Skip to main content

tv   Bloomberg Technology  Bloomberg  August 6, 2018 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
emily: i have emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, the bulk of u.s. tech is behind us. morgan stanley says a tech selloff is about to start. plus, google wants back in in china. the search engine left the censorship policies, and is now working with the chinese pop -- government to curtail results, to this agreement -- the chagrin
5:01 pm
of employees. revoke california laws. how to maintain the state's clean air. stories. the top the bulk of the big tech earnings are behind us with just snap left to report this week. apple investors are breathing a sigh of relief , but the nasdaq composite lost as much as 4.2% since the july 25 hi, as investors sold shares of facebook, netflix, and more. morgan stanley recommended selling u.s. tech stocks a month ago and now traders are starting heed the bears' call. let his morgan stanley saying here?what is the argument ? onehe argument is based on
5:02 pm
valuation, but also the growth we have seen out of these stocks. morgan stanley has been banging the drum for a while now. i should point out, a lot of people have called the end to the tech rally several times this year, and the tech stocks continue to find another leg up. it is possible we could have reached a peak. are analysts other than morgan stanley, including at oppenheimer, making similar calls and recommending folks look at other areas. at the end of the day, we had a very good earnings quarter. the question is whether they can repeat that in the third quarter. on, you cover amazon, alphabet, facebook. would you agree with morgan stanley's assessment here? >> i think there's a lot more uncertainty in terms of the cost side and the debate with security and privacy. when you look across the sectors in technology, when you see the secular growth that is
5:03 pm
continuing here, it's hard to say that tech doesn't have continued upside. when i say tech, i mean google, facebook, and others. specifically, online advertisers continues to be strong from our perspective. usage and engagement suggests that it continues across the space. frankly, facebook, amazon, and google are continuing to innovate. there's a lot of growth that can continue. emily: let's talk about facebook specifically. i believe you lowered your target, but you are still optimistic. why? >> we lowered our target simply given the increased risk around riskuidance they gave, around increased costs, especially around privacy and security. frankly, when talking to advertisers, we think the product is sticky. we don't think engagement encore facebook will deteriorate. if it does, we think instagram is a big winner.
5:04 pm
when it comes to the monetization of it all, yes, facebook is trying new things about stories in your newsfeed, but when you talk to advertisers, facebook still has the best targeting capabilities none.ere, bar until that changes, i think they will continue to see an influx of more dollars online. emily: but what about their credibility? there is a new story today about facebook reportedly requesting information about users' financial information from banks. facebook has said they are not actually asking for data, but these products, investors are optimistic about them, but this credibility cloud seems to be hanging over the company, and i wonder when that goes away. >> i do think internally they have prioritized privacy and security across most other investments they are doing. when you see stories like this about potentially integrating someone's checking account into
5:05 pm
facebook, it seems a little bit of a stretch, at least for now. frankly, i sort of go back to the checks we are doing and talking to the company that security privacy seems to be number one. if they do start working closely with financial transactions, perhaps that is more towards e-commerce and their marketplace business, but i think that is very early days. i don't believe this integration we are talking about with banks where you can see all the data, have a hard time believing that is going to happen here soon. the hype,pite all tech actually hasn't been the leader in this market for the last couple months. who has been the leader? >> there has been quite a rotation. if you look at the nasdaq composite, the most interesting thing is the two leaders have been insurance and health care, basically biotech. even if you break down the s&p 500 sectors, tech falls down into the, maybe fifth-place, if you measure from the end of june. this is partly what a lot of analysts are saying.
