Florida. I recognize the gentleman from north dakota for five minutes. Bezos, my colleagues brought up they were discussing thirdparty sellers this policy specifically noted possible loopholes that allow amazon to review nonpublic and aggregate data to inform private rams even in instances where there are only a few thirdparty sellers. Where exactly does amazon draw the line . Data would bee more than one seller . The person seeing the report would have no way of knowing how rs are inside that group or what the breakdown would be between those sellers. That is different from a list or product ranking which we do make public. Does amazon allow the use of aggregate data to inform private label amazon brands when there only a few sellers for a product . Does amazon look at i could dictate up when there are only two sellers of a product . Yes, sir. Isand my correct amazon conducting an internal investigation on the use of thirdparty data . Are basically trying to understand some of the anecdotes we saw in that wall street journal article. Will you commit to informing this committee on the outcome, including the exact circumstances of when amazon is allowed to view aggregate data . Yes, we will do that. Allowed to view and or use aggregate data . Yes, we will do that. Now i want to move just really quick, music can be used to drive revenue. Obviously theres a reason its important now. Ill talk about twitch for a second. News reports have indicated that twitch users are receiving notice and takedown requests pursuant to the digital millennial copyright act. My understanding is that twitch allows users to stream music but does not license the music. Is that correct . Im going to have to ask that i could get back to your office with an answer to that question. I dont know. So, that would be great. And then i just have two more questions related to that. If twitch is responding to dmca notice and takedown requirements, should, one, twitch consider proactive licensing music instead of retroactively adhering to those notices . These are the questions im concerned in. Im primarily concerned about small up and coming, making it easy for them to get cease and desist notices out as well and as we continue to move forward. Yes, congressman, thats an important issue and we understand it. And i will get back to your office on that. All right. Earlier this year, google announced plans to retire Third Party Cookies that websites attach to users web browsers. And this allows users to be tracked across the internet. The consequence of that change is that it will put other participants at a disadvantage because they can no longer track users. At the very, very danger of being procookie, because im not when i use my computer as well, and i understand there are legitimate Privacy Concern with Third Party Cookies, but i want to focus on the competition aspect. Did this action also place google at a disadvantage or does google have alternative means of collecting the data to inform activities . This is an area where we have focused on user privacy, and users clearly dont want to be tracked with Third Party Cookies. In fact, other browser windows including apple have also implemented these changes. With we are doing it, thoughtfully giving time for the industry to adapt because we know publishering depend on revenue in this area. But its an important change, and i think we have to be focused on privacy to drive the change forward. But you have other way of collecting that information, correct . On our firstparty services, we dont rely on cookies. And obviously when people come and type into im not asking if you rely on cookies. Im asking if you have other ways of collecting through gmail or consumer facing platforms, right . We dont use data from gmail for ads, congressman. To the extent on the services where we provide ads and if users have consented to ads personalization, yes, we do have data. Thank you. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentle lady from florida for five minutes. Thank you so much. During discussions of changing facebooks platform policy in 2012, you said that, and i quote, in any model im assuming we enforce policies against competitors much moore strongly. It sounds like facebook weaponizes its policies to target competitors. Why would facebook enforce its policies against competitors more strongly . Congresswoman, when we were a much smaller company, we saw that this is 2012, now. This was in 2012, so please go right ahead. Sure. Weve had policies in the past that have prevented our competitors, which at the time we were primarily worried about larger competitors from using our platforms to grow and compete with us. So, we had some of those policies. We continually reviewed them over time, and since 2013, a senior facebook employee identified me as a fast growing apple on facebook and said we would restrict their access. Was this another example of enforcing facebooks policies against competitors much more strongly . Message me . Im not familiar with that specific example, but we did have that policy. Lets move to another one. In 2014, other facebook product managers openly discuss removing pinterests access to facebooks platform tools as one employee said, i am 100 in favor of the idea of moving it from pinterest, but i am not recommending removing it from netflix going forward. Why would facebook product managers want to restrict pinterests access to facebook but not netflix . Congresswoman, im not familiar with that exchange. I dont think i was on that. Why do you think you would have to be on that, but why do you think they would make that decision or would make a decision like that . Well, congresswoman, as i said, we used to have a policy that restricted competitors from using our platform and pinterest is a social competitor with us. Its one of the many competitors that allow people to share all right. Mr. Zuckerberg, these examples and supporting documents strongly suggest that facebook does weaponize its platform policies, enforcing them selectively to undermine competitors. But lets move on. Mr. Cook, i am concerned that apples policies are also picking winners and users in the app economy and that apple rules mean apple apps always win. Mr. Cook, in 2019, apple removed from the apple store certain