 Today, Mark Zuckerberg finally appeared before the European Parliament to testify about Facebook's impact on society, from data privacy to elections. But the format was different from what most American viewers are probably used to. Instead of a back and forth between Zuckerberg and the politicians, all the members of the parliament asked their questions first. Zuckerberg took notes, and at the end of the meeting he picked out the questions he wanted to respond to. Then he promised he'd get back to the group with the rest. The entire thing was a little frustrating even to the legislators, and eventually dissolved into a mess. I asked you six yes and no questions, I got not a single answer. So thank you again for inviting me. I think there was one question raised by Guy Verhofstadt and that's linked to my question. The problem is the timing. Okay, I'll make sure we follow up and get you answers to those. Despite that, the European legislators asked some pretty good questions and weren't afraid to be a little aggressive. You have to ask yourself how you will be remembered as one of the three big internet giants, together with Steve Jobs I should say, and Bill Gates, who have enriched our world and our societies. Or on the other hand, in fact the genius who created a digital monster that is destroying our democracies and our societies for the moment. I'm asking you today very, very clearly that would you accept that today Facebook is not a platform for all ideas that is operated impartially. The most pressing question Zuckerberg faced was whether Facebook was a monopoly. During last month's congressional hearings, Senator Lindsey Graham asked whether Zuckerberg could name a competitor to Facebook. And a couple of European legislators brought that issue up again, but with a more pointed threat attached. Would you consider your company as a monopoly? I think it is time to discuss breaking Facebook monopoly because it's already too much power in only one hand. Can you convince me not to do so? You cannot convince him because it's nonsense actually. You have been given the example of Twitter, you have given the example I think also of Google as some of your competitors, but it's like somebody who has a monopoly in making cars is saying, look, I have a monopoly making cars, but there is no problem. You can take a plane, you can take a train. When it came time to answer, Zuckerberg said that he didn't think that was true at all and generally dismissed the concern. We exist in a very competitive space where people use a lot of different tools for communication. The average person uses about eight different tools for communication ranging from all sorts of private messaging up to more broadcast mediums to things where they're communicating with groups of people and all their friends at once. So from where I sit, it feels like there are new competitors coming up every day. There are competitors that reach tens and hundreds of millions of people and we're constantly needing to evolve our service in order to stay relevant and serve people well. So that feels like it's a competitive environment where there are many choices that people have. A number of politicians suggested that even if it isn't time to break up a monopoly, Facebook needs to be aggressively regulated. Are you ready to completely comply with the new regulation in Europe within the next three days? When you said that the regulation would be implemented in spirit, what does that mean exactly? In response, Zuckerberg offered what's become a canned reply. I don't think the question here is whether or not there should be regulation. I think the question is what is the right regulation? But so far, these right regulations remain elusive. And as one legislator pointed out early in the hearing, self-regulation has not worked well in the past. It's a little bit like with the banks in 2006, 2007, 2008. They said also, now we're going to do self-regulation. Don't bother. No, no, we're going to do it ourselves. The reality is that they didn't do it themselves and it was needed to have tough regulation. Then there was the question of how Facebook stores data, especially of people who aren't even on Facebook, otherwise known as their shadow profiles. How can non-users stop Facebook collecting their data? And what do you do with the non-Facebook's data? Do you commercialize it? And given you do that, is it morally acceptable, do you think in your opinion, to collect non-Facebook users' data without them knowing what you do with it? And Zuckerberg nearly concluded without even mentioning these. Is there anything else here? Shadow profiles. Shadow profiles. Shadow profiles. He didn't seem to want to talk about shadow profiles at all and changed the subject pretty quickly. If you're not a Facebook user, how do you stop that data being transferred? On a security side, we think it's important to keep it to protect people in our community. Were there any other themes that we want to get through? These hearings are happening largely because people are worried about election meddling on Facebook, whether through fake news propaganda or through Cambridge Analytica's data siphoning. This wasn't lost on legislators. Will Facebook commit to one, eradicate all remaining fake accounts by the end of the quarter and b, systematically prevent the creation of new ones moving forward? Zuckerberg's continued to say there's no quick fix to this problem. We'll never be perfect on this. Our adversaries, especially on the election side, people who are trying to interfere, will have access to some of the same AI tools that we will. But that's a pretty obvious