5:06 pm
ron kind of touched on this. not many of these analysts and strategists are saying these stocks will take a dive, but they are saying will attempt -- relative to other sectors, given how high-value they are, there might be time to rotate elsewhere. there are also a lot of macro trends with folks rotating to other sectors. if you are into these tech stocks right now, there is a call that some of these analysts that you might want to protect yourself given that rotation. ,mily: i do have a chart here showing the weight of the bank p, seeing thats& it dipped on the end of facebook earnings. meantime, amazon has been one of the factors in the market driving it up. you raised your target on amazon and you say you are confident the company will continue to take wallet share. why? >> i think at the end of the day, results will drive
5:07 pm
multiples higher and stocks higher. when you look across facebook and google and amazon, i think you see a lot of tailwinds around the secular shift. around amazoning and other tech stocks, they drive strong topline growth, and whole foods helps for now, but the core marketplace is doing extremely well. on top of aws accelerating growth, they are advertising business that is just beginning. the more you advertise on amazon , the more probability that your -- shows up up higher in search results. more you advertise it, the .etter it is al when we think about where the stocks could go, from profitability perspective, amazon has more upside. i would argue that might be the same for facebook and google over the long-term. emily: what about alphabet? positive earnings were rather a
5:08 pm
surprise. it seems you are maintaining optimism there. there is some controversy about the company trying to get back into china, which is obviously a huge potential market, but certainly, it's a minefield. what are you watching for when it comes to alphabet? what are the specific trends you are excited about and concerned about? >> looking across may the top large caps internet space, i would say google health of that produced one of the strongest quarters across the space. one of the reasons if you are 23%ng 26% growth, or maybe growth on the top line for net revenue on the core advertising business. the key is we are perhaps entering a new phase within advertising and search, where ai is more integrated in everything you do. if that is the case, maybe that attacks more advertisers. we -- attracts more advertiser.
5:09 pm
s. we came out of the earnings feeling very strong. mid-july, they revamped their ad product. there's a lot going on here that is interesting. the china stuff, we will have to see. i remember when they pulled out eight years ago or more, and i think we will have to see what happens, because it definitely is a big market share. emily: i remember it well. was in beijing covering the story. it was huge. what are you going to be watching for for the second half of the year? >> it feels like there's a little bit of a rotation, even within the tech sector. when you look at the earnings that we had that just passed, it really wasn't the internet companies that folks got enthused about. it was in the semiconductor space and even in the hardware space. we talk about 27% year over year eps growth protect as a whole, but 52% for the semiconductors,
5:10 pm
something like 30% plus for hardware. when you look at the market reaction for internet stock, it was among the lowest. it really wasn't there. it is not so much the companies aren't growing, but they have reached a maturation phase in the eyes of a lot of market participants and they are looking for yield elsewhere. if they can find and some of the more middle cap type of tech stocks, that is where they are going. it will be interesting to see what kind of catalyst we can get going forward from these big behemoths like apple and alphabet, but they have to show with the next product is where the next services that will justify the valuations they are at. emily: romaine bostick, i know you will be keeping an eye on it all, and jmp securities ron josey, thank you for being with us. japan offering for the domestic wireless business that could become the biggest ipo ever.
5:11 pm
softbank is talking about selling a third of softbank mobile in its offering, or about $30 billion worth. alibaba made its debut in 2014 with a $25 billion ipo. that is the biggest public offering ever so far. and epf forould cryptocurrency help the price of bitcoin? management company is optimistic that its bid could be the first one approved by the sec. we will talk to the ceo about why, next. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, listen on the bloomberg radio app, and on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
emily: bitcoin fell below $7,000
5:14 pm
to its lowest level in three weeks. this, the back of last month's rally, which drove up the price by almost a third. that exuberance has been dampened by regulatory and other concerns. meantime, the competition to launch a regulated etf for continues, and one firm is optimistic its bid could be the first to be approved by the u.s. sec. in late july, and asset manager filed for an exchange traded fund that would stock not only bitcoin but 10 other cryptocurrencies. this is the first application of its kind. others have filed for bitcoin only etf, but their bid was rejected. why does bitwise think it has a case? the ceo is here now. why do you think you have a shot? >> thank you. we first filed the first-ever s-1. the first cryptocurrency etf.
