on the cross checklist, were there business partners that made money for Facebook on the cross checklist?
15:46 >> I'm not familiar with the whole list. So, I would certainly believe if there were people on the list who were business partners, but I also can't name any off the top of my head. >> Okay. were there celebrities who were on that cross checklist? >> Again, same same thing. >> Were there podcasters and other influencers who got people to engage on Facebook on that list? The cross checklist? >> I think so. And more broadly, I think it was focused on sensitive accounts where we were worried about making mistakes on on review. So, wanted to make sure that we looked at them twice. So it also included people like human rights activists and journalists and people who might have enemies who were trying to flag their content or get it taken down and we just wanted to make sure we had the right level of review. But to be clear on this because I I think you're you're kind of implying something here. The rules and policies are exactly the same for the people on the cross checklist as they are for people who aren't. These are this was intended to be sensitive accounts where we wanted to make sure that we really reviewed the content to be extra careful that we weren't making a mistake of either leaving something up that we weren't supposed to or taking something down that we weren't supposed to.
17:13 Do you agree with your head of civic integrity, Samid Chakrabarti, that anyone in management, including you and Miss Sanberg, could ask to have people added to that list? >> The cross checklist. >> What are you referring to? >> I'm referring to his deposition where he said there was a friend of friends of Mark and a Friends of Cheryl group of people that were added to this list at your request. Did that happen? I'm not aware of that, but if you want to show me testimony or documents about that, I'm happy to read them and see if that refreshes my memory. But off the top of my head, I don't recall anything like that.
17:53 >> the cross check list included people who contacted you and asked to be put on the list. Is that right? >> I'm not sure. >> one of those was Joe Rogan, the right-wing bro podcaster. >> Again, I don't I don't It's possible. I don't remember it. >> Mr. Rogan contacted you personally in 2023, did he not? >> I don't remember. >> And complained about having his content removed by Facebook. >> I do think we've taken down and made content mistakes on his content and taken things down that weren't supposed to be taken down. I don't remember an interaction around him asking to be added to any program. it's possible that it happened, but I don't remember that.
18:35 >> After that, you sent down word to the people that were >> Excuse me. Council, can you say that again with that? >> Sure. Sure. Sure. After that, you sent down word to the people that worked for you that he should be added to the cross check program. >> I don't remember that, but it's possible that if we made multiple mistakes on his account that I would ask them to take steps to try to minimize making more mistakes.
18:56 >> One zero liftoff. Lift off. >> Every day, history unfolds. chance to change the lives of millions of people for the better. That's when I came into politics. >> A decision is made. A question is asked. >> A protest begins. A missile is launched.
19:28 A treaty is signed. change the political structures in this country for a long time to come. >> It is deeply humbling. >> A vote is counted. The world changes. >> We will have to raise our voices. >> We oppose violence. >> Hate it is not a solution. >> We demand accountability from the government. >> Are we ready? >> But before the headlines, before the debates, before the opinions, >> there is the moment itself. The words that were spoken. By 2008, we knew that Epstein was a convicted sexual abuser.
20:03 How was that not a dealbreaker for the president? >> If you, Congresswoman, asked Bill Clinton that, >> the people who lived it, the images that tell the story, because the closer you are to the event, the closer you are to the truth. At AP, we believe news should begin where history happens, not where the arguments begin. >> Or do you want to go there? That's why we bring you the moments that matter. Accurate, powerful, timely. So you can see more, understand more, and decide for yourself. Accurate, powerful, timely.