WEBVTT - Musk and Twitter Day 2 and Microsoft, Google Earnings (Podcast) 0:00:02.240 --> 0:00:05.520 From the heart of where Innovation, Money and power COLLI 0:00:06.360 --> 0:00:10.880 in Silicon Valley and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with 0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:26.720 Emily Jay. I'm Emily Chang in San Francisco, and this 0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:28.880 is Bloomberg Technology coming up in the next hour. And 0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:32.240 Alphabet miss CFL. Ruth Pratt tells me the ads business 0:00:32.240 --> 0:00:35.680 took a hit after suspending service in Russia and that 0:00:35.840 --> 0:00:39.319 advertisers also put back a bit more broadly in your 0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:42.199 our chat about the search giant's latest earnings reports coming up, 0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:45.520 plus what is free speech and how will Elon Musk 0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:48.240 change Twitter to achieve his version of it? Does he 0:00:48.360 --> 0:00:52.239 even know? Will debate with David Sachs and Tim O'Brien 0:00:53.280 --> 0:00:56.360 and the Ring that tracks your waking and not waking moments, 0:00:56.400 --> 0:00:58.800 My exclusive interview with Or's new CEO about how he 0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:02.000 intends to compete in where a Bolt with giants like Apple. 0:01:02.120 --> 0:01:04.319 That is later in this hour. We'll get to all 0:01:04.360 --> 0:01:06.119 of that in a moment, But first though, I want 0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:09.000 to dive deeper into Alphabet and Microsoft results. I want 0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:12.039 to bring in future ums Dan Newman. Now, Dan, of 0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:14.960 course you cover and follow both. Let's talk a little 0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:18.200 bit about Alphabet. Ruth poor at telling me on the 0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:21.920 phone that yes, the biggest impact in terms of revenue 0:01:22.440 --> 0:01:26.120 UH and contribution to this miss was the suspension of 0:01:26.120 --> 0:01:29.399 the vast majority of commercial activities in Russia. She also 0:01:29.440 --> 0:01:31.679 said beyond that there was a bit of a pullback 0:01:31.720 --> 0:01:35.160 on ad spend in Europe. We also saw a pullback 0:01:35.600 --> 0:01:41.199 UH at SNAP when it came to advertisers and the 0:01:41.280 --> 0:01:45.480 Russian invasion of Ukraine. What's your take on this, well, 0:01:45.520 --> 0:01:49.440 I think the whole advertising market is starting to bring 0:01:49.480 --> 0:01:51.600 some question marks. Is it going to get softer? You 0:01:51.680 --> 0:01:55.320 have these macro forces, geopolitical forces going on in Ukraine 0:01:55.320 --> 0:01:57.680 and Russia, Europe, and then of course here we've got 0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:00.800 a lot of macroeconomic conditions that are looking like we 0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:03.200 may see a recession. We're definitely seeing a pullback in. 0:02:03.240 --> 0:02:06.520 This sentiment towards tech as a whole is going is negative. 0:02:06.600 --> 0:02:09.840 And if Alphabet missed today, I can only imagine what 0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:12.160 Meta and Twitter might be in for later this week. 0:02:12.560 --> 0:02:15.440 It's definitely concerning. But having said that, I thought Alphabet's 0:02:15.520 --> 0:02:18.400 numbers were really pretty good. They were very close. The 0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:21.840 growth was good top line growth. This is a company 0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:24.040 that's performing very well, and I think that stock buy 0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:27.320 back is an indicator that they believe their value is 0:02:27.400 --> 0:02:29.520 still there and they're gonna they're gonna spend money to 0:02:29.520 --> 0:02:32.480 repurchase those shares if people keep selling now. The Cloud, 0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:34.040 of course, was a contribution to that. But I want 0:02:34.080 --> 0:02:37.800 to talk about the ad business first. She was asked 0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:42.560 on the call whether Netflix and the pullback there is 0:02:42.600 --> 0:02:45.079 it concerned, and she brought up YouTube and how well 0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:48.240 YouTube's ad business is doing. Of course, we know Netflix 0:02:48.320 --> 0:02:51.119 is not an ad supported business, she said. We continue 0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:54.520 to be pleased with the ongoing innovation at YouTube. It's 0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.320 an ad supported business. Time spent there continues to grow. 0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:01.360 YouTube Music and premium were ups ubstantially in the quarter. 