Zuckerberg defends actions after New York Times investigation
In the wake of a [UNKNOWN] New York Times [UNKNOWN] accusing Facebook's top executives of ignoring warning and deflecting claim over Russian election interference.
Mark Zuckerberg fired back.
I said many time before that we were too slow to spot Russian interferance, too slow to [UNKNOWN] it and too slow to get on top of it.
And we've certainly stumbled along the way, but to suggest that we weren't interested in knowing the truth, or that we wanted to hide what we knew or that we tried to prevent investigation is simply untrue.
The CEO and Cofounder held a call for reporters to lay out Facebook's strategy going foward, to identify and crack down on harmful content Including fake news and bullying.
And today we're announcing that we're creating a new independent body that people will be able to repeal to, that will have the authority to determine whether content should come up or stay down.
But many of the reporter's questions focused on the Time's article and the fallout.
Zuckerberg repeatedly said he did not know about the Republican opposition research company, Definers Public Affairs.
The Times said Facebook hired the firm to discredit it's critics.
I learned about this reading in the New York Times yesterday.
As soon as I read about this in the New York Times, I got on the phone with our team, and we're no longer working with this firm You know Josh, I don't know.
I learned about this relationship when I read the New York Times piece yesterday.
Again, this is a case where, I learned about this yesterday.
Yeah, I mean the general thing is [UNKNOWN] learn about this yesterday.
It's not the kind of firm that I think, the type of work that I want us to be doing, so we're sort of not doing it.
I mean, me personally, no, I didn't know that we were working with them and we can follow up on that question.
Someone on our [UNKNOWN] team must [UNKNOWN] them in general Yeah we need to go through and look at all the relationships that we have and see if there are other ones like this.
WIth trust eroding in Facebook after several scandals including Cambridge Analytica, some critiques have questioned whether Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg should remain in charge.
You'll get the sense that I'm very clearly involved in all of the details and execution of what we're doing I also think that when you run a company that has tens of thousands of people, there are gonna be people who are doing things that I don't know about inside the company.
But Zuckerberg defended Sandberg and wouldn't discuss personal matters.
Sheryl was also not Involved.
She learned about this at the same time that I did, and we talked about this and came to the conclusion about what we should do here.
Overall, Cheryl is doing great work for the company.
In the end, the question is what's going on at Facebook?
Who's making decisions?
Where is this headed?
And what is going to happen now that Facebook has gone through one of its worse years, politically, ever