tv Fast Money Halftime Report CNBC September 5, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm EDT
but this is where strong partnership with government comes in because we will not always be able to infer agendas or intent or even location in some cases. >> in the dialogue you have talked about with law enforcement is this one of those topics where you're asking for them for information or they're asking you and they're trying to follow the money or have you seen any of that or is it sort of one of those issues that's just too hard to think about >> it's both we have seen proactive outreach from either side >> but that would be i think a critical issue in terms of governing the behavior of campaigns. i would hope that you would continue to work and we would urge our colleagues in the government to work with you in that regard. one of the issues -- and i think senator warner and several others have brought it up, is prevalence of bots i'm not a technologist and seems to me you could identify a bot's
presence that you could notify on -- at your consumers that 35% or 80% of the messages generated electronically is that feasible and something you're doing >> it's amixed answer right now. we are able to identify automations and activity coming through our api. and to senator warner's comments, we would be able to label that with context. but we are not necessarily as easily able to identify people who might be scripting our website. so making it look like it's an actual human or even the app make it look like an actual human performing these actions that becomes much more challenging and unclear. so in consideration of labeling and context, we need to make sure that when people see that bot label that they're assuming that everything it's not on is human. we need to make sure that
there's precision and accuracy as we label those things. >> but wouldn't there be a value of identifying a fraction or potential fictitious actors? >> yeah. i mean, it's definitely an idea that we have been considering. especially this past year. it's really up to the implementation at this point. >> ms. sandberg, your comments >> this is an idea i had an opportunity to discuss with vice chairman warner yesterday and committed to working with you on it. >> thank you let me just ask you a question going forward, i think we are going to come to a major debate within this country, within the whole world, of who owns my data which rapidly is becoming me is it a company like facebook? is it a company like twitter which raises the question of do
you believe that your users should have the right to control what you do with the data, either selectively, on an individual occurrence or generically or simply purge it at some point? do you believe that should be the -- >> yes very strongly. it is your information you share it with us f. you want to delete it, we delete it if you want to take it with you, we allow you to download it and take it with you. >> what about for those people who i think many people who in the hustle an bustle of every day that's a very cumbersome process? should they be -- shouldn't be allowed to sort of have a check that says, every two months delete it or delete it as soon as i put it in or -- >> yes we're working on some of those tools and we have improved we have made it easier to understand what information we have, how we're getting it and use it and we'll continue here. >> mr. dorsey, the same question. >> we believe people should have
complete control of their data i think, again, senator warner brought up an interesting point earlier, which is i don't believe there's a real understanding of the exchange being made in terms of people performing activities on these services and services like twitter and how they can actually see that as an exchange an exchange of value and those are things i would love to think about more how to make it for clear and the inventives conversation. >> thank you thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator reed i thank all the members for their questions and our panelists for their answers. i'm going to turn to the vice chairman for any last comments he might have. >> i want to thank you both. thank you for the spirit you brought to this -- some of the suggestions. your responses to some of the suggestions. i wish our members were were still here because i think they
performed extraordinarily well i take away from this three or four quick points. one, very much appreciate, mr. dorsey, your acknowledgment that we ought to move towards and i guess ms. sandberg echoed this, as well. some ability to indicate where they're contacted by a human being or machine and acknowledging that just because it's a bot doesn't mean it's good or bad. might be a data point that individual ought to have as they make determinations going forward. i also really appreciated, ms. sandberg, your notion that not only should users have access to the information that you or others collecting but as we work through to this how you monetize that and let users know the value of their data, i think that increased price transparency and i'm grateful of your willingness to at least consider that because i think it
goes a long way towards making this exchange better understood by individuals i also, i know i didn't get a chance to get into this at length but you and i have had this conversation in the past around data portability. i don't want to make the complete analogy and number portability came around, we have competition in the wireless industry and elsewhere data portability, you make it availability right now a user easily format that can move from platform to platform i think would be extraordinarily important in terms of making sure that we continue to have competition in the space finally, also appreciated your comment. i think we are going to have more and more of these areas where manipulation may take place that actually incensed violence we cited the horrible example of the rohingya in myanmar. i appreciate your comment of facebook to have a moral and