5:15 pm
since 2013, people have been filing for etf's that would just check the coins, provide investors with exposure to the coin, and we filed an index product with a basket of 10 going. s. coin managing theences product, our feeling is the issues you have to get comfortable with to approve an etf cuts the training -- trading, texas, how you value the assets. we think you can effectively operate a public vehicle. emily: and the chart showing the price of bitcoin compared to the other top coins today, obviously we know there has been a slight. do you think that something with be approved, it would help the price? >> one of the ways to think about prices in crypto is simple supply demand.
5:16 pm
it's a listed vehicle were approved, you can imagine that a number of investors through 401(k)s or brokerage accounts, institutional's investors who don't want to work with crypto burgers -- brokers, but would be comfortable with a prime broker, would feel comfortable with this and it would create new demand. i think it is reasonable to expect that if an etf were approved, you would see prices left in the crypto space. --ly: i know the winkle bus does the rejection of other applications dampen your hopes? >> people have been applying since 2013. i think the sec's response consistently has been to be thoughtful. they are very knowledgeable about the space. actually put out a letter in january on 32 questions they would have to be more comfortable with to improve a product.
5:17 pm
they are being cautious. that is what you and expect from them. they want to make sure that if they approve something, it will behave as expected and investors will be getting what they think they are getting. emily: what can you say about the volatility, liquidity, market manipulation, about arbitrage? [laughter] >> those are the issues. volatility, marking the price. i think all those things are in a place where you can securely and effectively operate a vehicle. we look for to having conversations about this with the sec. emily: but there was just an couldn'tin asia, they cover the losses because the price changed. >> i think what you are referring to is there was a huge short position on ok, a hong kong based exchange, and had to claw back some investor holdings to cover the short position. emily: and everybody lost in terms of profit. >> exactly. it was like an austerity measure, they spread losses across investors. we have seen this u before
5:18 pm
with investors. there can be issues related to the exchange or with a hack, where they take an action that is not favorable for investors. i would set that aside and say that is an issue with exchanges, and something that is obviously that exchanges to avoid and work around the future. assets should be held in cold storage in the case of -- cold storage. in the case of okx, it wouldn't be that scenario. there are a lot of options available for cold storage today. there was a joint venture offering cold storage solution. you will have to keep us posted on your progress. hunter horsley, it lies asset manager, thank you. goingahead, california
5:19 pm
head-to-head with trump over the nuclear proposal. the attorney general sets up the e legal battle. that's next, this is bloomberg. ♪
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
emily: president trump has once again taken aim at his predecessor's environmental legacy, this time rattling automakers throughout the country. thursday, the administration proposes to roll back fuel economy and emissions standards after 2020, while preventing states like california from setting more stringent greenhouse gases rules as well as electric vehicle sales. alongside 19 other states, california has.vowed to take a stand attorney general xavier becerra has joined bloomberg's "balance of power" to talk about this. >> we actually already sued on a previous action with the epa and administration trying to redetermine what they already concluded before hand years ago. is --hey are trying to do
5:22 pm
we are trying to do is make sure the epa follows their own laws, trying to clean up the air rather than let it get more polluted. reporter: but they would say they are moving it forward, the standards they are pursuing are tougher than the federal standards they used to be, it's just a rather unusual exception for the state of california, but it's time to get it all the same. why isn't that consistent with statute? > you are conflating two different issues. california has been setting environmental standards on air for quite some time, before the clean air act even got passed at the federal level. we have been doing this for a while. that's why for close to 50 years now california had the ability to set its own standards. that is different from what the administration decided last week to do, which was to undo the national standards. notfornia right now is asking to have separate standards for the rest of the nation. we are living with the national standards we agreed on five to seven years ago.