0:03:01.360 --> 0:03:05.200 We're continuing to innovate their across the board. Interestingly, she 0:03:05.240 --> 0:03:07.600 wouldn't comment. I tried to tried to get her thoughts 0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:10.240 on Elon Musk buying Twitter and Twitter potentially getting out 0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:13.600 of the ads business. But do you see, uh, you know, 0:03:13.680 --> 0:03:17.920 a broader reshuffling here in the ads business, given what's 0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:21.520 happening at Twitter, the macro economic environment, the Apple ad 0:03:21.639 --> 0:03:26.560 changes that seem to be disproportionately impacting Meta and Snap. Yeah, 0:03:26.560 --> 0:03:28.200 I think I think Alphabet is going to be in 0:03:28.240 --> 0:03:29.880 pretty good shape and they're going to be able to 0:03:29.880 --> 0:03:33.839 sustain growth. The changes modifications to YouTube have largely been 0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:36.840 well received by the marketplace. I think TikTok has been 0:03:36.880 --> 0:03:39.200 probably its biggest challenge and maybe had a little bit 0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:41.240 to do with the near miss on YouTube versus what 0:03:41.280 --> 0:03:44.880 analysts had expected. But overall, I think the YouTube business, 0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:48.160 it's been growing, the television service cord cutting, there's a 0:03:48.160 --> 0:03:51.280 lot of positive tail winds for that particular business, and 0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:54.520 I think the market is largely appreciating what Google and 0:03:54.800 --> 0:03:58.840 YouTube are doing there. So I still I'm still positive 0:03:58.840 --> 0:04:01.120 on the company. The numbers just learn't that bad. I 0:04:01.160 --> 0:04:03.640 just think the sentiment in the market is just really 0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:07.400 really low right now. Now, Google is still trying to 0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:11.080 close this acquisition of Mandy and the cybersecurity firm five 0:04:11.120 --> 0:04:13.840 point four billion dollars. We know that the d o 0:04:13.960 --> 0:04:18.640 J has asked both Google and Mandy and for more information. 0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:21.760 I asked about the likelihood of the deal closing. She 0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:24.960 talked about how they believe this will increase competition and 0:04:25.040 --> 0:04:30.280 help Google Cloud compete more effectively with Amazon, Microsoft and others. 0:04:30.720 --> 0:04:32.880 Um let's talk a little bit about the cloud, and 0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:37.040 of course Microsoft how is Google Cloud doing with respect 0:04:37.400 --> 0:04:41.760 to Microsoft. I know it's still in third place. Yeah, 0:04:43.160 --> 0:04:45.599 Google has been competing. Of course, we've also seen Oracle 0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:47.799 with a big uptake in its business. But Google's growth 0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:51.240 has been really strong and still came in. Now the 0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:53.920 concern has been it's still not profitable, but they did 0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:57.560 narrow losses in the most recent quarter. Um I still 0:04:57.560 --> 0:04:59.599 feel that the company is willing to make those CAPEX 0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:02.960 invest mints. Google understands that its ambitions with the cloud 0:05:02.960 --> 0:05:05.840 business or not to be in third place. Their ambitions 0:05:05.839 --> 0:05:09.200 are to compete and to be on par or above 0:05:09.240 --> 0:05:11.920 the competition with Azure and AWS. So they're gonna have 0:05:12.000 --> 0:05:13.640 to spend big, and I think the market has to 0:05:14.040 --> 0:05:16.080 realize it's going to take some time to get there. 