legal incentive. sites incensing violence and take it down and how we spell it out is a challenge but i appreciate your willingness to work with me on this mr. chairman, thank you for the hearing on this. i think it's very, very important and i think our committee i hope will continue to take the lead on these subjects. >> i would ask both of you if there are any rules such as anti-trust, ftc, regulations or guidelines that are obstacles to collaboration between companies. i hope you'll sul mit for the record where those obstacles are so that we can look atthe appropriate steps that we could take as a committee to open those avenues up i want to thank you for appearing and the continued efforts to find a solution to the challenging problem. this hearing represents the capstone of four of the fourth piece of the committee's investigation into russian interference in the 2016 elections. so far, we have completed our inquiry into the attempted hack
of state elections, infrastructure, intelligence community assessment on russian activities and recent u.s. elections, the obama administration's policy response to those operations, with your testimony today at this the fourth hearing we have held on social media we heard the top level perspective on how to address foreign influence operations on your platforms when this committee began its investigation into russian interference in the 2016 elections, neither mark or i fully appreciated how easily foreign actors could use social media to manipulate how americans form their views like most technology, social media has the capacity to be used for good as intended. but also, to advance agendas of those bent on manipulation and destruction. given the amount of information companies like google collect on each and every american, it is
also too easy for bad actors to craft a message that appears tailored just for you. the russians undertook a structured influence campaign not against the american government but against the american people. moscow saw the issues that talking heads yell about on cable news - >> senator richard burr, chairman of the senate intelligence committee, wrapping up nearly three hours of hearings with sheryl sandberg and jack dorsey. this one largely about controlling the flow of misinformation sheryl sandberg talked about posting related articles next to information they flag is false jack dorsey raising the possibility of one day labeling a bot telling you as a user if you're dealing with someone on twitter that's not an actual human being. shares of under pressure for most of the day in a weekday for tech maybe because of what jack
dorsey said of tectonic shifts coming the industry. >> i believe we need to question the incentives that are in our product today. every time someone opens up our service, every time someone opens up our app, we are incentivizing them to do something or not to do something. and that extends all the way to our business and those answers that we get from asking that question are going to create massive shifts in how twitter operates and i also believe how our industry operates so what worked 12 years ago does not work today h hasn't evolved fast enough. >> what worked 12 years ago does not work today julia boorstin, of course, watching the hearing with us julia, i thought it was notable really no targeting the executives trying to get them slip up or make a gaffe. this is high minded about the views of dealing with different
governments around the world. >> absolutely. i thought a lot of talk, also, commending their collaboration with each other and their work with law enforcement and a lot of digs at google for not being present and not participating in today's hearing. i was really surprised by the number of senators who went out of their way to criticize google for that but it's interesting hearing the back and forth, especially one particular question from senator harris asking sheryl sandberg whether they benefited from activity on the platform even if the activity is fake news or whether it was manipulative activity here's what sheryl sandberg said in this somewhat heated exchange take a listen. >> the more user engagement will result and the more then that they are exposed to third party ads, the more that will increase your revenue so the more -- >> yes, yes. but only i think when they see or really authentic content because i think in the short run and over the long run it doesn't
benefit us to have anything inauthentic on our platform. >> now, senator harris and sandberg went back and forth on the topic a couple of times. the point being that sheryl sandberg is trying to make is they don't want extra activity on the platform, on their platform if that activity is manipulative or if it's fake news, trying to stress just to have the extra interaction with different profiles is not going to be good for facebook in the long run so really, emphasizing that facebook's interests are aligned with that of the american government, something that dorsey emphasized, as well. >> yeah. interesting. harris got sandberg to say essentially 3% to 4% of accounts on facebook may be inauthentic that was the key moment, as well >> but she said it's not 3% to 4% of revenue. she was very clear to say much smaller percent than that. >> yes they made the delineation of that jon fortt, we didn't get the
big, broad anti-trust discussion that maybe some were fearful of early this morning. >> yeah. i would say that the main characteristic of this hearing for me before the senate intelligence committee was neither side was on their heels. the senators seemed very well prepared with substantive questions of technical issues, social impact. the technology executives didn't appear to break a sweat at all in answering these questions as julia mentioned, there was the exchange of harris and sandberg over making money off of fake accounts there was also an exchange between senator tom cotton and jack dorsey over to what extent twitter owes additional allegiance to the american government versus other governments and how they enforce their policies i thought jack dorsey had an interesting and strong moment saying that twitter users expect no matter where they are in the world that twitter will inforce the policies fairly.