5:23 pm
the administration is the one trying to break those standards and backslide from them. we are saying what they are trying to do it not only is a violation of the law, but it is arbitrary and capricious. reporter: i guess i am a little confused, because the government can change its mind. once as a rule in effect, it is not cast in stone further. they are saying we are still tightening standards for what they had been, but not as tight as it had been under president obama. >> you are right that the government can change its mind, but not on a whim, or cavalierly. americans rely on the law. if you are driving 65 miles an hour on the freeway and today the government said we are changing it to 45, and you have not had an opportunity to comment on that or find out be a that, it could violation of the law and it would be arbitrary and capricious. we are seeing the epa has acted arbitrarily against the law.they are undoing standards they
5:24 pm
themselves set, not only that, but they are violating the requirements under the law that apply to them that require them to continue to make advances to clean up the air. reporter: aside from the lawsuit, how open has the government been in negotiating, coming to the table, and talking to you? >> not open at all. that's why we're at this point where we have to sue the administration to try and stop them from violating the law. if they were willing to sit down and actually have serious conversations, perhaps there could be a chance to make progress,. but for the past year or so it has been clear from their actions that they have not been interested in speaking. they keep taking actions that not only violate their own laws, but show they are not interested having serious conversation. reporter: given this, how long do you expect this litigation to continue for? >> that is a tough one to answer. it depends on how obstructionist the federal government is in
5:25 pm
providing the data. remember, none of these regulations is put in place without long periods of comment and with lots of facts and science put into the conversation and discussion. the administration really didn't that. how much they are willing to reveal of what they used to guide them and trying to undo, to backslide, will determine how quickly any lawsuit moves forward. reporter: mr. attorney general, let's assume it is going to be years. you and i have both been involved in complex litigation. it does not tend to get solved soon. if i'm general motors, ford, or a major, automaker how do i know which rules to comply with? the automakers understood the value of having national standards. that is why five to seven years ago windows were agreed to, it was a great accomplishment with the automakers at the table reaching those national standards. right now, it depends on what a
5:26 pm
court does with regards to the existing national standards. with the court agree with the trump administration that it's ok to break these without the right evidence, or would it agree with states that would suit to say the standards should stay in place until we can reconcile the illegal and arbitrary and capricious actions? regardless of that, then you get into the subject of california, and the fact that we have had a waiver for years to move forward to keep our areas clean as possible. as you know, california, it's crucial that we tried to make improvements on air quality. it is what is required for us to keep the economy moving forward, to be the economic engine for the country, and now the fifth largest economy in the world. emily: that was california attorney general xavier becerra. coming up, google abandoned 2010, taking a moral stance against censorship. now it wants back in on the world's second-largest economy, but at what cost? we will discuss next.
5:27 pm
this is bloomberg. ♪ phones have made our lives effortless.
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
streaming must see tv has never been easier. paying for things is a breeze. and getting into new places is even simpler. with xfinity mobile, saving money is effortless too. it's the only network that combines america's largest, most reliable 4g lte with the most wi-fi hotspots. and it can be included with your internet. which could save you hundreds of dollars a year. plus, get $150 dollars when you bring in your own phone. its a new kind of network designed to save you money. click, call or visit a store today.
5:30 pm
emily: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang in san francisco. hot off the report that google is trying to secretly get back into china with a censored search engine comes the news that it is working with chinese companies on cloud offerings. google is said to be working with tencent and others to offer cloud services in the world's second-largest economy. it was just eight years ago google abandoned mainland china because it refused to comply with beijing's censorship practices. changed? to get to the bottom of that, we have our bloomberg opinion columnist in new york, and from washington, the senior vice president at albright stonebridge, and before that he
5:31 pm
was at google's director of public policy. i was covering china from beijing when google left the country, and it was a huge stand google took. i can't imagine what it was like being in the room as you were debating this in the early days at google. what do you make of the fact that the company is now considering going back in and agreeing to the same censorship practices it took a stand against? doesn't surprise me, to begin with. i think there are three factors in play here. first is economic. of 770 millionet plus internet users in china. i think that's incredibly important to them. they want to be a player. the second thing they have to -- and now weer go negative -- is the political side of this. already we are seeing senators in washington asking questions
5:32 pm
about why they are doing this. also, you are seeing a number of human rights groups taking exception. finally, there is a moral question. part of the reason google pulled out in 2009, 2010, was moral. certainly, nothing has changed on that front. chinese internet regulations are now a lot harsher than they were back then. emily: exactly. the laws are even more severe today than they were eight years ago. rubio did speak to bloomberg thursday about this very issue, speaking of the reaction from lawmakers. take a listen. i'm not concerned, and outrage. number one, they will not work for the department of defense because they don't want to kill people, but they were closely with a university in china that develops technology for the chinese military. they say how they stand for free speech, but they are prepared to go into china and help the censoredovernment
5:33 pm
information. it is hypocrisy. it is sickening. have an excellent piece weighing the pros and calm, mostly cons, this. talk about at what cost this would come to google? first of all, user trust, and second, you point out that, does google even have the potential to break back into the market at all given the, dominance of the chinese service is already there? reporter: it does seem on the commercial front that china has kind of moved on without google for better or for worse. who won theike me world to come closer together, the internet was supposed to help make that happen. instead, what i think we have seen over the last few years is not just in china, but in other countries around the world, where the government has used the internet as a tool to make the world a more closed place, to crackdown on global information, to censor, shut down dissent.
