Speaker 1: From the heart of where Innovation, Money and power COLLI
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with
Speaker 1: Emily Jay. I'm Emily Chang in San Francisco, and this
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Technology coming up in the next hour. And
Speaker 1: Alphabet miss CFL. Ruth Pratt tells me the ads business
Speaker 1: took a hit after suspending service in Russia and that
Speaker 1: advertisers also put back a bit more broadly in your
Speaker 1: our chat about the search giant's latest earnings reports coming up,
Speaker 1: plus what is free speech and how will Elon Musk
Speaker 1: change Twitter to achieve his version of it? Does he
Speaker 1: even know? Will debate with David Sachs and Tim O'Brien
Speaker 1: and the Ring that tracks your waking and not waking moments,
Speaker 1: My exclusive interview with Or's new CEO about how he
Speaker 1: intends to compete in where a Bolt with giants like Apple.
Speaker 1: That is later in this hour. We'll get to all
Speaker 1: of that in a moment, But first though, I want
Speaker 1: to dive deeper into Alphabet and Microsoft results. I want
Speaker 1: to bring in future ums Dan Newman. Now, Dan, of
Speaker 1: course you cover and follow both. Let's talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about Alphabet. Ruth poor at telling me on the
Speaker 1: phone that yes, the biggest impact in terms of revenue
Speaker 1: UH and contribution to this miss was the suspension of
Speaker 1: the vast majority of commercial activities in Russia. She also
Speaker 1: said beyond that there was a bit of a pullback
Speaker 1: on ad spend in Europe. We also saw a pullback
Speaker 1: UH at SNAP when it came to advertisers and the
Speaker 1: Russian invasion of Ukraine. What's your take on this, well,
Speaker 1: I think the whole advertising market is starting to bring
Speaker 1: some question marks. Is it going to get softer? You
Speaker 1: have these macro forces, geopolitical forces going on in Ukraine
Speaker 1: and Russia, Europe, and then of course here we've got
Speaker 1: a lot of macroeconomic conditions that are looking like we
Speaker 1: may see a recession. We're definitely seeing a pullback in.
Speaker 1: This sentiment towards tech as a whole is going is negative.
Speaker 1: And if Alphabet missed today, I can only imagine what
Speaker 1: Meta and Twitter might be in for later this week.
Speaker 1: It's definitely concerning. But having said that, I thought Alphabet's
Speaker 1: numbers were really pretty good. They were very close. The
Speaker 1: growth was good top line growth. This is a company
Speaker 1: that's performing very well, and I think that stock buy
Speaker 1: back is an indicator that they believe their value is
Speaker 1: still there and they're gonna they're gonna spend money to
Speaker 1: repurchase those shares if people keep selling now. The Cloud,
Speaker 1: of course, was a contribution to that. But I want
Speaker 1: to talk about the ad business first. She was asked
Speaker 1: on the call whether Netflix and the pullback there is
Speaker 1: it concerned, and she brought up YouTube and how well
Speaker 1: YouTube's ad business is doing. Of course, we know Netflix
Speaker 1: is not an ad supported business, she said. We continue
Speaker 1: to be pleased with the ongoing innovation at YouTube. It's
Speaker 1: an ad supported business. Time spent there continues to grow.
Speaker 1: YouTube Music and premium were ups ubstantially in the quarter.
Speaker 1: We're continuing to innovate their across the board. Interestingly, she
Speaker 1: wouldn't comment. I tried to tried to get her thoughts
Speaker 1: on Elon Musk buying Twitter and Twitter potentially getting out
Speaker 1: of the ads business. But do you see, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a broader reshuffling here in the ads business, given what's
Speaker 1: happening at Twitter, the macro economic environment, the Apple ad
Speaker 1: changes that seem to be disproportionately impacting Meta and Snap. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I think Alphabet is going to be in
Speaker 1: pretty good shape and they're going to be able to
Speaker 1: sustain growth. The changes modifications to YouTube have largely been
Speaker 1: well received by the marketplace. I think TikTok has been
Speaker 1: probably its biggest challenge and maybe had a little bit
Speaker 1: to do with the near miss on YouTube versus what
Speaker 1: analysts had expected. But overall, I think the YouTube business,
Speaker 1: it's been growing, the television service cord cutting, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of positive tail winds for that particular business, and
Speaker 1: I think the market is largely appreciating what Google and
Speaker 1: YouTube are doing there. So I still I'm still positive
Speaker 1: on the company. The numbers just learn't that bad. I
Speaker 1: just think the sentiment in the market is just really
Speaker 1: really low right now. Now, Google is still trying to
Speaker 1: close this acquisition of Mandy and the cybersecurity firm five
Speaker 1: point four billion dollars. We know that the d o
Speaker 1: J has asked both Google and Mandy and for more information.