0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:18.880 But some of their key partnerships investments have been made. 0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:22.520 Expansion and CAPEX spending are all indicators, and of course growth. 0:05:22.800 --> 0:05:25.440 Having said that, as you're still growing it over as well, 0:05:25.480 --> 0:05:30.280 so all that spending isn't necessarily accelerating Google's achievement of 0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:33.600 parity with Azure. And we'll see what AWS later this week, 0:05:34.600 --> 0:05:36.640 which brings us to Microsoft earnings and it to be 0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:39.240 And I wonder if you think Microsoft is better insulated 0:05:39.279 --> 0:05:42.440 from some of these macroeconomic headwinds and this macro economic 0:05:42.480 --> 0:05:47.280 uncertainty that we're feeling right now in other big dot companies. Yeah, 0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:49.640 I like the enterprise play. I feel like enterprise tech 0:05:49.720 --> 0:05:51.840 is a little more deflationary. Companies are going to spend 0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:55.719 on cloud, data center AI, other data analytics and software 0:05:55.760 --> 0:05:58.159 that are going to create more scale and lower costs. 0:05:58.200 --> 0:06:01.280 You've got you know, high call us related to worker 0:06:01.560 --> 0:06:05.119 right now into finding employees. You've got other costs growing 0:06:05.120 --> 0:06:08.120 through inflation, and you know, if you can add automation, AI, 0:06:08.360 --> 0:06:11.320 m L technologies, and Microsoft is really well positioned there. 0:06:11.320 --> 0:06:13.800 And we also saw IBHIM do really well this quarter. 0:06:13.920 --> 0:06:17.240 Some of these companies that have more consumer oriented businesses 0:06:17.480 --> 0:06:19.279 are going to have to deal with UM, you know, 0:06:19.320 --> 0:06:22.640 some of the discretionary spending potentially going down as the 0:06:22.720 --> 0:06:26.479 economic climate gets tighter. So I do think Microsoft is 0:06:26.520 --> 0:06:30.320 more insulated, it's more diversified. It's got that large enterprise business, 0:06:30.320 --> 0:06:33.040 the commercial business UM, and I think it puts them 0:06:33.080 --> 0:06:36.280 in a good position to not be as hurt quite 0:06:36.320 --> 0:06:37.920 as much by all the things that are going on 0:06:38.000 --> 0:06:41.880 outside of the company's control. All Right, Dan Newman Future 0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:44.080 and Research. We're going to continue to follow the calls 0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:47.640 as the Alphabet and Microsoft call progressed. Dan, thank you 0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:58.280 as always for joining us. As the deal was being 0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:01.760 sealed for Elon Musk to bite Twitter, he tweeted he 0:07:01.760 --> 0:07:05.360 hopes even his worst critics remain on the service because 0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:08.080 that is what free speech means. But what changes will 0:07:08.080 --> 0:07:10.600 he actually make to create his version of the global 0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:13.120 town square? Doesn't even know yet to debate. I'm joined 0:07:13.120 --> 0:07:15.160 by David Sachs, co founder of Craft Ventures and co 0:07:15.240 --> 0:07:18.560 host on the All In podcast, along with Bloomberg Opinions 0:07:18.840 --> 0:07:22.400 Tim O'Brien. Looking forward to a spirited conversation for both 0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:23.920 of you here. David, I want to start with you, 0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:26.560 and that is a simple question. What does free speech 0:07:26.600 --> 0:07:30.280 mean to you? Well, what it means to me is 0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:34.720 that we don't have arbitrary censorship rules on the platform. 0:07:34.840 --> 0:07:38.320 That Twitter will act as an open town square. It 0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:40.520 will be an honest referee of the debate, but it 0:07:40.560 --> 0:07:43.960 will not try to choose winners and losers in the debate. 0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:46.320 And what we've seen over the past few years is 0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:49.760 a growing movement towards censorship. Where it started with is 0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:53.360 sayd individuals who are sort of unpopular provocateurs like a 0:07:53.400 --> 0:07:56.560 Mile Annapolis or Alex Jones, they were d platform. Then 0:07:56.600 --> 0:07:59.160 you had to sitting president and states being d platform. 