5:34 pm
that's what we have seen in china to a large extent, without google being there. now they are trying to make these compromises to potentially come back. emily: the economic potential is obvious. 722 million internet users in china. but on the moral side, was the nick o'leary page and sergey brin who personally decided to pull out in the first place? the company.l at what is different now? a very good question. i can't answer that one. thatergey, certainly at point, argued he did not like the totalitarian nature of the regime. he had come from the soviet union with his parents. he clearly took a personal offense to what was going on. also, the chinese had essentially invaded google's search engine. that did not make anyone over there happy. what has changed? it has only gotten worse, as far
5:35 pm
as i can tell. ira, talk to us about the political atmosphere here. this would certainly not be something i imagine president trump would be pleased about, and he is waging a trade war on china. reporter: the politics are interesting. you had that clip from senator rubio. i think he has been very clear on how is it that google on the one hand can refuse to do work with the u.s. department o of defense on a drone project, and on the other hand it is willing to help the chinese government censor information from its own citizens? that is a little bit of a hard sell for congress. the politics will be interesting , given the trade tensions, trade and beyond, tensions, between the u.s. and china now, it's not even clear google would be permitted by the chinese government to reenter the country with search or this other commercial service. emily: that is certainly another
5:36 pm
question. >> i would agree with that. i think one of the things we have to look at very closely here is uncertainty. both in terms of what the chinese government will allow, and in terms of what google wants to do. people are treating this as a done deal, and it is by no means a done deal. the fact that just the beginning of a story about this has outraged so many should be taken as a serious thing by google. emily: it is anything but a done deal, you are right. it also sets the standard potentially for a country specific internet. ornever we ask alibaba tencent or baidu about censorship that they all abide to, they say they are just following the law and their home country. google could certainly say the same thing. but if this happened, what are the standards it would set for other companies like facebook, for example, which is still blocked in china? could you see a domino effect
5:37 pm
going against freedom of access to information? facebookd argue that will never get into china. the reason for that is that it's fundamental utility is at an organizing tool. it allows people to organize. that is the last thing the chinese government wants its people to have. google is in a different place here then facebook is. there are already plenty of search engines over there. one of the big questions the company has to look at is, is it worth it economically when baidu, the chief competition, already has about 70% of the search market? shira, in her piece, reminds us of a hack attack in china in 2006 on google, where the hackers were trying to access human rights activists'
5:38 pm
information. what was it like being on the inside of that? >> i was in for that exact attack, but it is definitely one of those things you worry about a lot, ever since a case. a dissident. yahoo! had a partnership and had to turn over data on the dissident to the chinese government. once they did, the chinese put him on trial and put him in jail for 10 years. any company that is operating in china, their data is fair game for the chinese government. as,o, they could be seen and in reality, implicit us with that government. companieshing most want to have on their hands. emily: the government also requires all the data be stored on local servers. bob boorstin, thank you so much. shira ovide, great piece. thank you.