Speaker 1: I asked about the likelihood of the deal closing. She
Speaker 1: talked about how they believe this will increase competition and
Speaker 1: help Google Cloud compete more effectively with Amazon, Microsoft and others.
Speaker 1: Um let's talk a little bit about the cloud, and
Speaker 1: of course Microsoft how is Google Cloud doing with respect
Speaker 1: to Microsoft. I know it's still in third place. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Google has been competing. Of course, we've also seen Oracle
Speaker 1: with a big uptake in its business. But Google's growth
Speaker 1: has been really strong and still came in. Now the
Speaker 1: concern has been it's still not profitable, but they did
Speaker 1: narrow losses in the most recent quarter. Um I still
Speaker 1: feel that the company is willing to make those CAPEX
Speaker 1: invest mints. Google understands that its ambitions with the cloud
Speaker 1: business or not to be in third place. Their ambitions
Speaker 1: are to compete and to be on par or above
Speaker 1: the competition with Azure and AWS. So they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to spend big, and I think the market has to
Speaker 1: realize it's going to take some time to get there.
Speaker 1: But some of their key partnerships investments have been made.
Speaker 1: Expansion and CAPEX spending are all indicators, and of course growth.
Speaker 1: Having said that, as you're still growing it over as well,
Speaker 1: so all that spending isn't necessarily accelerating Google's achievement of
Speaker 1: parity with Azure. And we'll see what AWS later this week,
Speaker 1: which brings us to Microsoft earnings and it to be
Speaker 1: And I wonder if you think Microsoft is better insulated
Speaker 1: from some of these macroeconomic headwinds and this macro economic
Speaker 1: uncertainty that we're feeling right now in other big dot companies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I like the enterprise play. I feel like enterprise tech
Speaker 1: is a little more deflationary. Companies are going to spend
Speaker 1: on cloud, data center AI, other data analytics and software
Speaker 1: that are going to create more scale and lower costs.
Speaker 1: You've got you know, high call us related to worker
Speaker 1: right now into finding employees. You've got other costs growing
Speaker 1: through inflation, and you know, if you can add automation, AI,
Speaker 1: m L technologies, and Microsoft is really well positioned there.
Speaker 1: And we also saw IBHIM do really well this quarter.
Speaker 1: Some of these companies that have more consumer oriented businesses
Speaker 1: are going to have to deal with UM, you know,
Speaker 1: some of the discretionary spending potentially going down as the
Speaker 1: economic climate gets tighter. So I do think Microsoft is
Speaker 1: more insulated, it's more diversified. It's got that large enterprise business,
Speaker 1: the commercial business UM, and I think it puts them
Speaker 1: in a good position to not be as hurt quite
Speaker 1: as much by all the things that are going on
Speaker 1: outside of the company's control. All Right, Dan Newman Future
Speaker 1: and Research. We're going to continue to follow the calls
Speaker 1: as the Alphabet and Microsoft call progressed. Dan, thank you
Speaker 1: as always for joining us. As the deal was being
Speaker 1: sealed for Elon Musk to bite Twitter, he tweeted he
Speaker 1: hopes even his worst critics remain on the service because
Speaker 1: that is what free speech means. But what changes will
Speaker 1: he actually make to create his version of the global
Speaker 1: town square? Doesn't even know yet to debate. I'm joined
Speaker 1: by David Sachs, co founder of Craft Ventures and co
Speaker 1: host on the All In podcast, along with Bloomberg Opinions
Speaker 1: Tim O'Brien. Looking forward to a spirited conversation for both
Speaker 1: of you here. David, I want to start with you,
Speaker 1: and that is a simple question. What does free speech
Speaker 1: mean to you? Well, what it means to me is
Speaker 1: that we don't have arbitrary censorship rules on the platform.