statement. The details are what matter, and Facebook is still just talking up its two favorite weapons, moderators and AI. The game plan is a combination of building more AI tools to identify fake accounts that are trying to interfere and take them down, like we did in the French presidential election. But our vision for how we should manage the system is going to move from one of reactive management as people in our community flag things to one where we're more proactively having systems look at the content, flag things for tens of thousands of people to review, and we're already making significant progress in doing that. And there were a lot of other questions which were never answered. These included broad questions about whether Facebook can really keep people's data safe after Cambridge Analytica. Is Cambridge Analytica an isolated case, or would you say it's the top of the iceberg? But also extremely specific ones about how quickly Facebook scrubs data that a user asks to be deleted. If people want to come off Facebook, how quickly and under what conditions will their data be fully removed? Or whether Facebook would work with antitrust regulators to prove it's not a monopoly. Could you or would you cooperate with the European antitrust authorities to examine it and to open your books so that we can see if yes or no there is a monopoly? Zuckerberg promised to give written answers to all these questions, but that's the same line he used during the US congressional hearings. We don't know when the answers will come, how thorough they'll be, or if Zuckerberg will give a straight answer to the toughest demands. Can you guarantee that this is Europeans that another scandal will not happen in three, six or nine months time? It's the only way of preventing Facebook collecting my data to avoid the internet altogether. And after watching legislators ask good, difficult questions about Facebook, that feels like a huge wasted opportunity. Is Facebook really taking its responsibilities more seriously? Will lawmakers start trying to regulate it? Or will we just keep hearing this same speech over and over? So the fact that maybe you have less control or no control about your own company for the moment because you have to apologize now. I think in total, you apologize now 15 or 16 times the last decade. In 2003, you started. Every year you have one or other wrongdoing or problem with Facebook and you have to face the reality and to say sorry and to say that you're going to fix it. Are you capable to fix it?
 Today, Mark Zuckerberg finally appeared before the European Parliament to testify about Facebook's
 impact on society, from data privacy to elections.
 But the format was different from what most American viewers are probably used to.
 Instead of a back and forth between Zuckerberg and the politicians, all the members of the
 parliament asked their questions first.
 Zuckerberg took notes, and at the end of the meeting he picked out the questions he wanted
 to respond to.
 Then he promised he'd get back to the group with the rest.
 The entire thing was a little frustrating even to the legislators, and eventually dissolved
 into a mess.
 I asked you six yes and no questions, I got not a single answer.
 So thank you again for inviting me.
 I think there was one question raised by Guy Verhofstadt and that's linked to my question.
 The problem is the timing.
 Okay, I'll make sure we follow up and get you answers to those.
 Despite that, the European legislators asked some pretty good questions and weren't afraid
 to be a little aggressive.
 You have to ask yourself how you will be remembered as one of the three big internet giants, together
 with Steve Jobs I should say, and Bill Gates, who have enriched our world and our societies.
 Or on the other hand, in fact the genius who created a digital monster that is destroying
 our democracies and our societies for the moment.
 I'm asking you today very, very clearly that would you accept that today Facebook is not
 a platform for all ideas that is operated impartially.
 The most pressing question Zuckerberg faced was whether Facebook was a monopoly.
 During last month's congressional hearings, Senator Lindsey Graham asked whether Zuckerberg
 could name a competitor to Facebook.
 And a couple of European legislators brought that issue up again, but with a more pointed
 threat attached.
 Would you consider your company as a monopoly?
 I think it is time to discuss breaking Facebook monopoly because it's already too much power
 in only one hand.
 Can you convince me not to do so?
 You cannot convince him because it's nonsense actually.
 You have been given the example of Twitter, you have given the example I think also of
 Google as some of your competitors, but it's like somebody who has a monopoly in making
 cars is saying, look, I have a monopoly making cars, but there is no problem.
 You can take a plane, you can take a train.
 When it came time to answer, Zuckerberg said that he didn't think that was true at all
 and generally dismissed the concern.
 We exist in a very competitive space where people use a lot of different tools for communication.
 The average person uses about eight different tools for communication ranging from all sorts
 of private messaging up to more broadcast mediums to things where they're communicating
 with groups of people and all their friends at once.
 So from where I sit, it feels like there are new competitors coming up every day.
 There are competitors that reach tens and hundreds of millions of people and we're constantly
 needing to evolve our service in order to stay relevant and serve people well.