0:07:59.280 --> 0:08:02.040 Then during of it we saw entire categories of thought 0:08:02.520 --> 0:08:06.280 being d platform. You couldn't criticize various aspects of where 0:08:06.280 --> 0:08:10.120 the virus came from, or mass mandates or vaccine policies. 0:08:10.480 --> 0:08:13.240 And now more recently we're seeing that same sort of 0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:16.320 idea of banning entire categories of thought being applied to 0:08:16.320 --> 0:08:19.320 more and more platforms, for example, opinion, the sending opinion 0:08:19.400 --> 0:08:22.480 on climate change. So I think basically the censorship has 0:08:22.520 --> 0:08:24.840 gone way too far and Elon wants to roll it back. 0:08:25.120 --> 0:08:27.040 And I think that tweet you showed up on the 0:08:27.080 --> 0:08:30.960 screen really indicates pretty well where I think he wants 0:08:30.960 --> 0:08:32.360 to take it, which he does not want to go 0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:35.800 far beyond what the law allows. So he's not saying 0:08:35.840 --> 0:08:38.839 that anything goes the law does not protect the first moment, 0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:41.679 does not protect many kinds of speech, but he doesn't 0:08:41.720 --> 0:08:44.480 want to go far beyond that in terms of restricting speech, 0:08:44.679 --> 0:08:47.239 and that is I think a healthy correction that's long overdue. 0:08:47.600 --> 0:08:50.120 We're actually getting some headlines from Twitter's a k which 0:08:50.160 --> 0:08:53.319 was just filed. Getting some more terms of the deal here. 0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:56.079 I'll read those out as we have them. The first 0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:59.880 headline that Twitter required to pay apparent termination fee of 0:09:00.120 --> 0:09:04.120 one billion dollars. Presumably if the deal doesn't go through. 0:09:04.280 --> 0:09:06.960 That's the same as a reverse termination feet, Tim, I'll 0:09:07.000 --> 0:09:08.600 throw it back to you. What is your definition of 0:09:08.600 --> 0:09:10.880 free speech and do you think that Elon Musk can 0:09:11.000 --> 0:09:15.280 and will protect it? Well? You know, I think free 0:09:15.280 --> 0:09:18.680 speech is being used as a proxy for unfettered speech, 0:09:19.000 --> 0:09:22.120 and I'm actually not a fan of unfettered speech. I 0:09:22.160 --> 0:09:27.360 don't think propaganda should be allowed to run rampant and 0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:31.600 misinformation be allowed to run rampant on social media platforms 0:09:31.679 --> 0:09:36.320 and it has um. I I don't think um, calling 0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:41.200 someone like Alex Jones a a provocateur really captures the 0:09:41.240 --> 0:09:46.600 totality of of how he's used media platforms. I don't think, 0:09:47.040 --> 0:09:52.400 um uh we there are already a lot of categories 0:09:52.440 --> 0:09:56.640 of speech that that aren't permitted on Twitter. Would David 0:09:56.679 --> 0:10:00.800 be comfortable with pornography being on Twitter? Or enough films 0:10:01.320 --> 0:10:06.240 or Russian propaganda or Chinese propaganda? Um? I don't. I 0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:09.439 think the idea of conflating the notion of free speech 0:10:10.080 --> 0:10:16.520 with political arguments about left right censorship is a is 0:10:16.559 --> 0:10:19.760 a is a strong man that's being used to describe 0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:23.960 a problem um that actually doesn't exist in the same 0:10:24.000 --> 0:10:27.880 extent as misinformation does. And I don't think that Elon 0:10:28.000 --> 0:10:31.080 Musk has much of interest interest at all in in 0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:35.320 solving the misinformation problem on Twitter and putting things in 0:10:35.480 --> 0:10:39.840 place that would allow for responsible vetting, not sensoring the 0:10:39.920 --> 0:10:44.040 left or the right, but actually monitoring the platform so 0:10:44.080 --> 0:10:47.520 it's a better form for factual exchanges. David, I want 0:10:47.520 --> 0:10:49.400 to let you respond to that you tweeted that the 0:10:49.600 --> 0:10:52.760 Berlin Wall of censorship fell in your words, but what 0:10:52.760 --> 0:10:55.480 what are you okay with some of the