Facebook [https://crunchbase.com/organization/facebook]plans to challenge
Europe?s top court, which today ruled that EU countries can order Facebook to
globally remove content
[https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/03/europes-top-court-sets-new-line-on-policing-illegal-speech-online/] that violates local laws. Facebook currently complies with proper legal requests
to remove content that breaks a nation?s laws, but can leave it up for global
viewers if the post doesn?t violate its Community Standards.

But today during alive-streamed Q&A
[https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/10109571020295401/]with Facebook
employees, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that ?This is something I expect us and
other companies will be litigating.?

Live from our weekly internal Q&A
[https://www.facebook.com/zuck/videos/10109571020295401/] ? Posted by Mark

Zuckerberg explained that Facebook had ?successfully fought? overly broad
takedown requests in the past. He also noted that ?a lot of the details about
exactly how [the ruling gets] implemented will depend on national courts across

Facebook told in a statement today that:

> This judgement raises critical questions around freedom of expression and the
role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and
removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country.

At Facebook, we already have Community Standards which outline what people can
and cannot share on our platform, and we have a process in place to restrict
content if and when it violates local laws. This ruling goes much further.

It undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the
right to impose its laws on speech on another country. It also opens the door to
obligations being imposed on internet companies to proactively monitor content
and then interpret if it is ?equivalent? to content that has been found to be

In order to get this right national courts will have to set out very clear
definitions on what ?identical? and ?equivalent? means in practice. We hope the
courts take a proportionate and measured approach, to avoid having a chilling
effect on freedom of expression.

Zuckerberg hadn?t done a live-streamed Q&A recently, but holds them weekly
inside Facebook. Yet afterThe Verge?s Casey Newton
[https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/1/20892354/mark-zuckerberg-full-transcript-leaked-facebook-meetings] published two hours of leaked audio from Facebook internal all-hands meetings,
Zuckerberg is trying to show he has nothing to hide.

During pre-question remarks, Zuckerberg also discussed the U.S. Attorney General
Bill Barr?s open letter from the U.S., U.K and Australia demanding that Facebook
halt the expansion of encryption across all its messaging apps. ?We get that
there are real concerns with doing that,? Zuckerberg said. ?There are these
different equities we try to balance,? specifically safety needs like catching
child abusers and terrorists versus privacy and protecting political dissidents
as well as normal citizens.

The CEO argued Facebook could still police encrypted apps, noting ?There?s a lot
we can do with detecting patterns,? including linking accounts so it can shut
down the WhatsApp accounts of bad actors on Facebook, and that Facebook can
?find it upstream? by analyzing suspicious activity outside of the messages
threads themselves. He also mentioned that iMessage is the top U.S. messaging
app and it?s encrypted too, showing Facebook isn?t the only one pushing private
messaging and clearly users want it.

Queried about Bernie Sanders? statement that ?billionaires shouldn?t exist,?
Zuckerberg said ?no one deserves to have that much money.? That?s despite having
a fortune north of $60 billion, though much of it is dedicated to the Chan
Zuckerberg Foundation that works on social and science causes.

Zuckerberg was asked about concerns that his comments regarding Facebook would
likely sue to stop an attempt by regulators to break it up. He?d discussed how
presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren had made the break-up a core piece of
her policy slate, which led to questions about whether Facebook might try to
minimize the reach of her statements or avoid voter registration that could aid.

Zuckerberg crystallized the question, saying, ?If Facebook is worried about
Elizabeth Warren becoming president because of that thing?how can we be trusted
to be impartial and make sure she and other people get a voice?? He said that
?Even when people disagree with what I think would be good?I still want to give
them a voice . . . we need to be able to put what people want to express?above
our preferences all the time.?

Today?s session certainly felt more guarded than the leaked Q&As. At one point
Zuckerberg noted he wouldn?t share stats on Facebook Dating because it was a
public discussion. Yet the talk still helped clarify critical Facebook policy
positions are a tumultuous time for the company.

Zuckerberg joked at the beginning of the Q&A that he?s making this one publicly
available because ?I do such a bad job in interviews that it?s like, what do we
have to lose??

Original Article: https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/03/zuckerberg-vs-ecj/