Of course it was deliberate. Him admitting they serve ads based on Messenger content means nothing, we already know that they do.

WhatsApp is sold as an E2E encrypted service, and an admission that WhatsApp message data (or even metadata) is somehow used for advertising as well would be a huge admission.

Maybe. But I believe the conversation at the time was about how FB tracks its users and what data it uses for advertising purposes, not about WhatsApp's encryption, or lack thereof. I meant deliberate in the sense that the question was worded in a way that made it easily dodge-able with a "no, we don't use your encrypted WhatsApp messages for advertising purposes", instead of "yes, we read the content of your FB messages for advertising purposes."

> Him admitting they serve ads based on Messenger content means nothing, we already know that they do.

I don't think that has been confirmed (source if so?), and I think that's what the question should have attempted to confirm.

Exactly, the point is Facebook at anytime can change the client to show ads, or send some of the text up for analysis. The point being the user is not in control. It's all based on trust. Do you trust Facebook won't do it? Do you trust Facebook won't be hacked and does it, etc.. some of the senators attempted to highlight that. One guy asked if Zuckerberg could few is stuff, and Zuckerberg had to admit that technically he could.

I suppose there is some value to Zuckerberg dodging whether FB connects what it knows from WhatsApp data with their advertising platform. Even if it's metadata.

But they're probably doing so much more with Messenger and their 'shadow profiles'.