 Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the committee, every day, millions of Americans use the Internet to share their experiences and discuss issues that matter to them. Setting the rules for online discourse is an important challenge for our society and there are principles at stake that go beyond any one platform. How do we balance free expression and safety? How do we define what is dangerous? Who should decide? I don't believe that private companies should be making so many decisions about these issues by themselves. And on Facebook, we often have to balance competing equities. Sometimes the best approach from a safety or security perspective isn't the best for privacy or free expression. So we work with experts across society to strike the right balance. We don't always get it right, but we try to be fair and consistent. The reality is that people have very different ideas and views about where the line should be. Democrats often say that we don't remove enough content and Republicans often say we remove too much. I expect that we'll hear some of those criticisms today. And the fact that both sides criticize us doesn't mean that we're getting this right, but it does mean that there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be. And I think that's understandable. People can reasonably disagree about where to draw the lines. That's a hallmark of democratic societies, especially here in the U.S. with our strong First Amendment tradition. But it strengthens my belief that when a private company is making these calls, we need a more countable process that people feel is legitimate and that gives platform certainty. At Facebook, we publish our standards and issue quarterly reports on the content that we take down. We launch an independent oversight board that can overturn our decisions and we've committed to an audit of our content reports. But I believe Congress has a role to play, too, in order to give people confidence that the process is carried out in a way that balances society's deeply held values appropriately. And that's why I've called for regulation. Right now, the discussion is focused on Section 230. Some say the ending 230 would solve all of the Internet's problems. Others say it would end the Internet as we know it. From our perspective, Section 230 does two basic things. First, it encourages free expression, which is fundamentally important. Without 230, platforms could potentially be held viable for everything that people say. They face much greater pressure to take down more content to avoid legal risk. Second, it allows platforms to moderate content. Without 230, platforms can face liability for basic moderation, like removing harassment that impacts the safety of their communities. Now, there's a reason why America leads in technology. Section 230 helped create the Internet as we know it. It has helped new ideas get built and our companies to spread American values around the world, and we should maintain this advantage. But the Internet has also evolved, and I think that Congress should update the law to make sure that it's working as intended. One important place to start would be making content moderation systems more transparent. Another would be to separate good actors from bad actors by making sure that companies can't hide behind Section 230 to avoid responsibility for intentionally facilitating illegal activity on their platforms. We're open to working with Congress on these ideas and more. I hope the changes that you make will bring truth to the spirit and intent of 230. There are consequential choices to make here, and it's important that we don't prevent the next generation of ideas from being built. Now, although this hearing is about content policy, I also want to cover our election preparedness work. Voting ends in six days were the midst of a pandemic, and there are ongoing threats to the integrity of this election. Since 2016, Facebook has made major investments to stop foreign interference. We've hired more than 35,000 people to work on safety and security. We've disrupted more than 100 networks coming from Russia, Iran, and China, and more that were misleading people about who they are and what they're doing, including three just this week. This is an extraordinary election, and we've updated our policies to reflect that. We're showing people reliable information about voting and results, and we've strengthened our ads and misinformation policies. We're also running the largest voting information campaign in US history. We estimate that we've helped more than 4.4 million people registered to vote, and 100,000 people volunteer to be poll workers. Candidates on both sides continue to use our platforms to reach voters. And people are rightly focused on the role that technology companies play in our elections. I'm proud of the work that we've done to support our democracy. This is a difficult period, but I believe that America will emerge stronger than ever, and we're focused on doing our part to help.