twitter has come under as we have talked about often some scruti scrutiny lately for perhaps not stating the policies are as they clearly might. but jack dorsey seemed to have it together today. >> interesting question. do you prefer to see america remain the world's dominant global superpower. that was tom cotton to jack dorsey today cara swisher joins us having watched a lot of this. judging from your comments on twitter, of course, you say this is how democracy's supposed to work. >> that's right. it was a very -- high level hearing and except for the alex jones goblin appearance it was trying to troll the hearings, it was a very high minded, good questions from the senators. i don't think they were particularly tough on the companies. i think it was more talking about the things they're trying to do and some of their theories and it was good in that fashion. i don't think they were there to strafe facebook or google. there's good discussion going
on especially about when dorsey called twitter a public square i thought that was interesting because that means public squares are regulated. and the second part when they were talking about the 230 communications decency act, whether they remove immunity i thought that was very interesting, the senator from west virginia was talking about that he was talking about opiates an that's chipped that's a problem >> pharmaceutical in question -- >> for anything. >> purchased, ownershpioids in terms of early practical steps -- >> i had an amazing interview
yesterday with nicole wong they used to have time to deal with this and they need to change the structure of the businesses as dorsey talked about. they used to advantage speed or engagement or other things and now they have to advantage accuracy i think relevance. context and things like that and that's going to impact the bottom line, their growth. they've been allowed to do a lot of things to goose their revenue and to goose their audience and they can't do that anymore because a lot of it is quite damaging such as the bots. they should be labeled. >> i thought that was so fascinating. jon, i'll let you jump in here but two things the degree to which he acknowledg acknowledged journalists are the firefighters to call out false information and saying when we first started the service in the mid-2000s we assumed that everyone would want to pay attention the metric to care about the most is your number of followers and now he thinks maybe that's not as he said a
proxy for how much value you bring to the service. >> yeah. that was interesting, carl one hand, the comment about journalists i think he got the tone right perhaps he got the practice on twitter first suggested journalists' responsibility perhaps unpaid to find what's false on twitter and correct it. but that comment he made that from the beginning twitter emphasized the number of followers and perhaps sent the message that the number of followers was a proxy for how important you were on the platform, how important your contribution was they're questioning that now they're also questioning whether likes and retweets, particularly likes, are the right kind of signal of the importance of a tweet. raises lots of fundamental questions of twitter itself. you know, i think about how long it took twitter to change the 140 character limit. it seems like they're feeling pushed to move a lot faster, to perhaps at least consider changing some more fundamental things about the service. >> maybe, julia boorstin, to
coin a phrase, it is not moving fast and breaking things but moving faster and fixing things. >> yes definitely an emphasize on fixing things. sandberg pointed out improving algorithms and hiring employees and how the two pieces have to work together. she cited a number of different examples of different types of accounts they have shut down. there's an example last month of a number of iranian-linked accounts they have shut down and praised the fact they had gotten a tip from a private cyber security company saying that that kind of collaboration is supposed to happen and shows that their systems are working so, a lot here on how they're working to prepare for the midterms and i think an area of a lot of concern of the senators in the room and sandberg and dorsey. >> before we let you go, what do we need to pay attention to in the five or six weeks before reporting season for the quarter and then midterms after that >> midterms.
let's be clear as i wrote in the column today, this is working the way it's built. that's the problem that's maybe not the way it should be built and they have to take it down to the nails like and redo a lot of this again and they have to stay cooperative with the governments on the issues of the election and better cooperation with the government they have to be vigilant of fake accounts, be transparent and political ads and they have to really remove fake news or demote it on the platform and that -- these are things they should have been doing and they have to really double down on doing these and it will have an impact on how much things cost, an impact on their audience, an impact in good ways for american democracy if they do this. >> cara swisher, thank you very much for that. talk to you soon obviously about this reid hunt joins us in the rotunda. thank you for joining us practical solution that is you might have heard or at least have been raised today
>> listening to this hearing and the other hearings that have been held for facebook, twitter and the others, i think it's really an important thing to give a message to the business community and here's the message. don't underestimate the risks to free enterprise of government threats to regulate free speech. free enterprise and free speech are two sides of the same coin now, this happens to be the senate intelligence committee which is a high intelligence group of people. but generally speaking, with respect to congress and with respect to the white house, in washington there have been too many threats to regulate free speech when i was part of the group that put together section 230, 25 years ago, our fundamental idea was that everybody could be their own broadcaster, everybody could attract their own audience and companies that facilitated that could pay for the servers and the networking by selling advertising. this was a good idea. >> yes. >> the fact that these companies now are looking at some of the
downsides of this practice, they should be given props for that big boo to google for not showing up but giving them props for the self regulation, that's what we should be doing here what we should not be doing is talking about the government imposing regulations. >> right i assume you think the companies see this threat and that's why they're accelerating costs and expenses and self policing >> spending more they're still going to make plenty of money. they're the wave of the advertising future as they've been the wave of the advertising past for the last several years. they can afford to do this self governing and where we ought to draw the line and it's everybody in business who's advantaged by these cheap, efficient ways to reach an audience with ads. >> jon fortt >> mr. hundt, one particular idea that came up a couple of times in this hearing is the idea of data portability i'm not sure how they would work one person's facebook account has limited value with data on
