That’s what Facebook MFWCI Mark Zuckerberg said in Tuesday’s hearing in front of the Senate.  On the other hand,

Senator Gary Peters (D, MI) asked whether Facebook is using the microphones of users’ phones to listen in to what they are doing and saying—a charge the company has denied repeatedly in recent months.

And given the level of integrity Facebook managers have shown over the years, of course we should believe their denials. Right.  Never mind that that’s an easily done exploit that hackers have done on and off (pardon the pun) for years.  Right along with playing untoward games with the video cameras on our laptops.

Here’s the kicker, though, from that Senate hearing:

Mark Zuckerberg, Silicon Valley had one for Congress: Why don’t you get us?

The Senators’ questions often were ignorant, but that’s all they were: borne of an ignorance that’s easily corrected. Zuckerberg’s question, to the extent it’s accurately paraphrased and attributed, is a deeply cynical one that carefully misdirects the emphasis, borne as the question is from Silicon Valley’s deeply Leftist ideology—a slant Zuckerberg freely acknowledged a couple of times.

The more accurate question, the more serious question, is why doesn’t Silicon Valley get Americans?

Sometimes blunt instruments are the appropriate ones.

DoJ, while the ink was still drying on its promise of transparency and cooperation with Congress regarding the House’s Intelligence Committee investigations, welched on that promise.  Regarding the electronic communication—memo—that launched the counterintelligence investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia,

Chairman Devin Nunes (R, CA) received an official response from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd.
…
Upon inspection, however, [the response] looks more like an effort to distract attention from Mr Boyd’s refusal even to mention Mr Nunes’ main request of FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

That main request was for a clean, unredacted copy of the document.  Instead, the key data in the doc, the data central to the Intel Committee’s investigation, were carefully redacted.  The excuse?  The data would give up the name of the nation whose intel service is cooperating with us.  Never mind that the New York Times already has published Australia as the source for the Papadopoulos claims and that ex-CIA Director John Brennan already has bragged about Great Britain’s relationship with the FBI.

Enough stonewalling.  President Donald Trump needs formally and explicitly to declassify the memo and order the FBI to release it.

Sure, he’ll take heat from the Progressive-Democrats and the Left generally. What else is new?

Facebook’s management is making some moves in the name of its version of transparency.

Facebook Inc will soon require that advertisers wanting to run ads on hot-button political issues go through an authorization process first, a move the social network hopes will prevent the spread of misinformation across its platform.

And

In October, Facebook unveiled a similar authorization requirement for election-related ads. The latest move will cover “issue ads”—those that don’t specifically mention a candidate but weigh in on a divisive issue, including during an election campaign.

These moves strike me as just move by Facebook management and IT types to facilitate their efforts at censoring the speech of which they personally disapprove.  These steps have nothing at all to do with separating fake from truth—which is the sole responsibility of the reader, anyway.