examples that 0:10:55.559 --> 0:11:00.120 Tim outlined there? No, I'm not. I'm not okay with, 0:11:00.400 --> 0:11:02.920 for example, bots being on the platform, which there the 0:11:03.040 --> 0:11:05.360 platform is absolutely rife with bots, and I think Ellen 0:11:05.400 --> 0:11:07.520 has already promises he's gonna crack down on bots, and 0:11:07.559 --> 0:11:12.120 he has expertise at his disposal, the premier AI engineers 0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:14.200 who he can deploy to solve that problem. I actually 0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:16.480 think that anyone's going to make this speech free speech 0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:20.520 to off it's fake, not if it's fake speech. So 0:11:20.840 --> 0:11:22.760 the first hold on a second, then let me finish, 0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:25.319 let me finish. Okay, So, first of all, the biggest 0:11:25.320 --> 0:11:28.679 misnomer this characterization about free speech in general is that 0:11:28.720 --> 0:11:31.480 it means anything goes it doesn't. The Streame Court has 0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:34.559 basically defined nine major categories of speech that are not 0:11:34.640 --> 0:11:37.160 protected by the First Amendment because they're considered to be 0:11:37.240 --> 0:11:40.480 harmful speech. So, for example, uh, the First amoment is 0:11:40.520 --> 0:11:42.760 not a defense to fraud. If you want to defraud somebody, 0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:44.640 you can't claim that your speech was protected by the 0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:47.920 First Amendment. When you put bots on Twitter and pretend 0:11:47.960 --> 0:11:49.840 to be someone you're not. When you pretend, when you 0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:52.679 basically violate the authenticity requirement, you are basically perpetrating and 0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:55.320 kind of fraud that is not free speech, that's fake speech. 0:11:55.440 --> 0:11:58.640 Is perfectly fair game under any kind of free speech 0:11:58.679 --> 0:12:01.240 policy to take out those kinds of bots, and I 0:12:01.280 --> 0:12:03.800 fully expect that Ellen will be far more effective at 0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:05.959 doing that than the current management of Twitter because they've 0:12:05.960 --> 0:12:08.240 been unable to do that. There are many other kinds 0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:10.600 of students. Tell me, tell me what's the mechanism for 0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:14.360 achieving that? In your view, what's the mechanism for making 0:12:14.400 --> 0:12:21.000 sure um that um categories of expression that you think 0:12:21.040 --> 0:12:25.240 are problematic don't service on Twitter. Well, it's not about 0:12:25.320 --> 0:12:27.880 what I think is problematic. There are tried and true 0:12:27.880 --> 0:12:31.040 categories speech. What are the what are what's the what 0:12:31.240 --> 0:12:36.560 is the methodology for going after any category of of 0:12:36.559 --> 0:12:40.040 of expression on the platform that may be problematic. Well, 0:12:40.080 --> 0:12:42.280 I'm trying to explain it. I mean, so basically, we 0:12:42.280 --> 0:12:44.520 have two or thirty years or stream court case law 0:12:44.960 --> 0:12:47.200 in which the stream court has wrestled with these issues 0:12:47.400 --> 0:12:51.360 over decades, not like you know, some content moderation h 0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:53.560 employees at Twitter are just figuring this out right now. 0:12:53.679 --> 0:12:55.920 Stream coursemen wrestling with this for hundreds of years, and 0:12:55.920 --> 0:12:58.679 they've defined nine categories of speech that are not permitted 0:12:58.679 --> 0:13:00.920 and not protected in the First Amendment. For example, fighting 0:13:00.920 --> 0:13:04.839 words under the Choplinsky decision, any type of ethnic or 0:13:04.920 --> 0:13:07.520 racial slur that people can make on Twitter. Hold on 0:13:07.520 --> 0:13:14.440 a second. You could define, you could define understand oversight 0:13:14.480 --> 0:13:17.200 of speech. We're talking about a private platform here exactly 0:13:17.240 --> 0:13:20.040 at point then that that you'll take categories of speech 0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:23.120 to the government monitors and essentially graph goes onto a 0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:26.720 private platform. I would take categories of speech that the 0:13:26.720 --> 0:13:29.920 Stream Court has already set are not protected because in 0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:33.040 their opinion, those categories of speech can be dangerous. And 0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:36.440 I would then apply similar rules to content moderation. I 0:13:36.440 --> 0:13:38.640 think that's what Ellen is hinting with when he says, 0:13:38.640 --> 0:13:41.559 you will not go far beyond what the law prohibits. 