there. it's really the people you're connected to, common interests, common data but it seems that if that could be figured out it could be a major disrupter in the social landscape if you could take a whole group worth of data out of facebook, put it into google or put it into twitter, put it into linkedin to be a game changer. curious your thoughts on that. >> from the because community's perspective, the great advantage of facebook and the great advantage of twitter is not just that the users generate the content. the great advantage is no friction involved in figuring out where to place the ads the companies make it really, really easy. now, as to the users, if the users don't want to use it anymore as sheryl said eloquently and jack said clearly, the usercans do whatever they want if conservatives create a facebook, have as it if liberals create their own twitter accounts and the twitter
business, you know, have at it these businesses really do serve the american public and they really do serve american business and frankly, they're part of the glory of american capitalism and that's why they're not allowed in china >> right i wonder if you think google's absence is explained by the conversation about china they knew was going to happen. >> i hope that's not true but it's scary google should not be playing footsy with a state sponsored censorship engine. period. >> we saw sheryl sandberg in the car there. what was her best argument today? >> the best thing about sheryl sandberg since i knew her in the treasury department way back when is not only is she smart as all get out but forthright stylistically that's what she showed today where she didn't know something she said she would get back to them i think facebook has grown up a
lot as a culture over the last year and that's why i say big props to them. >> that was interesting. especially the conversation about misinformation from real people, the way in which they're putting, say, a related article off to the side that lets you check fact against fact or as she said alternative fact against fact. >> talk about this real versus false thing. so what kept going through my mind is former chairman of the fcc can imagine anybody imagine the federal communications commission hire thousands of people to figure out the mathematical algorithms used by the companies to in turn make a predicted estimate of what's fake and what's not fake you don't want the government in that business. it is just beyond imagination. so what should have been said by the senators today is we don't want the government in that business. >> right. >> what we do want is for you companies to be more open and transparent about what you are doing. but i wanted to hear more senators say we don't want the
government meddling in your business. >> you didn't hear enough of that >> i didn't hear enough of it. >> scott watcher in will take the handover here as the half begins late because of the hearing and, scott, a lot to discuss and talking to warner in later on today on "power lunch" i think around 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> looking forward to that thank you. watching the stock moves today an you pointed out earlier tech is under big pressure we welcome all of you to "the halftime report. coverage of the hearing in washington continues the fallout for those social media companies and of course investors. tech as i mentioned under big-time pressure today led by facebook, twitter, google. google choosing not to send a ceo to washington today. lots to discuss. we have a couple of great guests in the wings to join us in a moment the outspoken investor jason calakanis. along with jason here with us on set today, as well, joe, josh, john and pete.
shareholders in facebook are john and pete. pete, to you first our friends in the prior hour covered this hearing from front to back. i think it's our job to discuss the fallout will be for the companies and investors and the stocks what do you think? >> i think it was interesting to hear sandberg -- >> go ahead. >> i want to point out that's twitter ceo jack dorsey getting into his moment a few moments after sheryl sandberg left that hearing room listen for just a moment. >> cnn and the democrats you know are destroying the first amendment and needs to be stood up against. >> mr. dorsey, when can i have my verification back >> shut down independent press in the u.s. >> i'm a journalist. >> among other voices out there, hearing alex jones of info wars. the male voice you heard out there. that's dorsey leaving capitol hill pete, forgive me. >> that's okay >> just expand on your thoughts. >> own facebook. it's -- i just view the different verticals they have, scott. i know there's pressure on them
and spending an incredible amount of money over several quarters to try to combat what's happened in the past here in terms of different types of breaches they have had and so forth and we talked about the right kind of regulation that was an interesting statement to hear from facebook themselves to talk about the fact that they're at least willing to look that direction right? that's something that everybody who's talking about free speech and the rest of these types of things, twitter or different names in social media, but the idea to be welcoming some form of regulation i think was pretty big and i don't think that's a negative for them, by the way. by the way, during that testimony the quad q, qqq, we saw huge call buying in there. september to november. buying the upside. from the 190s to 195s. they think it takes time and look at the xlk or across at nasdaq itself. down 1.5% and now 1% recovered off the lows. >> doc, if you think that
facebook remains on the defensive for a while and seems more likely than not - >> yep. >> what does that mean for the stock? does it stay in what some suggest as the penalty box >> yeah. until the next earnings report i think. kevin and i had that debate maybe it was ten days ago here on the network when kevin was saying he bought a bunch of facebook and i said i'm long facebook but i've been aggressively writing calls because i don't see a lot of upside in the short term but a good potential for it. and i think meeting things head on like ms. sandberg did today is exactly the right way to address it over at facebook rather than dodging it as google did. >> yeah. joe, alphabet notably absent today from that hearing room. >> yes. >> choosing not to send either ceo presence in the room i find it interesting and maybe a little ironic you sold the shares you owned within the last 24 hours. >> i had a significant tech exposure in the month of august.