apps that helped parents control their childrens devices. Do you remember what justification apple cited . Yes, congresswoman, i do. It was that the use of technology called mdm, mobile device management, placed kids data at risk. So, we were worried about the safety of kids. Okay. All right. So, you were concerned about that the app basically undermined kids privacy. But another app that used this same tool was appure, an app controlled by the Saudi Arabian government. Do you recall apples position on this . Im not familiar with that app. Okay. Apple allowed this saudi app to remain. There are two types of apps that use the same tool. Apple kicks one out and said that that was one that was helping parents but keeps the one owned by a powerful government. If that is correct, mr. Cook, that apps that supposedly did the same thing, why do you why would you keep the one owned by a powerful government . Id like to look into this and get back with your office. It sounds like you applied different rules to the same apps. We apply the rules to all developers evenly. Do the fact that apple had its own let me just ask you this. Did the fact that apple had its own parental control apps that were competing with these Third Party Apps contribute to apples decision to kick them off the apple store, mr. Cook . What do you think about that . It did not. Theres over 30 Parental Controls on the app store today so, theres plenty of competition in this area. I would point out that this is not an area where apple gets any revenue at all. We do mr. Cook, i didnt ask anything about revenue. That was not my question, but im out of time, and thank you so much. Mr. Chair, i yield back. Thank the gentle lady, for yielding back. I yield to mr. Jordan for five minutes. Thank you, i yield to the gentleman from florida. Thank you for yielding. Just as mr. Pa chi gave information, you have given testimony to congress saying there is not editorial manipulation that disadvantages conservatives and just like in the case of google there have been whistleblowers from facebook that not only have offered evidence indicating the testimony was not truthful but theres even video that suggest content moderators you employ are out there disadvantaging conservative content. Im wondering if you are familiar with the experiences of zack mcilroy and ryan el wig and what is your response to the very damning Video Evidence and the testimony from them that the culture that you lead within facebook is one that disadvantages conservatives and leads to content manipulation . Congressman, im somewhat familiar with the concerns they have raised. As ive said, we aim to be a platform for all ideas. We got into this because we want to give everyone a voice. I certainly do not want our platforms to be run in a way that has any ideological bias, and i want people to be able to discuss a range of issues. When people raise concerns like that, we do look into them to make sure that everyone in our operation is behaving and upholding the standards that we would like. And if the behavior that they cited is true, then that would be unacceptable in our operation. And following the release of those videos and that evidence from project veary tas, when yo describe the information facebook undertook to root out the corrosive effects on your platform . Congressman, i would have to get back to you with more details on that, but i know that we have ongoing training in what we do, and we certainly will look into any complaints that come up. And we want to make sure that how we run the content review teams that its done in a way that reflects the values of the company around giving a voice and being a platform for all ideas. Im concerned that the content review does reflect the values of the company but those values dont give everyone a voice. They prejudice against concern content. While i appreciate training as a prophylactic endeavor to try to guide future content, it seems disingenuous for you to suggest that these videos come out that are very damning that show the people that you trust with content moderation admitting on video that they disadvantaged conservatives, they they label people who support the president , for you to then come to us many months later after that was all over the news and the internet and say, well, youll get back to us and do a little training. It seems to suggest that you dont take these allegations and this evidence very seriously. So, ill ask the question, perhaps, in a different way. Would you revise in your prior testimony at energy and commerce, you said this does not happen, it cannot happen. Would you at least be willing to acknowledge based on the irrefutable evidence before us that you dont seem to have investigated that it is that at facebook your employees do have the power to disadvantage conservative viewpoints and they in fact have used that power in ways that we need to rout out . Congressman, my testimony in the past and today is about what our principles are as a company and what we try to do. Of course when you have tens of thousands of employees, people make mistake, people have some of their own goals. So time and its our job in running the company to make sure that we minimize errors and that we make sure that the companys operations reflect the principles that we intend to run it on. And when you fire people as a consequence of their politics, do you think that impacts the culture and empowers the content moderators to also treat people worse as a consequence of their politics . Congressman, im not sure what youre referring to. Im not aware of any case where we have fired someone on behalf of their politics. I would say that would be an inappropriate thing for us to do. Why did you fire paul . Congressman, im not sure its appropriate to get into a specific personnel issue publicly. I mean, i could just tell you that i only have ten minutes. It doesnt allow him to talk to anyone except government officials. Ooip government official. Ive seen the messages where you have specifically directed mr. Lucky to make statements regarding his politics for the benefit of your company. I think both in the case of the content moderators and the case of the testimony you just gave regarding mr. Lucky and firing people over their politics, theres serious question as to whether or not youre giving truthful testimony here or whether its lying before long. I see my time has expired and ill yield back. Gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentlelady from pennsylvania. Thank you. I wanted to focus a little bit on googles acquisition of youtube and some of the consequence ossoff that move for Consumer Privacy and composition. Its my understanding google paid 1. 