0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:44.200 So in other words, look, stream court already prohibits fighting 0:13:44.200 --> 0:13:46.920 words or doesn't protect them. Okay, so you know, if 0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:50.480 you're worried about Twitter being assess pool of ethnic or 0:13:50.559 --> 0:13:53.199 racial slurs, so it can clearly be prohibited under the 0:13:53.240 --> 0:13:56.240 Chaplinsky decision. If you're worried about harassment or stalking, that 0:13:56.280 --> 0:13:58.959 can clearly be prohibited. If you're worried about fraud, that 0:13:59.000 --> 0:14:02.160 can be prohibited. If you're worried about incitement to commit 0:14:02.160 --> 0:14:05.239 a crime, to commit imminent lawless action, that can be prohibited. 0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:07.840 Why because the first amoment does not protect those categories 0:14:07.840 --> 0:14:11.120 of speech. And this whole argument see basically, what's happened 0:14:11.200 --> 0:14:14.680 about as we're going through this list, what about Chinese 0:14:14.720 --> 0:14:18.680 and Russian propaganda? And let's talk about before you answered, 0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:22.120 David Jeff Bezos tweeted proposed that the Chinese government just 0:14:22.200 --> 0:14:25.920 gained some leverage over the global down town Square. Given 0:14:26.040 --> 0:14:29.400 the strong relationship between Tesla and China, what do you 0:14:29.400 --> 0:14:32.320 think about that, David Well? Twitter Twitter has already been 0:14:32.440 --> 0:14:36.320 allowing the Wolf Warrior of Beijing and the Aetola Kimany 0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:38.720 to post on Twitter. They don't seem to have a 0:14:38.720 --> 0:14:42.320 problem with various governments around the world posting what they think. 0:14:42.480 --> 0:14:45.320 The problem is when those governments pretend to be someone else. 0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:48.800 So if the FSB is conducting an operation and created 0:14:48.800 --> 0:14:51.240 a bunch of phony accounts, that's a form of fraud 0:14:51.240 --> 0:14:53.760 and you're clearly prohibit them. That's not the only problem 0:14:53.800 --> 0:14:59.600 that exists with government sponsored disinformation and propaganda. UH is 0:14:59.680 --> 0:15:02.760 doing it through bots. Let's get back to the idea 0:15:02.960 --> 0:15:04.800 if you have an account. Hold on a second, If 0:15:04.840 --> 0:15:07.120 you have an account, you comfortable? Are you comfortable with 0:15:07.120 --> 0:15:11.120 the idea of Russian or Chinese propaganda flourishing on social 0:15:11.120 --> 0:15:14.160 media platforms Twitter? Twitter already allows them to publish on 0:15:14.720 --> 0:15:18.160 the platform. You're comfortable with that? Well, Look, I think 0:15:18.160 --> 0:15:21.000 that if a foreign government foreign no, Hold on a second, 0:15:21.000 --> 0:15:23.560 it's more complicated than that. If a foreign government wants 0:15:23.600 --> 0:15:26.120 to have a Twitter account, is it up to David 0:15:26.120 --> 0:15:28.200 Sachs to say no, they can't have an account. Let 0:15:28.200 --> 0:15:32.680 them have an account. It will be close second on 0:15:32.720 --> 0:15:37.520 a seconds relevant whether it's a government account. I think 0:15:37.520 --> 0:15:40.960 what's relevant is what the account does know. What's what's relevant. 