i increased beyond what i'm normally comfortable with. it was a very strong month ownership besides microsoft and others, it was ownership of amazon, google, adobe. so it's just paring back technology that is example of good news and good news being i just thought that hearing the tech, the tech representatives were basically untouched. i thought they did a fantastic job in the conversation but yet it's bad price action to pete's point. you have stocks today in technology netflix down 4%. seei seeing microns down 4% technology is it appears having a much needed correction. >> is that all it is one-day phenomenon any correlation of the hearing room in d.c. on the hill and the selloff in tech today led by facebook down nearly 3% and amazon and google, apple, facebook, netflix. the names all leading -- >> facebook's been falling for a week and a half.
google over 6% in the last 3 days so maybe it's more than that it's just a risk off day in general and even when you look at secondary and tertiary names, workday hammered this is not a company that's sitting in front of senators today so i think the thing that no one is really saying is that the companies that are being asked these questions of what they think their responsibilities are and change the service so that we don't have another influence operation which by the way i don't think you can prevent is that these companies see themselves as supra national meaning this they transcend national borders it is not that they deny they're born in america and have predominantly american workforce employed there it's just that they're building global businesses and the tell for something like that when you read mark zuckerberg talk about the global responsibilities and when you see jack dorsey heavily
involved in cryptocurrencies created to transcend national borders without any kind of regulation, so that's the way these people think and then when you look at the workforce, they're in brooklyn, oakland, san francisco they don't look anything like what companies looked like in prior generations and i'm saying that as a good thing but the companies think of themselves as bigger than sometimes the regulators think they should be and i don't see that it's going to change so we will have hearings like this every year. >> we have a couple of great guests with us to discuss all of this today the outspoken entrepreneur and investor jason live with us in san francisco this hour. also, someone this knows facebook quite well, co-founded the company that would go on to become facebook. he's now the ceo of sum zero, an investment research platform good to have you both with us. your impressions of what took place today in washington? >> i thought it was a pretty
collaborative session. i think one of the more important takeaways from sheryl was that, you know, she made it dleer clear it's not in the economic incentive to create a platform filled with fake accounts and sort of, you know, content that's just not real you know i think part of the narrative against them and twitter is that they're profiting off of misinformation or that they're doing so in a meaningful way and i think when you take into account the actual numbers of how many fake accounts are there? are they what revenue is generated from them and then the negative pr to go in front of the senate, you know, kind of deal with the media about it it's pretty clear that like this is not like a good thing for them it's something they want to solve and in the interest to solve it i think the other important takeaway is they understand, pretty clear, that like what is good for engagement is aligned
with overall, you know, safety within the community and just making sure that people feel comfortable sharing views even if they're sort of across the aisle. i think that's - >> do you not see that engagement and spikes every time the president tweets something incendiary or any time someone from the far left or the far right fringe throws a grenade into the middle of twitter and then runs away do you not concede engagement goes crazy, retweets, faves, cross fire between different factions can you not see that goes on on facebook and twitter almost every day? >> yeah. so i think there's a question of whether that's okay or not right? >> okay. i'll answer it it's not okay but it's a big part of the business model. >> there's disagreement on the line, right? like should trump be allowed to throw a grenade on twitter people would say yes and good for debate and shows there are people with strong views i think for the companies what
their whole goal is to help sort of set that line and make it clear because right now there's quite a bit of disagreement where the line should be >> somebody has to decide and reporting yesterday -- reporting yesterday indicated that on several occasions the ceo of twitter was directly involved in making decisions on alex jones content and -- >> right. >> so it's not a bot or an algorithm deciding when's reasonable and what's not. it's management of these companies. >> my sense is that the sort of low-hanging fruit or step one of the process of creating a fair and neutral platform is that they get rid of the stuff, the content that's clearly fake, clearly false, clearly misleading. >> i agree with this. >> i think until they get through the phase one it is like a waste of time to think about that tier two, that second layer of what's -- a strong opinion. that's a judgment question. >> on that point, crazy, you
know, miss sandberg said that facebook is doing better to root out the issues of the two gentlemen on the set are discussing do you believe that? >> yeah. i think they're doing a much better job i don't believe that divya is correct that the fake news and this polarization of the country has been bad for facebook. in fact, having no guardrails, having complete and utter frictionlessness in the service is what made it grow and obviously the engagement goes up when you post fake news because people are outraged and they retweet it and it plays to people's tribalism he's wrong and josh is right on that particular issue. what was notable and also let's be clear facebook wouldn't have done anything if the feet weren't held to the fire what was clear today i think and notable is how bipartisan this was and constructive it was. i think the companies taking it deadly seriously because they know they're on the hot seat and if they screw up in this
election cycle it's going to have significant ramifications so i think what we saw today should be encouraging to americans that we have a functional democracy despite what's happening with the mueller investigation and trump. the trump stuff was kind of left out of this and we had a serious heady discussion of how to solve these problems and i think the big loser in all of this is google what a horrible decision to not send somebody completely disrespectful to the citizens of this country for, you know, the leadership at google to make tenls of billions of dollars personally, billions of dollars and then blow off the american people when our democracy's at stake. we the people of this country and this democracy gives people at google like larry and others the ability to be billionaires for them to not show up and answer the critically important questions is just disgusting and reprehencible. and they really --