65 billion more that acquisition. So, could you tell us why google was willing to pay so much more beyond the initial proposed bid and was this the result of any harm . Congresswoman, we acquired youtube in 2006 and this is relevant for my time as ceo. But i recall is we saw it as a new emergent area and we saw it as opportunity. Was mr. Page in charge of that decision . Or you dont know . Okay. Im pretty sure Senior Leadership team at the time looked into it. I would encourage the subcommittee to take whatever steps to hear from that. Google is the top online site where americans watch videos including childrens videos. As im sure youre aware federal law prevents companies from collecting data on children under 13. The federal trade Commission Found that google spent years knowingly collecting data on children under 13 on youtube and offering advertisers the ability to target those users directly. Did youtube use the data it illegally acquired to target ads to children . We are you know, this an area, take it very seriously. Im a parent too . We make sure we have clear policies. We enforce them rigorously. Just in q4 of 2019 we removed almost close to a million videos potentially for concerns around child safety. So, it is an area we are enlisting rigorously and will continue to do so. Im more concerned about the fact youre investing rigorously in luring in advertisers like toy makers ma tell and hasbro by telling them youtube is the number one website regularly visited by kids. So, that sounds like youre targeting the kids and then targeting advertisers to bring them on board. Is that correct . There are scenarios to be family viewing and content oriented towards families and there are advertisers which are interested in connecting with those users. But everything here we obviously comply with all the applicable regulations. Okay. Lets look at some of the content that is specifically for children. If a show like sesame street doesnt want to show ads for junk food on youtube, does youtube allow it to make that choice . Today we have choices for both creators in terms of tools and preferences and we have extensive tools for advertisers. And although for users we give a choice they can either use youtube as a Subscription Service without seeing those types of ads or they can use it for free with ads. So, we give choice. And for us, it is most importance that youtube is a place where people come to learn and we find increasingly small and Medium Business use youtube. Okay. Lets go back to content thats designed for children. So, if theres an organization like sesame street that wants to provide childcentered content, but they dont want that content to be sullied, shall we say, with junk food ads or something, my understanding is you say the content creators can do that. But weve got a recent report from the wall street journal saying youtube hasnt been honoring that request and its been making it difficult to independently audit that and report back to the content creators about whether or not youtube is honoring those. Is that correct . Im not familiar with the particular report, but im happy to understand it better and have my office follow up with your staff, congresswoman. I would appreciate that. My time has expired. I yield back. The gentlewoman yields back. The share will now recognize himself for five minutes. Mr. Bezos, thank you for being here today. In your Opening Statement you reviewed your written testimony, you indicated amazon accounts for less than 1 and less than 4 of the retail in the u. S. When you refer to retail, i take it based on the empirical studies youre referring to a broad definition of retail that includes restaurants, bars, gas stations. Its a fairly all encompassing view of retail. I wonder if you know what percentage of amazons sales are represented in the terms of Online Retail sales, ecommerce, markets . The figures ive seen. With all respect, i dont accept is ecommerce is a different market. Ive seen the outside studies were amazons share of the ecommerce channel. Thats consistent with the data ive seen. The latest figure i saw was 40 . In terms of how we define it whether its a stream or a channel, nonetheless, factually its an important distinction i want to make sure we clear here. Obviously i suspect you understand more than most that the early stages of a start up where entrepreneurs are undertaking risks to bring products and services to market, over the course of the investigation, weve heard from start ups who rely on service with respect to concerns about the way in amazon uses confidential information. Weve also heard amazons Cloud Computing arm, aws, the notion that that computing arm identifies start up, best technologies, and rolls out replica products ander is viss. Mr. Bezos does amazon use confidential information to build competing services . No, sir, not that im aware of. Aws does often they do keep expanding their services. Aws started 15 years ago let me just clarify that, mr. Bezos. I appreciate that. Apologies for interrupts. Last week, one of amazons former engineers posted online that he and his team proactively identified growing businesses on aws, they built competing products and targeted products to the businesss customers. Theres been public reporting on that strategy. So, i guess i wonder if you can comment on that and how you would account for those statements. Well, i think there may be categories databases of different kinds and so on where we see an important product for customers and make our own Product Offering in that arena. But it doesnt mean we stop servicing the other companies that are also making those products. We have competitors using aws, and we work very hard to make them successful. Netflix is one example. Hulu is another and so on. I think the concern, mr. Bezos, with respect is that the pattern emerges across the diffe