Recognition goes to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for its successful two-year effort to secure details regarding a private discussion between Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and the UK’s then-Secretary of State for Digital issues, Matt Hancock (currently the Health Secretary).

Requests made under freedom of information laws for records of the 2018 private meeting between Zuckerberg and Hancock, which occurred during a period of concern related to Cambridge Analytica, were consistently denied by the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS).

An order from the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office ultimately compelled the government to release the minutes—the ICO reasoning that public interest is demonstrably served by transparency concerning Facebook’s operations and its CEO.

The UK government last year signaled its intention to regulate online platforms, publishing its Online Harms White Paper—a proposal to establish a legal duty of care for social media platforms to safeguard users from various harms, ranging from bullying to unlawful content. However, a draft law has yet to materialize.

The government has stated only that it will present one to parliament ‘as soon as feasible’. (And this past summer declined to commit to doing so in the coming year.)

Regarding Facebook specifically, Zuckerberg repeatedly declined to appear before the UK parliament’s DCMS committee in 2018 to address questions about online disinformation and the utilization of Facebook’s ad-targeting capabilities in the UK’s Brexit referendum—instead dispatching various representatives despite repeated requests for his direct participation.

It is now evident that Zuckerberg made time for a private meeting with Hancock, held on the periphery of the Paris VivaTech conference in late May 2018.

According to the obtained minutes, the Facebook CEO characterized the UK as having an “anti-tech government”—and even quipped about designating it as one of two nations he would avoid visiting. (The identity of the other country is redacted in the documents but may have been a reference to China.)

Zuckerberg also indicated he might withdraw Facebook’s investment from the UK—stating that while the UK was the “logical” location for European investment, they were “exploring alternative options”.

The technology company maintains a substantial workforce at its London headquarters, which serves as a significant engineering center for the company.

Earlier this year, Facebook announced plans to add another 1,000 positions—increasing its total employee count to over 4,000 in the city. A new headquarters currently under development in London’s King’s Cross area is designed to accommodate a total of 6,000 employees at full operational capacity.

The minutes reveal that Hancock responded to Zuckerberg by proposing “a fresh start” for the government’s relationship with social media platforms—and offering to shift its strategy from “imposing regulations to fostering collaborative efforts to ensure legislation is balanced and conducive to innovation”.

He also reportedly expressed a desire for “enhanced communication” with Zuckerberg—with the goal of “conveying the message that he has Facebook’s support at the highest levels”.

Zuckerberg reportedly conveyed support for UK policy and its intention to regulate the Internet—but expressed “concerns regarding the approach”.

We have contacted DCMS for comment on the meeting and statements made by its former digital secretary, and to inquire about the reasons for its two-year resistance to disclosing this information. We will update this report upon receiving a response.

Around the time of Zuckerberg’s meeting with Hancock, Facebook employed approximately 2,300 individuals in the UK. The technology company secured the lease for the King’s Cross office space in July 2018—several months after Zuckerberg’s meeting with Hancock—an event widely publicized as a ‘significant endorsement of the UK capital’.

When asked for comment on the revelations that Zuckerberg labeled the UK “anti-tech” and threatened to curtail its local investments, Facebook provided the following statement—attributed to ‘a spokesperson’:

Also responding to the Bureau’s report through a series of tweets today, Damian Collins, the former chair of the DMCS committee, stated that the minutes demonstrate Facebook’s disapproval of the inquiry; and that Zuckerberg was “resolutely opposed to appearing as a witness”.

Collins was strongly critical of Zuckerberg’s refusal to testify before the UK parliament, issuing a summons for his appearance on May 1, 2018, should he ever enter UK territory, and publicly condemning the company for exhibiting a consistently evasive “pattern of conduct”.

“The circumstances surrounding Mark Zuckerberg’s 2018 meeting with Matt Hancock were that it occurred two months after the Cambridge Analytica scandal became public, and MZ was declining our requests for him to appear before [DCMS committee] to discuss it,” Collins tweeted.

“The notes from this meeting clearly indicate that Mark Zuckerberg was apprehensive about the DCMS committee investigation into disinformation and fake news and was actively seeking to avoid being questioned by us regarding his knowledge of, and involvement in, the Cambridge Analytica scandal.”

“It demonstrates how fearful Mark Zuckerberg is of scrutiny that Facebook perceived questions about the safety of user data on their platform, and their collaboration with Cambridge Analytica, as an ‘anti-tech’ agenda,” he added.

Collins subsequently posed a question in parliament to Hancock—inquiring whether he would press Zuckerberg about disinformation related to vaccines during their next encounter.

Hancock responded by asserting that platforms are contributing to the public health effort.

Unresolved questions pertaining to the Cambridge Analytica incident include the extent of Zuckerberg’s personal awareness of the scandal and the timing of his knowledge. It has previously been revealed that Facebook employees raised internal concerns about Cambridge Analytica’s activities as early as September 2015—yet the company did not remove them from its ad platform until 2018.

A Facebook-initiated post-scandal app audit has also not yet released its complete findings.

Furthermore, the reasons for the technology company’s hiring of the co-founder of the firm that sold user data to Cambridge Analytica—around the same time it became aware of the company’s ‘questionable’ practices—remain unknown.

Zuckerberg’s avoidance of direct answers regarding his personal accountability in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal has been remarkably effective, despite his business empire facing increased scrutiny and lawmakers worldwide demonstrating a growing desire to regulate the Internet.

The UK’s ICO did not issue a final report on its own investigation into the data misuse scandal.

However, in a letter to the DCMS committee in October, it confirmed that Facebook user data had been transferred to Cambridge Analytica and integrated into an existing database containing “voter file, demographic and consumer data for US individuals”—with the intention of predicting political affiliation to target US voters with political messaging.

The ICO’s investigation did not uncover any evidence that the Facebook data sold to Cambridge Analytica was used to influence voters in the UK’s Brexit Referendum.

In its concluding report for the disinformation inquiry, the DCMS recommended that Facebook’s business practices be investigated—citing concerns related to competition and data protection.

Last month, the UK government announced a plan to establish a “pro-competition” regulator for large technology companies.

Today, the Competition and Markets Authority issued guidance to the government on the design and implementation of this regime, proposing a new legally binding code of conduct for platforms with substantial market power; pro-competition measures (such as mandating interoperability); and strengthened merger regulations.