>> i want to get to this. >> they should take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves what have they done for america? >> i want that part of the issue in a moment. i want do give you a chance to respond. >> maybe just to clarify look this is partly from my own experience of social media platforms. my reaction to content, this isn't happening that often but content clearly false, after a while that wears on you and like -- i hear this from friends, too using the services where people start to say things that are overly negative over and over and over again and detach from the platform because they don't -- it just doesn't become a comfortable place to have discourse. so i think maybe in the short term, yeah, it is possible that somebody -- throws a grenade and a comment for a comment and generates engagement and argue that generates revenue and long term you don't want to have facebook and twitter turn into, you know, a cage fight all the
time because people get tired of it. >> i'm wondering and on that note the there f there's irreparable harm done to facebook a pew research firm poll said 1 in 4 people deleted the app from the phone and others have taken what they characterized as a long break from the service. those people ever come back? >> i don't think it's irreparable. the internet -- look these are companies though the growth slowed, they're still growing. when you look at the platte form of apps or facebook, it's a run away freight train of apps they have assets growing in a healthy manner facebook itself is very mature and you expect a return. in the long run to address the issues, if they sort of build out the tools that they say they're going to build and, you know, hopefully, you know, you will see people kind of come back to the platforms.
you know just as they develop and get better. >> jason, do you agree with that do you think there's been lasting damage done? >> yeah. i think there's lasting damage done to facebook and the critical piece is are they allowed to buy instagram or what's app today i don't think those acquisitions go as smoothly as previously and why they're in a panicked mode of, hey, we have to solve this problem. i think there's two things that are low-hanging fruit for facebook and sheryl did a great job and the interaction of harris was amazing sheryl is clearly running for office probably in the next three, four, five years and out of facebook in two or three years and i think she wants to clean it up on the way out to have that chip going to run for higher office but for facebook, you know, they talked a lot today about inauthentic content. they didn't talk about propaganda designed to subvert democracy. that's what we're talking about
here propaganda designed to subvert the democracy. and what facebook should do to talk about fact checkers, why don't they make the log publicly available? facebook.com/fact checking and show us what they're fact checking and the results and have a debate about that be transparent another thing to do is starting tomorrow when you log in, tell you would you like to pay 10 bucks a month for facebook and not be tracked at all? they won't do the two very simple things i think and that's what lawmakers could do to force the issue. just like they're forcing them to know the customer more and so i think the regulation that could come down on facebook will mute their growth but it actually in a perverse way, this is the problem with regulation, is that it benefits the biggest player so if they get more regulation all that does is cement them as the leader in the space and make it harder for somebody to compete. we need to see entrepreneurs not
selling the company to companies. snapchat did not sell. worth $15 billion, $20 billion my message to young entrepreneurs is don't sell to facebook. >> jason, would -- >> go public. >> would facebook be worth what it's worth if they had to fact check the way a news organization does? >> of course not of course not. i think it's a very important point and nor should we expect them to. trying to police facebook would be like trying to police the conversations in giants stadium playing the jets in the preseason. it's chaos you can't go let everybody publish whatever they want and then police it what you have to do is look for bad actors and build systematic tools to prevent the creation of fake accounts and that's what they're finally putting on to twitter. now trying to sign up, you have to have a phone number that will release the issue of, you know, some tesla short creating 50 accounts and then
having conversations with themselves underneath, you know, elon's tweets or underneath, you know, a cnbc tweet that's the stuff that should have been in place in the beginning but the culture of silicon valley to take out all friction and go faster and finally one thing i think we should all think about is what if this is another country that owned facebook facebook was a german company or a chinese company. how would we feel about this impact well, now, reverse it and say how do the people in other countries feel about facebook? i think the real crisis is happening in other countries, in other words, people muck with other people's election process, people ban facebook from the country and that is a serious threat i mean, you could see other countries saying, it is not worth having this service. not worth it we'll ban it until they fix it and that's very realistic. that could happen. >> appreciate your time very much >> my pleasure. >> last word and i let you run what are you doing with your shares these days? last i asked you you still hold a fair amount of facebook. >> i'm not a trader so for me
it's more of a long-term play. look i think unlike twitter, the names in tech, you mentioned snap, we have talked about snap, facebook is, you know, the cheapest large cap stock that i can think of i mean, it is like sort of turning from a, you know, a high growth tech name to almost like a value play, like an apple. so i think for a long-term investors patient, if you're kind of willing to wait through some of the turbulence, you're probably going to do pretty well for yourself but it's just a matter of having patience most people thing to have. and also lastly, actually, it very much reminds me of the 2012 ipo when they went public. the narrative then was, oh, how will they transition to mobile never will make that happen. within a few quarters they make it happen and the stock happens. hopefully you will see similar thing happen here. >> all right good to see you.