Speaker 1: That Twitter will act as an open town square. It
Speaker 1: will be an honest referee of the debate, but it
Speaker 1: will not try to choose winners and losers in the debate.
Speaker 1: And what we've seen over the past few years is
Speaker 1: a growing movement towards censorship. Where it started with is
Speaker 1: sayd individuals who are sort of unpopular provocateurs like a
Speaker 1: Mile Annapolis or Alex Jones, they were d platform. Then
Speaker 1: you had to sitting president and states being d platform.
Speaker 1: Then during of it we saw entire categories of thought
Speaker 1: being d platform. You couldn't criticize various aspects of where
Speaker 1: the virus came from, or mass mandates or vaccine policies.
Speaker 1: And now more recently we're seeing that same sort of
Speaker 1: idea of banning entire categories of thought being applied to
Speaker 1: more and more platforms, for example, opinion, the sending opinion
Speaker 1: on climate change. So I think basically the censorship has
Speaker 1: gone way too far and Elon wants to roll it back.
Speaker 1: And I think that tweet you showed up on the
Speaker 1: screen really indicates pretty well where I think he wants
Speaker 1: to take it, which he does not want to go
Speaker 1: far beyond what the law allows. So he's not saying
Speaker 1: that anything goes the law does not protect the first moment,
Speaker 1: does not protect many kinds of speech, but he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to go far beyond that in terms of restricting speech,
Speaker 1: and that is I think a healthy correction that's long overdue.
Speaker 1: We're actually getting some headlines from Twitter's a k which
Speaker 1: was just filed. Getting some more terms of the deal here.
Speaker 1: I'll read those out as we have them. The first
Speaker 1: headline that Twitter required to pay apparent termination fee of
Speaker 1: one billion dollars. Presumably if the deal doesn't go through.
Speaker 1: That's the same as a reverse termination feet, Tim, I'll
Speaker 1: throw it back to you. What is your definition of
Speaker 1: free speech and do you think that Elon Musk can
Speaker 1: and will protect it? Well? You know, I think free
Speaker 1: speech is being used as a proxy for unfettered speech,
Speaker 1: and I'm actually not a fan of unfettered speech. I
Speaker 1: don't think propaganda should be allowed to run rampant and
Speaker 1: misinformation be allowed to run rampant on social media platforms
Speaker 1: and it has um. I I don't think um, calling
Speaker 1: someone like Alex Jones a a provocateur really captures the
Speaker 1: totality of of how he's used media platforms. I don't think,
Speaker 1: um uh we there are already a lot of categories
Speaker 1: of speech that that aren't permitted on Twitter. Would David
Speaker 1: be comfortable with pornography being on Twitter? Or enough films
Speaker 1: or Russian propaganda or Chinese propaganda? Um? I don't. I
Speaker 1: think the idea of conflating the notion of free speech
Speaker 1: with political arguments about left right censorship is a is
Speaker 1: a is a strong man that's being used to describe
Speaker 1: a problem um that actually doesn't exist in the same
Speaker 1: extent as misinformation does. And I don't think that Elon
Speaker 1: Musk has much of interest interest at all in in
Speaker 1: solving the misinformation problem on Twitter and putting things in
Speaker 1: place that would allow for responsible vetting, not sensoring the
Speaker 1: left or the right, but actually monitoring the platform so
Speaker 1: it's a better form for factual exchanges. David, I want
Speaker 1: to let you respond to that you tweeted that the
Speaker 1: Berlin Wall of censorship fell in your words, but what
Speaker 1: what are you okay with some of the examples that
Speaker 1: Tim outlined there? No, I'm not. I'm not okay with,
Speaker 1: for example, bots being on the platform, which there the
Speaker 1: platform is absolutely rife with bots, and I think Ellen
Speaker 1: has already promises he's gonna crack down on bots, and
Speaker 1: he has expertise at his disposal, the premier AI engineers
Speaker 1: who he can deploy to solve that problem. I actually
Speaker 1: think that anyone's going to make this speech free speech
Speaker 1: to off it's fake, not if it's fake speech. So
Speaker 1: the first hold on a second, then let me finish,
Speaker 1: let me finish. Okay, So, first of all, the biggest
Speaker 1: misnomer this characterization about free speech in general is that
Speaker 1: it means anything goes it doesn't. The Streame Court has
Speaker 1: basically defined nine major categories of speech that are not
Speaker 1: protected by the First Amendment because they're considered to be
Speaker 1: harmful speech. So, for example, uh, the First amoment is
Speaker 1: not a defense to fraud. If you want to defraud somebody,
Speaker 1: you can't claim that your speech was protected by the
Speaker 1: First Amendment. When you put bots on Twitter and pretend
Speaker 1: to be someone you're not. When you pretend, when you
Speaker 1: basically violate the authenticity requirement, you are basically perpetrating and
Speaker 1: kind of fraud that is not free speech, that's fake speech.