 So that feels like it's a competitive environment where there are many choices that people have.
 A number of politicians suggested that even if it isn't time to break up a monopoly,
 Facebook needs to be aggressively regulated.
 Are you ready to completely comply with the new regulation in Europe within the next three days?
 When you said that the regulation would be implemented in spirit, what does that mean exactly?
 In response, Zuckerberg offered what's become a canned reply.
 I don't think the question here is whether or not there should be regulation.
 I think the question is what is the right regulation?
 But so far, these right regulations remain elusive.
 And as one legislator pointed out early in the hearing, self-regulation has not worked well in the past.
 It's a little bit like with the banks in 2006, 2007, 2008.
 They said also, now we're going to do self-regulation.
 Don't bother.
 No, no, we're going to do it ourselves.
 The reality is that they didn't do it themselves and it was needed to have tough regulation.
 Then there was the question of how Facebook stores data, especially of people who aren't
 even on Facebook, otherwise known as their shadow profiles.
 How can non-users stop Facebook collecting their data?
 And what do you do with the non-Facebook's data?
 Do you commercialize it?
 And given you do that, is it morally acceptable, do you think in your opinion, to collect non-Facebook
 users' data without them knowing what you do with it?
 And Zuckerberg nearly concluded without even mentioning these.
 Is there anything else here?
 Shadow profiles.
 Shadow profiles.
 Shadow profiles.
 He didn't seem to want to talk about shadow profiles at all and changed the subject pretty quickly.
 If you're not a Facebook user, how do you stop that data being transferred?
 On a security side, we think it's important to keep it to protect people in our community.
 Were there any other themes that we want to get through?
 These hearings are happening largely because people are worried about election meddling
 on Facebook, whether through fake news propaganda or through Cambridge Analytica's data siphoning.
 This wasn't lost on legislators.
 Will Facebook commit to one, eradicate all remaining fake accounts by the end of the
 quarter and b, systematically prevent the creation of new ones moving forward?
 Zuckerberg's continued to say there's no quick fix to this problem.
 We'll never be perfect on this.
 Our adversaries, especially on the election side, people who are trying to interfere,
 will have access to some of the same AI tools that we will.
 But that's a pretty obvious statement.
 The details are what matter, and Facebook is still just talking up its two favorite
 weapons, moderators and AI.
 The game plan is a combination of building more AI tools to identify fake accounts that
 are trying to interfere and take them down, like we did in the French presidential election.
 But our vision for how we should manage the system is going to move from one of reactive
 management as people in our community flag things to one where we're more proactively
 having systems look at the content, flag things for tens of thousands of people to review,
 and we're already making significant progress in doing that.
 And there were a lot of other questions which were never answered.
 These included broad questions about whether Facebook can really keep people's data safe
 after Cambridge Analytica.
 Is Cambridge Analytica an isolated case, or would you say it's the top of the iceberg?
 But also extremely specific ones about how quickly Facebook scrubs data that a user asks
 to be deleted.
 If people want to come off Facebook, how quickly and under what conditions will their data
 be fully removed?
 Or whether Facebook would work with antitrust regulators to prove it's not a monopoly.
 Could you or would you cooperate with the European antitrust authorities to examine
 it and to open your books so that we can see if yes or no there is a monopoly?
 Zuckerberg promised to give written answers to all these questions, but that's the same
 line he used during the US congressional hearings.
 We don't know when the answers will come, how thorough they'll be, or if Zuckerberg
 will give a straight answer to the toughest demands.
 Can you guarantee that this is Europeans that another scandal will not happen in three,
 six or nine months time?
 It's the only way of preventing Facebook collecting my data to avoid the internet altogether.
 And after watching legislators ask good, difficult questions about Facebook, that feels like
 a huge wasted opportunity.
 Is Facebook really taking its responsibilities more seriously?
 Will lawmakers start trying to regulate it?
 Or will we just keep hearing this same speech over and over?
 So the fact that maybe you have less control or no control about your own company for the
 moment because you have to apologize now.
 I think in total, you apologize now 15 or 16 times the last decade.
 In 2003, you started.
 Every year you have one or other wrongdoing or problem with Facebook and you have to face
 the reality and to say sorry and to say that you're going to fix it.
 Are you capable to fix it?