 I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Nuguz, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank each of the witnesses today for your testimony. Mr. Zuckerberg, in 2004, when you had launched Facebook, it's fair to say, I think you'd agree with me, that you had quite a few competitors. Would you agree with that? Congressman, yes. Myspace, Friendster, Google's Orcut, Mixi, Cyworld, Yahoo 360, AOLs, Bebo, they were all competitors. Congressman, those were some of the competitors of the time, and it's only gotten a lot more competitive since. Well, let's talk about that, because by 2012, Mr. Zuckerberg, none of those companies that I just identified existed. You're certainly aware of that. They were all basically gone. Facebook, in my view, I think was in a monopoly by then. I wonder whether you would agree with that. I take it you don't. Congressman, that's correct. I don't. A lot of competitors in every part of what we do, from connecting with friends privately to connecting with people in communities to connecting with all your friends at once, to connecting with all kinds of user-generated content. I mean, I would bet that you or most people here have multiple apps for each of those on your phones. Mr. Zuckerberg, why don't we dig into this a bit further? So you and I clearly disagree about that. In 2012, I'm looking at a document that was produced by Facebook in response to the subcommittee's investigation. It's a presentation prepared for Cheryl Sandberg to deliver to the board of directors of a major telecommunications firm, boasting that, quote, Facebook is now 95% of all social media in the United States. The title of the slide is even, quote, the industry consolidates as it matures. So as I look at that graph, I certainly think most folks would concede that Facebook was a monopoly as early as 2012. But nonetheless, I understand that we disagree on that point. Would you agree with me that Facebook, its strategy since that time, to essentially protect what I describe as a monopoly, but obviously what you would describe as market power, that Facebook has been engaged in purchasing competition, in some cases replicating competition, and in some cases, eliminating your competition? Would that be a fair statement? Congressman, the space of people connecting with other people is a very large space. And I would agree that there were different approaches that we took to addressing different parts of that space, but it's all in service of building the best services. And I appreciate that, Mr. Zuckerberg. I appreciate the latter point. It sounds like you are conceding that at least some of those strategies were what I identified. And so I want to talk a little bit about that. In 2014, here's an email. It's from Facebook's current chief financial officer described to the company's acquisition strategy as quote, a land grab, and saying that we are going to spend five to 10% of our market cap every couple of years to shore up our position. And my sense of the facts is that that is, in fact, what has occurred. Facebook, as you conceded earlier, that Instagram was a competitor of Facebook's. You acquired Instagram in 2012. Instagram is now the sixth largest social media platform in the world. Is that right? Congressman, I'm not sure what rank it is, but it's certainly grown beyond our wildest. I can represent to you that the statistics demonstrate that empirical data shows it's the sixth largest. In 2014, Facebook bought its competitor WhatsApp. Is that correct? Congressman, yes, WhatsApp was also both a competitor and complimentary. They competed with us in the space of mobile messaging, which is a growing and important space and is, again, one part of the global space of how people can act more broadly. Understood. By the time WhatsApp had over 400 million monthly users, a clear path towards one billion monthly active users. And WhatsApp is now the second largest social media platform in the world with two billion users worldwide, more than Facebook Messenger. And of course, your company owns WhatsApp. Facebook also tried to buy other competitive startups. In fact, as Chairman Nadler noted, you did tell one of Facebook's senior engineers in 2012 that you can quote, likely just by any competitive startup, but it'll be a while before we can buy Google. Do you recall writing that email? Congressman, I don't specifically, but it sounds like a joke. Well, it certainly, I don't take it as a joke. As I review the email, it was in regards to having just closed the Instagram sale and the response from this individual, this engineer, to you was quote, well played. Your response was, thanks. One reason people underestimate the importance of watching Google is that we can likely always just buy any competitive startups, but it'll be a while before we can buy Google. And given the purchases that Facebook had made previous to this and the attempted purchases, my understanding is that Facebook made several overtures to Snapchat, for example, which rebuffed those efforts, clearly demonstrates in my view that that email was not made in jest. But here's why I ask these questions, Mr. Zuckerberg. It strikes me that over the course of the last several years, Facebook has used its market power to either purchase or replicate the competition. And Facebook, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram are the most now downloaded apps of the last decade. Your company, sir, owns them all. And we have a word for that. That word is monopoly. With that, I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.