Mark Zuckerberg and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day on Capitol Hill

Sixty different politicians had five minutes each to grill Zuckerberg about whatever they wanted, and they jumped at the opportunity to try and test him. Congress came across as prepared, serious, and thoughtful. While the hearing was supposed to be about Facebook’s push to create a new digital currency called Libra, about half of the back and forth centered on other topics, from its controversial political ads policy to Facebook’s record on diversity to particular congresspeople’s pet issues. Facebook is balancing multiple overlapping crises simultaneously, and each individual congressperson chose their own line of attack, giving the whole hearing a scattershot feeling that lacked a clear partisan or even thematic bent. Almost all of the questions — no matter the issue area — centered on the overwhelming question of trust: as in why should anyone trust Facebook to responsibly do something new, particularly something related to its users’ money, when it can’t even execute on its existing projects? “Libra is Facebook, and Facebook is you,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). “You’ve proven we cannot trust you with our emails, with our phone numbers, so why should we trust you with our hard-earned money?”

Zuckerberg told lawmakers several times that Facebook would not support launching the cryptocurrency unless it received approval from all US regulators, even saying that Facebook and its subsidiary, Calibra, would be willing to leave the Libra Association if they could not receive regulatory approval. 

The Sound Bites

• House Financial Service Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) laid out her grievances with Facebook and expressed skepticism over the company’s cryptocurrency plans. Whether it was the platform’s role in Russian election interference in 2016 or its recent decision not to fact-check political ads, Waters suggested that Facebook has failed too many times on issues of national importance to be allowed to spearhead a risky new currency that could shake the international economy. [see the exchange here]
• Committee Ranking member Patrick McHenry (R-NC), broadened the scope of his criticisms to cover the entire tech industry, not just Facebook. “There’s a lot of anger out there, and now, it’s being directed at the architects of the system,” he said. “Fair or not fair,” he continued, “you’re here today to answer for the digital age.”
• Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) asked Zuckerberg directly why he and Facebook should be trusted after years of privacy scandals related to data breaches and the Cambridge Analytica affair. “Do you understand why this record makes us concerned with Facebook entering the cryptocurrency space? Do you realize that you and Facebook have a credibility issue here?” Rep Velázquez asked.
• “You have accomplished something that nobody thought was possible,” said Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) as he noted that both Democrats and Republicans were using public comments from Trump to make their points. “You have taken the puzzle pieces of politics, shaken up the box, thrown them out on the table, and everyone’s trying to figure out where they fit when it comes to Facebook.”
• Rep David Kustoff (R-TN) cut through Zuckerberg’s typical explanation about Libra being largely charitable. “When you came up with this idea and went to your board of directors, how did you tell them that Facebook could monetize or profit from the creation or use of Libra and Calibra?” the congressman asked. “Well, Congressman, you may not believe this, but that’s actually not the first thing that we talk about at the company,” Zuckerberg responded. “We focus on building services that are going to create value in people’s lives, and we believe that if we do that, that we’re eventually able to get some of the value downstream.”
• “For the richest person in the world to come here and hide behind the poorest people in the world and say that’s who you are trying to help,” snickered Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA). “You are trying to help terrorists, drug dealers, and tax evaders.”
• “You're creating a whole new currency that could potentially be anonymous and could hide all types of criminal activity,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who called Libra “a huge concern to all Americans and national security."
• Zuckerberg frequently referenced the threat China poses if the US does not innovate in digital payments. This did resonate with many lawmakers. 
• “What I don’t think is the right frame is, ‘If Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook don’t do it, Xi Jinping will do it.’ This isn’t Mark Zuckerberg versus Xi Jinping,” said Rep Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), who describes himself as a hawk on China. “I think that’s totally different. Framing that way, in my opinion, is somewhat misleading to me.”
• “I don’t think we can trust you,” said Rep. Jesús García (D-IL), who has introduced a bill that would quash the Libra project. “Facebook has acquired too much power, it has become too big, and we should seriously consider breaking it up.” 
• Perhaps the most combative back and forth unfolded between Rep Joyce Beatty (D-OH) and Zuckerberg, with Beatty asking Zuckerberg questions about Facebook’s record on civil rights but offering him little time to answer before interrupting and moving onto her next line of attack. “It’s almost like you think this is a joke when you have ruined the lives of many people and discriminated against many of them,” she told Zuckerberg, moments after ridiculing Zuckerberg for naming Sheryl Sandberg as Facebook’s leader on civil rights initiatives.
• Rep Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) asked why Facebook was not doing more to police hate speech and white supremacist content on its platform, at one point showing a slide of something posted on Facebook that showed someone standing outside a mosque with a rifle. “We’re not perfect. We make a lot of mistakes,” Zuckerberg said. “Even if we make mistakes on a relatively small percent, that’s still a lot of mistakes.” Rep Tlaib then tied that to the “hate speech” that comes from some politicians, saying that Zuckerberg was holding public officials to a lower standard than regular people.
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) grilled Zuckerberg about his company's new political ad policy: "Could I pay to target predominantly black zip codes and advertise them the incorrect election date?" Rep Ocasio-Cortez asked.  "No, you couldn't," Zuckerberg responded, emphasizing the platform's policy of intervening in political ads when they incite violence or could lead to voter suppression. "Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal?" Ocasio-Cortez then asked. "Congresswoman, I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head," Zuckerberg said. "I think probably." "Do you see a problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements?" Ocasio-Cortez countered. "Congresswoman, I think lying is bad," Zuckerberg responded. "So you will take down lies, or you won't take down lies? I think this is a pretty simple yes or no," she asked again. "It depends on the context that it shows up," Zuckerberg answered. [see the exchange here]
• Rep Katie Porter (D-CA) delivered a powerful examination of Zuckerberg’s hypocrisy during the hearing—particularly when it comes to privacy. She pointed out the discrepancy between what Zuckerberg and other business executives say during Congressional testimony and the arguments they use to defend themselves in federal court. “You are arguing in federal court that in a consumer data privacy lawsuit, in which your own lawyers admit that users’ information was stolen, that the plaintiffs fail to articulate any injury,” she said. “In other words, no harm, no foul. Facebook messed up, but it doesn’t matter. Is that your position?” Zuckerberg squirmed. “I think your pleading is inconsistent with your privacy principles, and I think the American people are tired of this hypocrisy,” she said. “I’ve been in Congress 10 months and I have already lost count of how many people have sat in exactly that chair and said one thing to me and to Congress and then done another thing in federal court.” [see the exchange here]