►大爆料: 臉書吹哨人驚爆小扎協助中共言論審查香港與台灣◄

Senator Blumenthal, if you're ready, I'll turn it over to you. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. In order to operate in China, the Communist Party requires American companies to register with authorities and host servers inside the country. And I think it's pretty well known that Chinese law requires that security services are allowed access to any data hosted within the country. Did any of Facebook's security team or its engineers raise concerns to management about Americans' private information being exposed to Chinese spying? Yes, Senator, they did. How did they do that? They documented their concern in a number of ways. They noted that this would happen, that the Chinese would get access to the data. And they also noted their concern in other discussions and other documentation, saying, my red line as a security engineer is to not be comfortable with this, but my red line is not Mark Zuckerberg's red line. Maybe you can explain what you mean by that. The engineer was saying that they were not comfortable with the way the China project was structured that would allow the Chinese Communist Party to potentially access American citizens' data. But in saying that, they noted that that's a red line for me as a security engineer. That's not Mark Zuckerberg's red line. Did you sense he had any red line? I did not. If he did, you don't know what it was? I don't. If you have more information related to these spying risks, would you be willing to share it with the committee? I would, Senator. And Mark Zuckerberg was knowledgeable about the planning. And do you know whether he was knowledgeable about the risks as well? My understanding is that the risk is the hardest part of the plan. So it's unthinkable that he was not aware of the risk. Nothing happened here without his approval and knowledge. This was a project unlike any other project I worked on during my time at Meta, in that it was so centrally led by Mark Zuckerberg, and he was so personally invested in this project. He learned Mandarin. He travelled to China more than any other country. He had weekly Mandarin sessions with employees. This was... It's hard to overstate how different this project was to any other project I experienced in my many years at the company. So there would be no credibility to his denying that he knew about the risks, he knew about the concerns raised by his engineers and his China team. And he was intimately involved in not only the planning and the engineering, but also in taking those risks. Senator, he was travelling to Beijing. In the documents submitted to the subcommittee, Facebook appears to have been willing to provide the data of users in Hong Kong to the Chinese government at a time when pro-democracy protesters were opposing Beijing's crackdown. Is that impression correct? And how did Facebook treat Taiwan or Hong Kong? So that impression is correct. One of the more surprising things is that as part of the censorship tool that was developed, there were virality counters. So any time a piece of content got over 10,000 views, that would automatically trigger it being reviewed by what they called the chief editor. And what was particularly surprising is that the virality counters were not just installed, but activated in Hong Kong and also in Taiwan. Let me ask you, I raised in my remarks, and I know that a number of other colleagues did as well, the record of misrepresentation and deceit. One of our former colleagues, Senator Leahy, asked Mark Zuckerberg in 2018 whether Facebook would comply with Chinese censorship and surveillance demand. He even asked if Facebook had built censorship tools to enter the Chinese market. And Zuckerberg responded, I'm quoting, because Facebook has been blocked in China since 2009, we are not in a position to know exactly how the government would seek to apply its laws and regulations on content were we permitted to offer our service to Chinese users. Ms. Williams, was that accurate? That is not accurate. Hundreds of decisions had been made. And by 2018, they'd been in dialogue directly with the Chinese Communist Party for four years. The fact is, by 2018, Facebook built, it even turned on, censorship and surveillance tools that it developed. It developed for Chinese security officials, correct? It developed and those Chinese Communist Party officials tested the censorship tool and would give feedback and say, this needs to change or we need this so that you can capture images and filter images we don't want seen. You know, we talk a lot about 1984. Facebook developed a virility counter tool that directed any post of over 10,000 views to be reviewed by an Orwellian named, quote unquote, chief editor. That correct? That's correct. And was the chief editor's geographic reach limited to mainland China or did they plan to cover other locations? They planned to cover Hong Kong and Taiwan, is my understanding. So their surveillance operation was directed at Taiwan? That's my understanding, Senator. And Hong Kong? That's my understanding. Was the editor-in-chief's or the chief editor's power limited to reviewing viral posts? No, it was extensive power. The chief editor would be able to turn off the entire service in specific regions, for example, Xinjiang, or would also be able to turn off or manage the service on significant anniversaries like the anniversary of Tiananmen Square. So the chief editor, a creation of Facebook, was an Orwellian censor that applied to locations outside mainland China to Taiwan and Hong Kong to people not within the legal jurisdiction of China, but also, obviously, the Chinese themselves. And it was designed and implemented by Mehta and Mark Zuckerberg. Correct, Senator. Even though its very existence was denied before this committee in 2018. That's correct, Senator. Silicon Valley companies are famous, as you know, for their moonshot programs, such as Google X. In recent years, Mark Zuckerberg spent billions of dollars on the metaverse and AI. He even named or renamed the company as part