Speaker 1: Is perfectly fair game under any kind of free speech
Speaker 1: policy to take out those kinds of bots, and I
Speaker 1: fully expect that Ellen will be far more effective at
Speaker 1: doing that than the current management of Twitter because they've
Speaker 1: been unable to do that. There are many other kinds
Speaker 1: of students. Tell me, tell me what's the mechanism for
Speaker 1: achieving that? In your view, what's the mechanism for making
Speaker 1: sure um that um categories of expression that you think
Speaker 1: are problematic don't service on Twitter. Well, it's not about
Speaker 1: what I think is problematic. There are tried and true
Speaker 1: categories speech. What are the what are what's the what
Speaker 1: is the methodology for going after any category of of
Speaker 1: of expression on the platform that may be problematic. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to explain it. I mean, so basically, we
Speaker 1: have two or thirty years or stream court case law
Speaker 1: in which the stream court has wrestled with these issues
Speaker 1: over decades, not like you know, some content moderation h
Speaker 1: employees at Twitter are just figuring this out right now.
Speaker 1: Stream coursemen wrestling with this for hundreds of years, and
Speaker 1: they've defined nine categories of speech that are not permitted
Speaker 1: and not protected in the First Amendment. For example, fighting
Speaker 1: words under the Choplinsky decision, any type of ethnic or
Speaker 1: racial slur that people can make on Twitter. Hold on
Speaker 1: a second. You could define, you could define understand oversight
Speaker 1: of speech. We're talking about a private platform here exactly
Speaker 1: at point then that that you'll take categories of speech
Speaker 1: to the government monitors and essentially graph goes onto a
Speaker 1: private platform. I would take categories of speech that the
Speaker 1: Stream Court has already set are not protected because in
Speaker 1: their opinion, those categories of speech can be dangerous. And
Speaker 1: I would then apply similar rules to content moderation. I
Speaker 1: think that's what Ellen is hinting with when he says,
Speaker 1: you will not go far beyond what the law prohibits.
Speaker 1: So in other words, look, stream court already prohibits fighting
Speaker 1: words or doesn't protect them. Okay, so you know, if
Speaker 1: you're worried about Twitter being assess pool of ethnic or
Speaker 1: racial slurs, so it can clearly be prohibited under the
Speaker 1: Chaplinsky decision. If you're worried about harassment or stalking, that
Speaker 1: can clearly be prohibited. If you're worried about fraud, that
Speaker 1: can be prohibited. If you're worried about incitement to commit
Speaker 1: a crime, to commit imminent lawless action, that can be prohibited.
Speaker 1: Why because the first amoment does not protect those categories
Speaker 1: of speech. And this whole argument see basically, what's happened
Speaker 1: about as we're going through this list, what about Chinese
Speaker 1: and Russian propaganda? And let's talk about before you answered,
Speaker 1: David Jeff Bezos tweeted proposed that the Chinese government just
Speaker 1: gained some leverage over the global down town Square. Given
Speaker 1: the strong relationship between Tesla and China, what do you
Speaker 1: think about that, David Well? Twitter Twitter has already been
Speaker 1: allowing the Wolf Warrior of Beijing and the Aetola Kimany
Speaker 1: to post on Twitter. They don't seem to have a
Speaker 1: problem with various governments around the world posting what they think.
Speaker 1: The problem is when those governments pretend to be someone else.