5:39 pm
if you want to start a new gig as an uber driver in new york city, you want to hurry. new york's city council is poised to approve a one year cap on new licenses for uber and other ridesharing services. the council says it's part of a sweeping package of regulations intended to reduce traffic. mayor de blasio tried to pass a similar bill three years ago but the city council killed after an uber tv ad campaign. the number of ridesharing transports in new york has jumped from nearly 13,000 in 2015 to more than 80,000 now. iphone, it has been apple's lifeblood. it is one of the world's most popular smartphones. but in india, it barely registers a pulse. how apple plans to change that, next. plus, facebook shares rose on news that they might cooperate with banks.
5:40 pm
how do users feel about that? we talk about that next. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
emily: a semiconductor company that makes chips for iphones and says it was crippled by a cyber virus similar to last year's one of cry ransomware. the outbreak shut several factories down just as the company was ramping up production for the new iphone. full operations have now resumed. it expects a 2% drop in revenue this quarter. speaking with apple, the iphone giant is trying to up its iphone sales and one market where it lags, that is india. the iphone is one of the
5:43 pm
top-selling smart phones in the world with over 100 million units sold in the first quarter of the year, but in india, different story. apple sold fewer than one million phones in the first half of 2018. xiaomi come on the other hand, sold many more. apple is only about 1% of smartphone market share in india. samsung has 29%. can apple turned this around? we have alistair barr here to talk about it. we have talked about apple's entry into india. what did apple do so wrong? >> they ignore the market for a long time. i wrote a piece in 2013 and i said there blowing it. nowhere to be india became an android nation. emily: too little too late? >> it is too little too late. right now, it is just yet another luxury product.
5:44 pm
like tom ford clothes. it is so expensive for most of the people. but there is a growing class of rich people who can afford the iphone. unfortunately for apple, they actually travel overseas so much that they can buy those phones anywhere else on the planet. i think they have really blown it. emily: does it all come down to price? reporter: a lot of it does in india for sure, but also on the retail strategy, which is different in india, a lot of smaller retail stores and companies like xiaomi and samsung have worked closely and offered special incentives, and they get special permission in those stores. apple has tried a version of that, but that hasn't worked very well. the story we published today has quite a few details on how they will change that. they are doing a major strategy revamp. emily: i know in the story we talk about smaller retailers offering deals, but it's on a
5:45 pm
short-term. what else? reporter: the holiday deals they will be providing are going to be things like special financing, but they are going to run them throughout the year. somenk they will try activity for sure, but there are special incentives from apple. they are going to be ramping those out. that implies over the long-term that apple is not going to make so much money in india, but they will go for more volume. that is a very unusual play. for apple, they like to keep their margins the same. emily: the price of an iphone is the price seven iphone. it can really only come down so much. if the strategy going to help them? >> if i was to advise apple, which i'm not, they should just go premium. they should just forget about the budget market altogether. they should create a premium experience around apple brand,
5:46 pm
apple stores. it should be like a luxury item. they cannot win the market back now. there are so many options at more affordable prices. xiaomi, as you mentioned, they just nailed it. did such a great job in organizing the company and creating a community about the product. people like to buy the product because it is still affordable, but not too common. i think they have found the right sweet spot. apple, unfortunately, when they sell a phone for $200 or $250, they will come across as selling their cheaper phone. i think the option right now is to go just to the other side of the market. emily: let's talk about apple in india and china, where they are also price confit -- conscience, but they do better.