thank you. >> thanks. elon moy spoke with senator marco rubio outside of the hearing room ylan >> he struck the cordial tone saying he prefers not to regulate the companies and let competition and the market do its job. he also seems satisfied with the answers that the companies gave of requests from authoritarian regimes and our interview was cut short as he was confronted by alex jones. >> a joke over here. a platform that didn't work. >> here's the question. >> don't touch me again, man i'm asking you not to touch me. >> i patted you nicely. >> i don't know who you are. you won't get rearrested i'll take care of it myself. >> i don't know why you're so mad. >> reporter: we tried to talk to several other lawmakers here in the hallways but many of those
interviews were interrupted by alex jones the hearing inside was cardinal. seemed bipartisan. the fireworks might have been out here in the hallways outside the committee hearing room back over to you. >> alex jones causing a stir there today. ylan, thanks so much with the coverage of the hearing today in washington we will have much more on all of this "power lunch" interviews senator mark warner in the 2:00 p.m. eastern hour looking very much forward to senator warner on "power lunch" in a bit we mentioned when's happening with the nasdaq today. down sharply tech executives delivering the senate testimonies that drop led by declines in facebook, twitter, google. but it's more broad than that. microsoft is down. and certainly the markets coming into september with a bit of a question mark. whether they will live up to history sort to speak. september being the worst month traditionally for stocks for more on the markets, welcome
in now professor jeremy siegel tell me what's in store for stocks this month. >> in the last 15 years, it's usually been august as everyone said, hey, get out before september. august was not a bad month so you know, it's a more question mark about what is going to happen to september you know, i really think, you know, we are talking a lot about twitter, facebook, the hearings. but, you know, and that's pushed the trade war and the tariffs to the side but i think that's the big thing certainly that is facing the market in this month we know we have a fed meeting. a decision meeting september 26th where they're very likely going to raise and also give signals about whether to raise again in
december you know on friday we have the employment report so there's a lot of things that are certainly happening. all of that said, the up trends are still in place for the technicians. we do have a lot of momentum players. in this market, again, and they're writing the trends so as long as those trends are up, you know, it's -- it may be painful to be short but clearly, you know, there could be jolts along the way and the trend writers will jump off the train. >> you think the market's in a good place >> i mean, i think for short-term traders it's in a good place i'm not saying that there aren't uncertainty there. long-term players i don't see any gross over valuation and selling 18 times earnings in the
low interest rate world. and that's 2018 earnings which is pretty much in the bag what we know about this year. i mean, that is not to me to be long-term threatening. i'm not going to say we won't have a short-term reaction markets will fluctuate a lot but the trends are for the traders and the long runs still looks good to me. >> it's joe. it seems that so far the u.s. equities markets dismissed when's going on in the emerging market should i be concerned about it >> yeah. well, yeah there's a mess there i actually think this could be an entry point in the emerging markets. wow, some of the valuations with cheap. i have said that before. we are actually kind of bouncing at a triple bottom if you look at the -- some of the averages for technicians. so if we don't go much further from here we could build a base.
