 Thank you, Chairman. I want to note first that this year in comes six days before election day, and it makes, I believe, we're politicizing, and the Republican majority is politicizing, which should actually not be a partisan topic. And I do want to thank the witnesses here for appearing, but also for the work that they're doing to try to encourage voting and to put out the correct information when the president and others are undermining vote by mail, something we're doing in every state in the country right now. Second point, Republicans failed to pass my bipartisan honest ads act, and the White House blatantly blocked the bipartisan election security bill that I had with Senator Langford, as well as several other Republicans. And it's one of the reasons I think we need a new president. Third, my Republican colleagues in the Senate, many of them I work with very well on this committee, but we have had four years to do something when it comes to antitrust, privacy, local news, a subject that briefly came up, and so many other things. So I'm going to use my time to focus on what I consider, in Justice Ginsburg's words, to be a blueprint for the future. I'll start with you, Mr. Zuckerberg. How many people log into Facebook every day? Senator, it is more than two billion. Okay. And how much money have you made on political advertisements in the last two years? Senator, if you don't know off the top of my head, it is a relatively small part of our culture. Okay. Small for you, but I think it's 2.2 billion over 10,000 ads sold since May 2018. Those are your numbers and we can check them later. Do you require Facebook employees to review the content of each of the political ads that you sell in order to ensure that they comply with the law and your own internal rules? Senator, we require all political advertisers to be verified before they could run ads. And I believe we do review advertising as well. But does a real person actually read the political ads that you sell, yes or no? Senator, I imagine that a person does not look at every single ad. Our systems are a combination of artificial intelligence systems and people. We have 35,000 people who do content and security review for us, but the massive amount of them. I really just had a straightforward question because I don't think they do. I think the algorithms hit in because I think the ads instantly are placed. Is that correct? Senator, my understanding of the way the system works, we have computers and artificial intelligence scan everything. And if we think that there are potential violations, then either the AI system will act or will flag it to the tens of thousands of people who do content review. But with all the money you have, you could have a real person review like a lot of the other traditional media organizations do. So another question, when John McCain and I and Senator Warner introduced the Honest Ads Act, we got pushback from your company, others, and you're initially against it. Then we discuss this at a hearing. You're for it. I appreciate that. And have you spent any of the money? I know you spent the most money. Facebook spent the most money and we're lobbying last year. Have you spent any of the money trying to change or block the bill? Senator, in fact, I've endorsed it publicly and we've implemented it into our systems, even though it hasn't become law. I'm a big support. Anything in the budget to try to change it? No. Have you done anything to get it passed? Because we're at a roadblock on it. And I do appreciate that you voluntarily implemented some of it. But have you voluntarily implemented the Part of the Honest Ads Act, where you fully disclose which groups of people are being targeted by political ads? Senator, we have, I think, industry leading transparency around political ads. And part of that is showing which audiences in broad terms ended up seeing the ads. Of course, getting the right resolution on that is challenging without it becoming a privacy issue. But we've tried to do that and provide as much transparency as we can. And I think we're currently leading in that area. And to your question about how we're so focused on that. I have concerns that I don't mean to interrupt you, but I have such limited time. One of the things that I'm blessing, I'm going to ask you about is divisiveness on the platform. And I know there's been a recent studies have shown that part of your algorithms, they push people towards more polarized content, left, right, whatever. In fact, one of your researchers warned senior executives that our algorithms exploit the human brains attraction to divisiveness. The way I look at it, more divisiveness, more time in the platform or time on the platform, the company makes more money. Does that bother you? What it's done to our politics? Senator, I respectfully disagree with that characterization of how the systems work. We design our systems to show people the content that's going to be the most meaningful to them, which is not trying to be as divisive as possible. Most of the content on the systems is not political. It's things like making sure that you can see when your, you know, your cousin had her baby or Okay, okay. I'm going to, I'm going to move on to Google here and Mr. Pichai, but I'm Mr. Pichai, but I'm telling you right now that that's not what I'm talking about the cousins and the babies here. I'm talking about conspiracy theories and all the things that I think us, the centers on both sides of the aisle know what I'm talking about. And I think it's been corrosive. Google, Mr. Pichai, I have not really liked your response to the lawsuit and what's been happening. I think we need a change in competition policy for this country. I hope I'll be able to ask you more about it at the Judiciary Committee. And I think your response isn't just offensive. It's been defiant to the Justice Department and suits all over the world. You control almost 90% of all general search engine queries, 70% of the search advertising market. Don't you see these practices as anti competitive? Senator, we are a popular general purpose search engine. We do see robust competition in many categories of information. And we invest significantly in R&D. We are innovating. We are lowering prices in all the markets we are operating and happy to engage and discuss it further. Well, one of your employees testified before the Antitrust Subcommittee last month, and he suggested that Google wasn't dominant in ad tech, that it was only one of many companies in a highly competitive ad tech landscape. Google has 90% of the publisher ad server market, a product of its double click acquisition. Does the market sound highly competitive to you when you have 90% of it? Very brief answer. Many publishers can use simultaneously many tools. Amazon and trade disc alone have grown significantly in the last two years. This is a market in which we share a majority of our revenue, our margins are low. We are happy to take feedback here. We are trying to support the publishing industry but definitely open to feedback and happy to engage and discuss it. I think you've gotten feedback from the boss. So I'm looking forward to our next hearing to discuss it more. Thank you.