5:47 pm
>> there are way more rich people in china. behind thee 15 years spending and the economy is not as robust and growing -- as big as china. with are just fewer people $10,000. emily: more broadly, now that we are talking a lot about apple hitting $1 trillion, we saw signs in wearables. you have a piece out how time is on apple's site. what do you think about the next era of apple? >> i think a lot of apples future is based on the services they create. i think apple pay, apple music, apple cloud storage, photos, all of these are services which they can actually expand upon and make more money. , we kindhe wearables
5:48 pm
of laugh at apple watch, but billion toit's a $5 $8 billion business that did not exist a few years ago. in any other company, it would be a huge win. but it is such a gigantic company that they have to do outsized successes. i do think they will be creating more products around the wrist. i think they will be creating more products in your house. i think apple home is just the beginning -- the apple home pod is just the beginning. i think they will keep coming back in a way -- they don't give up that easy. emily: and they are probably not going to give up on india, either. we will see. how, our editor, thank you. om malik of true ventures, you are sticking with me. coming up, facebook's never-ending privacy
5:49 pm
controversies. this time, reports the company has asked u.s. banks to share financial information about their customers. we will discuss. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
emily: facebook shares rose the most since april monday off reports the company is forging deeper relationships with ranks to offer customer service products at the end the messenger chat app. they have worked for years to make it a place for consumers to communicate with businesses, aiming to replace response to the report, facebook did not deny pursuing bank partnerships, but did clarify any customer data would not be used for advertising. could this spark additional concerns about customer privacy?
5:52 pm
back with us, om malik of true ventures. thistors are excited about because the stock is up, but it raises the question, can we trust them? >> no. one big thing people forget, this is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, one of the least trustworthy companies on the internet right now. emily: why? >> because everything they say is not true. six weeks go by, and what they said is not true. it has been a haggle. of the competitors wrote a long piece about the lies and unending lies of mark zuckerberg and faced. facebook. i think we have to pause and stop believing these people. i think in many ways legislators and regulators have to stand up and say, you know what? every single action they take should be put through the ringer. we don't know what they are
5:53 pm
going to do with this information. they never say it. and they only tell you the truth if they are caught lying. emily: to be fair, they have hired thousands of new people to handle fake news, work with online harassment, work to prevent election meddling. they are working on technology so that ai can also help. privacy concerns around facebook , and thethe way back company made a lot of apologies, but also worked to write some of the wrongs and change settings does that. matter? is it. their intentions that are impure? >> i think after watching this for a long time, the only way to describe it, like if you have a donkey and you paint stripes on it, it doesn't become a zebra. i think this is the same situation with facebook. it is not going to change as a company because its entire core
5:54 pm
is based on collecting as much information and data as possible, and then broker a for advertising -- it for advertising. that's it. that's their core business. as long as they are doing that, they will continue to play loose and easy with people's data. emily: but investors love it. day, they, the other said they were removing bots. investors only want to see the numbers going up. therere not understanding are consequences not just for society, but also the company. eventually, as trustee roads in facebook's brand, where will people go? erodes int facebook brand, where will people go? emily: you have been off facebook for a year. but you are more tech aware than
5:55 pm
most people. do most people know about this? >> they will. they will switch to instagram. there will be another three or four years of instagram playing loose and easy, then people will wake up to something else. i think the reality is we have to start monitoring these companies more closely now more than ever. looking five years from now, when video and visual internet is all around us, creating fake news and having fake information out there which looks like real information can actually have a much deeper impact. is morer eyes see effective than what headline you read. legislators now are worrying about the past two much, whereas we need to think about controlling these companies in the future. emily: what should the regulation look like? >> it should be all around that
5:56 pm
appeared how they use data, what to do with that data, having clarity around how they are using it, in language the average humans can understand, and also being able to just localize what they can be -- what that information can be used for? . emily: is there a world in which you could see with the right regulation are right regulation or write laws, that you get back on facebook? >> no. emily: why not? >> i'm done with it. the reason i loved facebook was not because of privacy reasons -- left facebook was not because of privacy reasons. the reason i left was because i felt like i was living my life based on how i felt about other people. to me, that was the worst thing. malik,home malik -- om giving it to us straight. thank you for stopping by.
5:57 pm
that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." tune in tomorrow. we will check in with josh and get the reporting on a new digital tax bill. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
>> u.s. and listed financials and rising oil gave energy producers a boost. s&p closed at its highest since january. 11-month smp t to an low. >> iran demanding compensation of what it calls decades of american


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on