i think three to five years, hence those people who can stand the short-term volatility will be rewarded in the emerging markets. but yeah those markets are the most volatile of the major market classes. >> boy, you have to hold on for a long time. three to five years to make that trade work >> and may work much faster but, you know, if you're just a short-term player, you're never going to, you know, capture the good value points in the market. and, you know, we all know the story about the don't catch a falling knife and that's what emerging markets seem to be. but wow. i mean, take a look at the pe ratios 10, 11, 12 these countries are still -- i'm not talking about venezuela and turkey but the rest of them are still selling at, you know, growing at 3%, 4%, 5% and, you know, that i think is a pretty compelling value play for
those people who can, you know, look toward that longer term. >> do you have any pause at all when you look at interest rates and the fact that they're just barely budging in an economy that is seemingly running on all or most cylinders? >> well, you know, last december people asked me what the ten-year was going to end at with selling in the low 2s, i said ending at 3.75 this year. it still might but it is showing a lot of strength. there is a lot of people that want to hold treasuries, they turned into a great short-term hedge against volatility and they kind of tuck them into their portfolio as an insurance policy and don't care that much about their yield. and, you know, as long as those treasuries have that sort of negative correlation with the risk markets, there is a huge
demand out there, so, you know, whether we get to 3.75, i think there will be two hikes left, you know, which brings you into the low, you know, certainly the low 3s, and in terms of where the fed funds rate is going to be going, you know, my feeling is the ten-year is going to rise but, yeah, there is remarkable strength there >> is that going to stifle stocks as we go into the later part of the year you only have less than a handful of months to go. if rates start rising, i don't know if the stock market will love that. >> they won't. that is -- the second most powerful influence on stock prices is interest rates and the first is earnings. and earnings are good this year and everyone knows it. next year, they're projected to be up more than i think they will i think they're going to come down, i don't think we'll get a lot of extra kick from the earnings and that's why interest rates
then fall into it. that all being said, if trump in the next three weeks can solve canada and solve china, we got a 10% pop, i think in the markets there. and then they're going to have to face what the fed is going to do with interest rates >> that's a sound bite i suspect you're going to hear often on the network in the days ahead. professor josh brown has a question for you. >> dr. siegel, in your book stocks for the long-term, you looked at some of the pervasive characteristics of markets over time there is a study out over the last 90 years, when the s&p 500 is up by 5 and 10% through the month of august, 12 out of 13 times that's occurred you've seen stocks finish the next four months higher. i chalk that up to career risk and people who work on wall street that have trailed getting more graggressive into year end do you think there is anything to hat, should we think this i the year that bucks that trend because 12 of 13 is like a 92%
probability that we could not have a meltup, but go up into the close. >> you know, absolutely. and there is that fomo factor, fear of missing out. it has been a good year. and the s&p has taken it to a lot of other averages. maybe the russell has been one that is somewhat outperformed, being more immune to the trade problems we have that's why the trade problems get solved up, we'll see the s&p pop much more than the small stock index. but, yeah, those trend riders are going to be on there and as long as those trends are in place, you know, it is going to be very painful for someone to go against this market. >> they're learning that lesson very well. professor, always good to talk to you thank you very much for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> jeremy siegel. bitcoin prices getting hit today, sinking back below 7,000. let's bring in dominic chu
>> so, scott, that's right bitcoin and bitcoin futures sliding after goldman sachs reportedly pulled its plan to launch a cryptocurrency trading desk the bank did not confirm this business insider report to cnbc, but did say it was looking into the space for its clients. so jeff killborg, what are you doing with this decline? how are you trading it >> well, dom, very cautiously trading this decline this say reaction to headline risk we talk about all the uncertainty. the fact these are unconfirmed, but the fact that goldman is considering scrapping that cryptocurrency, that hit cryptocurrencies across the board. that's the headline risk that really underscores and illuminates the fact we don't have enough certainty. it is putting a lot of emotion into the tape. the momentum is to the upside. >> is this just another roadblock for the bitcoin bullish trade? >> certainly, road of many roadblocks, i'm not surprised
what goldman sachs did or maybe announced or maybe is not going to do, only because there is not enough volume in the bitcoin futures for them to put on positions and hold those when the time comes to liquidate the positions, you need the volume to get out. i'm trading. unless this has a widespread application, i'm looking at this from the short side, 6740 is the next, i'm looking for it to trade down to that level. >> thank you very much, guys futures now is back in action tomorrow, 1:00 p.m. eastern time that's on futures now.cnbc.com e lfmeept bthhati rorisack after this commercial break. this is my headquarters. this is where i trade and manage my portfolio. since i added futures, i have access to the oil markets and gold markets. okay. i'm plugged into equities - trade confirmed - and i have global access 24/7. meaning i can do what i need to do,
this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving...
the horn, 30 seconds left, busy day. >> busy day. unusual activity, buyer, buyer, buyer, stock hit $30, i took off yesterday's trade, but rolled up to the 30 strike calls, i think there is more in amd. >> feels like momentum. >> stock up another 2% today john >> nutanix, cloud operating system, buy it. >> stock down 6% john says buy. >> josh. >> jpmorgan, mid-one teens. >> john? >> bought northrop grumman. big tech under fire. sheryl sandberg, jack dorsey facing tough questions from lawmakers about interference on their platforms. dorsey set to face another round of questioning from a house panel this hour. we'll carry it for you live. back to the negotiating table, u.s. and canada resuming trade talks in difficult issues