Speaker 1: So if the FSB is conducting an operation and created
Speaker 1: a bunch of phony accounts, that's a form of fraud
Speaker 1: and you're clearly prohibit them. That's not the only problem
Speaker 1: that exists with government sponsored disinformation and propaganda. UH is
Speaker 1: doing it through bots. Let's get back to the idea
Speaker 1: if you have an account. Hold on a second, If
Speaker 1: you have an account, you comfortable? Are you comfortable with
Speaker 1: the idea of Russian or Chinese propaganda flourishing on social
Speaker 1: media platforms Twitter? Twitter already allows them to publish on
Speaker 1: the platform. You're comfortable with that? Well, Look, I think
Speaker 1: that if a foreign government foreign no, Hold on a second,
Speaker 1: it's more complicated than that. If a foreign government wants
Speaker 1: to have a Twitter account, is it up to David
Speaker 1: Sachs to say no, they can't have an account. Let
Speaker 1: them have an account. It will be close second on
Speaker 1: a seconds relevant whether it's a government account. I think
Speaker 1: what's relevant is what the account does know. What's what's relevant.
Speaker 1: There's if it's a legitimate government account, is spreading misinformation
Speaker 1: or propaganda and who's in whose view? Look, let me
Speaker 1: just finish my point. Okay, it matters a lot what
Speaker 1: who people purport to be on these platforms. Okay, if
Speaker 1: the Russian government wants to post a tweet, or the
Speaker 1: Chinese government or the Atlas they want to publish a tweet,
Speaker 1: obviously I probably don't agree with it. It's probably part
Speaker 1: of their you know, of their government propaganda. Sure, but
Speaker 1: as long as it's correctly labeled, I don't think anyone's
Speaker 1: gonna be fooled by it. That's really the point. The
Speaker 1: problem is. Where you actually have a problem is when
Speaker 1: you have a disinformation operation conducted by a foreign government
Speaker 1: where they're posting things under accounts from people that appear
Speaker 1: to be in Iowa or something, and they are signal
Speaker 1: boosting with a bunch of bots and fake accounts. Elon
Speaker 1: will do a better job wiping that out that he'll
Speaker 1: get rid of those bots better than the current Twitter management,
Speaker 1: but staence not able to do it for the last
Speaker 1: ten years. It's not just about in a signal boosting problem.
Speaker 1: You're just that's oversimplifying the nature of the problem. Well, look,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that there are people. I'm sorry there's people
Speaker 1: in the world who post things that you disagree with. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's let's let's let's uh, let's talk about Donald Trump
Speaker 1: before we at to the end of the segment. Tim,
Speaker 1: obviously you wrote the book on Trump. He has said
Speaker 1: he's not going to come back to the platform even
Speaker 1: if he's allowed. But how significant would it be if
Speaker 1: Elon Musk and his management team decided to unblock and
Speaker 1: unbann the president. Well, I think I think we have
Speaker 1: to say, what are we doing when when anyone is
Speaker 1: banned and anyone whose banned is brought back in, what
Speaker 1: are the standards around that? And I think that that
Speaker 1: has to be clarified. I don't think Facebook or YouTube
Speaker 1: or Twitter has done a very good job of that. Um.
Speaker 1: I think historically newspapers have tried to address that problem
Speaker 1: and have found mechanisms for doing that in a in
Speaker 1: a real time basis around categories of expression that involved
Speaker 1: lying and propaganda and manipulation. It is never going to
Speaker 1: be perfect, but something has to be in place. It's
Speaker 1: ridiculous to think that this is the left versus right argument.
Speaker 1: This is an argument about preserving high quality information in
Speaker 1: the service of media platforms doing a better job of
Speaker 1: informing the public. It is no more complex than that.