0:15:41.320 --> 0:15:45.200 There's if it's a legitimate government account, is spreading misinformation 0:15:45.280 --> 0:15:48.240 or propaganda and who's in whose view? Look, let me 0:15:48.240 --> 0:15:51.600 just finish my point. Okay, it matters a lot what 0:15:51.960 --> 0:15:55.960 who people purport to be on these platforms. Okay, if 0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:57.920 the Russian government wants to post a tweet, or the 0:15:58.000 --> 0:16:01.160 Chinese government or the Atlas they want to publish a tweet, 0:16:01.360 --> 0:16:04.080 obviously I probably don't agree with it. It's probably part 0:16:04.400 --> 0:16:07.560 of their you know, of their government propaganda. Sure, but 0:16:07.600 --> 0:16:09.960 as long as it's correctly labeled, I don't think anyone's 0:16:10.000 --> 0:16:12.280 gonna be fooled by it. That's really the point. The 0:16:12.360 --> 0:16:15.000 problem is. Where you actually have a problem is when 0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:18.640 you have a disinformation operation conducted by a foreign government 0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:21.520 where they're posting things under accounts from people that appear 0:16:21.600 --> 0:16:24.200 to be in Iowa or something, and they are signal 0:16:24.240 --> 0:16:26.520 boosting with a bunch of bots and fake accounts. Elon 0:16:26.600 --> 0:16:28.480 will do a better job wiping that out that he'll 0:16:28.480 --> 0:16:30.920 get rid of those bots better than the current Twitter management, 0:16:30.920 --> 0:16:33.000 but staence not able to do it for the last 0:16:33.000 --> 0:16:36.120 ten years. It's not just about in a signal boosting problem. 0:16:36.160 --> 0:16:39.680 You're just that's oversimplifying the nature of the problem. Well, look, 0:16:39.720 --> 0:16:41.960 I'm sorry that there are people. I'm sorry there's people 0:16:41.960 --> 0:16:45.080 in the world who post things that you disagree with. Okay, 0:16:45.880 --> 0:16:50.120 let's let's let's let's uh, let's talk about Donald Trump 0:16:50.160 --> 0:16:52.280 before we at to the end of the segment. Tim, 0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:54.400 obviously you wrote the book on Trump. He has said 0:16:54.440 --> 0:16:56.720 he's not going to come back to the platform even 0:16:56.760 --> 0:17:00.240 if he's allowed. But how significant would it be if 0:17:00.320 --> 0:17:03.200 Elon Musk and his management team decided to unblock and 0:17:03.400 --> 0:17:07.080 unbann the president. Well, I think I think we have 0:17:07.119 --> 0:17:09.520 to say, what are we doing when when anyone is 0:17:09.560 --> 0:17:12.320 banned and anyone whose banned is brought back in, what 0:17:12.440 --> 0:17:14.679 are the standards around that? And I think that that 0:17:14.760 --> 0:17:18.000 has to be clarified. I don't think Facebook or YouTube 0:17:18.080 --> 0:17:21.080 or Twitter has done a very good job of that. Um. 0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:25.600 I think historically newspapers have tried to address that problem 0:17:25.600 --> 0:17:28.679 and have found mechanisms for doing that in a in 0:17:28.720 --> 0:17:34.680 a real time basis around categories of expression that involved 0:17:35.080 --> 0:17:39.639 lying and propaganda and manipulation. It is never going to 0:17:39.680 --> 0:17:42.880 be perfect, but something has to be in place. It's 0:17:43.080 --> 0:17:47.560 ridiculous to think that this is the left versus right argument. 0:17:47.880 --> 0:17:52.520 This is an argument about preserving high quality information in 0:17:52.560 --> 0:17:56.000 the service of media platforms doing a better job of 0:17:56.040 --> 0:17:59.200 informing the public. It is no more complex than that. 0:17:59.760 --> 0:18:03.800 Day all the problem, David, do you think President Trump 0:18:03.880 --> 0:18:08.720 should be unbanned even if he is spreading misinformation? Okay? Here, 0:18:08.760 --> 0:18:10.520 here's the basic problem. There's no such thing as a 0:18:10.560 --> 0:18:13.440 truth api. I know you'd like to be able to say, well, oh, 0:18:13.560 --> 0:18:16.080 that tweet, in my opinion, is false, and therefore we 0:18:16.080 --> 0:18:18.040 should expand it. The problem is when you do that, 0:18:18.280 --> 0:18:21.600 you empower a special class of people. You're empowering these 0:18:21.640 --> 0:18:25.160 basic mandarins and the content moderation department of these companies 0:18:25.320 --> 0:18:27.720 to decide what are the boundaries of free speech for 0:18:27.760 --> 0:18:29.080 all of us. And they should not be in the 0:18:29.080 --> 0:18:31.359 position to do that. If somebody is willing to sign 0:18:31.359 --> 0:18:33.640 their name to a tweet, okay, and they are who 0:18:33.640 --> 0:18:36.160 they purport to be, and it's not in a category 0:18:36.160 --> 0:18:38.359 of speech that the stream Court has already ruled to 0:18:38.359 --> 0:18:40.879 be harmful. They should be allowed to say it. But 0:18:41.000 --> 0:18:49.240 let's sen Streme Court, Stream Court professions. But we're running 0:18:49.240 --> 0:18:51.920 into a hard break. UM, so I'm gonna let you 0:18:52.000 --> 0:18:56.800 guys continue this debate offline. David Sacks of Craft Venture 0:18:56.840 --> 0:18:58.120 is always going to have you on the show. Tim 0:18:58.160 --> 0:19:00.359 