of a pivot to focus on that technology. Did Facebook engage in any moonshot efforts in China? And were these efforts walled off or protected from the Communist Party? They did, Senator, and I'd be happy to follow up with the committee on this point. You'd prefer to follow up privately? Just one last question. I'm interested in how much of a national champion Mehta actually is for the United States. Did Facebook share information about its facial recognition, artificial intelligence models, and other sensitive technologies to Chinese security officials? In other words, did it share that significant technology regarding facial recognition and other surveillance methods? Look, the greatest trick Mark Zuckerberg ever pulled was wrapping the American flag around himself and calling himself a patriot and saying he didn't offer services in China while he spent the last decade building an $18 billion business there. And he wrapped the flag around himself even as he disclosed sensitive technology that enabled the Chinese to gain the upper hand on surveilling its citizens, but also the upper hand in engaging with us. And he continues to wrap the flag around himself as we move into the next era of artificial intelligence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we've seen here is the evidence that you presented, the evidence that we have in black and white is a company and leadership that is willing to do anything, anything, work with America's chief competitor, work with our chief adversary, sell out other American businesses, sell out American user data, lie to Congress, lie to the public, anything in order to amass more power and make a buck. Can I just ask you, you know Mark Zuckerberg very well. You spent a lot of time with him. He's recently tried a reinvention in which he is now a great advocate of free speech after being an advocate of censorship in China and in this country for years, after suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story, after talking about, after working hand in glove with the Biden administration to suppress content on COVID, to suppress content on masks, to suppress content on election questions, on vaccines, all of that, now that's all wiped away. Now he's on Joe Rogan and says that he is Mr. Free Speech. He is Mr. MAGA. He is a whole new man and his company, they're a whole new company. Do you buy this latest reinvention of Mark Zuckerberg? Senator, there are two things. If he is such a fan of freedom of speech, why is he trying to silence me? And the other thing is that this is a man who wears many different costumes. When I was there, he wanted the president of China to name his first child. He was learning Mandarin. That was, you know, he was censoring to his heart's content. Now his new costume is MMA fighting or whatever, you know, free speech. We don't know what the next costume is going to be, but it'll be something different. It's whatever gets him closest to power. If he were here, is there anything you'd like to say to him? Senator, I have a lot of questions for Mark Zuckerberg, but he has proven time and time again that you cannot believe his answers. He's lied to members of Congress. He's lied to employees. And he's lied to Americans. And that's why I'm asking this committee to hold him accountable. Well, we're going to do that. And I just have to say, I don't trust his latest reinvention at all. He sat where you have sat in front of this committee multiple times in my short time in the Senate. Every time it's a different answer. Every time it's a different facade. But every time, the one consistent through line is, every time it's something misleading. Every time it's something other than the truth. Every time it's about Mark Zuckerberg, not the American people. It's about Mark Zuckerberg, not what's good for this country, not what's good for his users, not what is the truth. And I, for one, am very tired of it. So I have a message to Mark Zuckerberg as well, which is that it's time for you to tell the truth. You should come to this committee and take an oath and sit where Ms. Wynne Williams is sitting now and answer this evidence. Stop trying to silence her. Stop trying to gag her. Stop trying to hide behind your lawyers and millions of dollars in legal fees you're trying to impose on her. Stop threatening other whistleblowers. Come to this committee, take the oath, sit there, let us question you and give the American people the truth. We will be waiting for you. Senator, anything further? Well said, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself with your remarks and what I would say to him is, stop silencing Ms. Wynne Williams. Overstate. He tends to overstate the importance of his contributions during the meeting. Intimately. He knows the company's operations intimately, having worked there for over a decade. Crackdown. The government is launching a crackdown on illegal activities in the city. Censorship. The censorship of the media has become more stringent in recent years. Veracity. The veracity of his statement has been questioned by several experts. Deceit. His deceit in the negotiation process led to the downfall of the deal. Pivot. The company decided to pivot its focus from retail to online services. Patriot. A true patriot always puts the country's interests above personal gains. Upper hand. In the debate, she gained the upper hand with her well-researched arguments. Amass. He has managed to amass a considerable fortune through years of hard work. Advocate. She is a strong advocate for climate change awareness and policy reform. Suppress. The government has tried to suppress protests against the new law. Hand in glove. The two companies worked hand in glove to launch the new product. To one's heart's content. He was censoring content to his heart's content without any concern for fairness. Facade. He put on a facade of confidence but was actually feeling nervous inside. If you enjoy this content, please consider subscribing to my channel to stay up to date with future videos. Thank you for watching.