O'Brien of our very own Bloomberg Opinions so much to 0:19:00.400 --> 0:19:11.679 continue to talk about famous started Bolt being sued by 0:19:11.720 --> 0:19:15.480 its most prominent customer, Authentic Brands Group, which owns Forever, 0:19:16.160 --> 0:19:19.480 says Bolt not only failed to deliver promise technology, but 0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:22.960 during its integration with Forever, the company lost out on 0:19:23.000 --> 0:19:25.879 more than a D fifty million in online sales. The 0:19:25.920 --> 0:19:28.560 complete also says Bolt race funding at an increasingly high 0:19:28.640 --> 0:19:32.359 valuation by quote consistently overstating the nature of its integration 0:19:32.840 --> 0:19:36.200 with a b G Brands. Bolt responding saying the claims 0:19:36.280 --> 0:19:40.280 are without merit. Coming up Roger McNamee here to talk 0:19:40.320 --> 0:19:43.120 all things Twitter and Elon Musk and how Jack Dorsey 0:19:43.400 --> 0:19:47.840 fits into this dramatic takeover that is next. This is Bloomberg. 0:19:57.200 --> 0:19:59.760 Welcome back to Bloomberg Technology and Emily Chang in San Francisco. 0:20:00.000 --> 0:20:02.680 It is just out and we are getting new details 0:20:02.760 --> 0:20:04.879 on the deal and Elon Musk's agreement to buy it. 0:20:05.160 --> 0:20:08.080 Roger McNamee, who knows a thing or two about social media. 0:20:08.160 --> 0:20:10.600 He's the author of Zucked. Waking up to the Facebook 0:20:10.640 --> 0:20:13.680 catastrophe in a long time tech investor, Roger, I know 0:20:13.720 --> 0:20:16.160 you were listening to our conversation earlier with Tim O'Brien 0:20:16.480 --> 0:20:18.520 and David Sacks, and you don't think this is about 0:20:18.600 --> 0:20:21.080 free speech at all. Why well, I just think that 0:20:21.200 --> 0:20:26.480 the free speech conversation is off target. That fundamentally, when 0:20:26.520 --> 0:20:31.679 you introduce algorithms and the amplification of content for attention, 0:20:32.240 --> 0:20:36.600 as Twitter does, what happens is that the algorithms are 0:20:36.640 --> 0:20:39.359 going to seek out the content that produces the greatest reaction, 0:20:39.400 --> 0:20:41.960 which is generally speaking, going to be the most extreme content. 0:20:42.359 --> 0:20:45.280 Let's put not just political content, but all extreme content, 0:20:45.800 --> 0:20:48.879 and it's going to give that disproportionate weight. And so 0:20:49.200 --> 0:20:52.119 the real conversation we need to be having is not 0:20:52.680 --> 0:20:54.680 you know, in my opinion, everybody should be allowed on 0:20:54.720 --> 0:20:57.200 a platform like Twitter, but no one should have the 0:20:57.280 --> 0:21:00.719 benefit of being able to have their stuff amplified proportionately 0:21:00.960 --> 0:21:04.000 to crowd out other voices, because I think that's incredibly interous. 0:21:04.400 --> 0:21:06.760 Let's use the example of Donald Trump. Should Donald Trump 0:21:06.880 --> 0:21:10.120 be kept on Twitter even if he is spreading wise 0:21:10.160 --> 0:21:13.320 and misinformation? Well, to be clear, I think that Twitter 0:21:13.440 --> 0:21:17.080 has a responsibility. All these Internet platforms have a responsibility 0:21:17.080 --> 0:21:19.680 to try to protect democracy, something that they have done 0:21:19.680 --> 0:21:23.680 a truly horrific job at And as Twitter is currently constructed, 0:21:24.520 --> 0:21:27.320 you know it, It's not just Trump, it's all kinds 0:21:27.359 --> 0:21:31.400 of extreme voices across the entire spectrum are drowning out 0:21:32.240 --> 0:21:35.920 the thoughtful and factual things that might also be there. 0:21:36.320 --> 0:21:38.960 And at the end of the day, by framing it 0:21:39.000 --> 0:21:41.200 in political terms like that, I think we really do 0:21:41.280 --> 0:21:44.760 a disservice to this conversation. Okay, but it is a common, 0:21:44.880 --> 0:21:48.040 free example. It is a concrete example that I think 0:21:48.320 --> 0:21:54.520 helps to broader point. Right, as I would not allow 0:21:54.640 --> 0:21:57.840 him back on, I would not allow on many of 0:21:57.960 --> 0:22:00.440 the incredibly harmful people are there. I mean. The problem 0:22:00.520 --> 0:22:04.159 with Twitter, there's two core problems, and they both represent 0:22:04.240 --> 0:22:06.720 an opportunities for free line musket. The first is that, 0:22:07.600 --> 0:22:10.840 even though it started with one of the best ideas 0:22:10.960 --> 0:22:13.800 ever in the history of the Internet, Twitter is never 0:22:13.960 --> 0:22:18.080 successfully monetized itself. The company I believes still has a 0:22:18.320 --> 0:22:22.760