Speaker 1: Day all the problem, David, do you think President Trump
Speaker 1: should be unbanned even if he is spreading misinformation? Okay? Here,
Speaker 1: here's the basic problem. There's no such thing as a
Speaker 1: truth api. I know you'd like to be able to say, well, oh,
Speaker 1: that tweet, in my opinion, is false, and therefore we
Speaker 1: should expand it. The problem is when you do that,
Speaker 1: you empower a special class of people. You're empowering these
Speaker 1: basic mandarins and the content moderation department of these companies
Speaker 1: to decide what are the boundaries of free speech for
Speaker 1: all of us. And they should not be in the
Speaker 1: position to do that. If somebody is willing to sign
Speaker 1: their name to a tweet, okay, and they are who
Speaker 1: they purport to be, and it's not in a category
Speaker 1: of speech that the stream Court has already ruled to
Speaker 1: be harmful. They should be allowed to say it. But
Speaker 1: let's sen Streme Court, Stream Court professions. But we're running
Speaker 1: into a hard break. UM, so I'm gonna let you
Speaker 1: guys continue this debate offline. David Sacks of Craft Venture
Speaker 1: is always going to have you on the show. Tim
Speaker 1: O'Brien of our very own Bloomberg Opinions so much to
Speaker 1: continue to talk about famous started Bolt being sued by
Speaker 1: its most prominent customer, Authentic Brands Group, which owns Forever,
Speaker 1: says Bolt not only failed to deliver promise technology, but
Speaker 1: during its integration with Forever, the company lost out on
Speaker 1: more than a D fifty million in online sales. The
Speaker 1: complete also says Bolt race funding at an increasingly high
Speaker 1: valuation by quote consistently overstating the nature of its integration
Speaker 1: with a b G Brands. Bolt responding saying the claims
Speaker 1: are without merit. Coming up Roger McNamee here to talk
Speaker 1: all things Twitter and Elon Musk and how Jack Dorsey
Speaker 1: fits into this dramatic takeover that is next. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Bloomberg Technology and Emily Chang in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: It is just out and we are getting new details
Speaker 1: on the deal and Elon Musk's agreement to buy it.
Speaker 1: Roger McNamee, who knows a thing or two about social media.
Speaker 1: He's the author of Zucked. Waking up to the Facebook
Speaker 1: catastrophe in a long time tech investor, Roger, I know
Speaker 1: you were listening to our conversation earlier with Tim O'Brien
Speaker 1: and David Sacks, and you don't think this is about
Speaker 1: free speech at all. Why well, I just think that
Speaker 1: the free speech conversation is off target. That fundamentally, when
Speaker 1: you introduce algorithms and the amplification of content for attention,
Speaker 1: as Twitter does, what happens is that the algorithms are
Speaker 1: going to seek out the content that produces the greatest reaction,
Speaker 1: which is generally speaking, going to be the most extreme content.
Speaker 1: Let's put not just political content, but all extreme content,
Speaker 1: and it's going to give that disproportionate weight. And so
Speaker 1: the real conversation we need to be having is not
Speaker 1: you know, in my opinion, everybody should be allowed on
Speaker 1: a platform like Twitter, but no one should have the
Speaker 1: benefit of being able to have their stuff amplified proportionately
Speaker 1: to crowd out other voices, because I think that's incredibly interous.
Speaker 1: Let's use the example of Donald Trump. Should Donald Trump
Speaker 1: be kept on Twitter even if he is spreading wise
Speaker 1: and misinformation? Well, to be clear, I think that Twitter
Speaker 1: has a responsibility. All these Internet platforms have a responsibility
Speaker 1: to try to protect democracy, something that they have done
Speaker 1: a truly horrific job at And as Twitter is currently constructed,
Speaker 1: you know it, It's not just Trump, it's all kinds
Speaker 1: of extreme voices across the entire spectrum are drowning out
Speaker 1: the thoughtful and factual things that might also be there.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, by framing it
Speaker 1: in political terms like that, I think we really do
Speaker 1: a disservice to this conversation. Okay, but it is a common,
Speaker 1: free example. It is a concrete example that I think
Speaker 1: helps to broader point. Right, as I would not allow
Speaker 1: him back on, I would not allow on many of
Speaker 1: the incredibly harmful people are there. I mean. The problem
Speaker 1: with Twitter, there's two core problems, and they both represent
Speaker 1: an opportunities for free line musket. The first is that,
Speaker 1: even though it started with one of the best ideas
Speaker 1: ever in the history of the Internet, Twitter is never
Speaker 1: successfully monetized itself. The company I believes still has a
Speaker 1: huge net loss cumulatively since it was started, and given
Speaker 1: its influence with politicians, celebrities, and journalists, Twitter should have
Speaker 1: been able to find a path to much greater profitability
Speaker 1: than its head. It's so influential. The second part of
Speaker 1: the problem here is that they have a set of
Speaker 1: terms and of service that are designed to protect people
Speaker 1: on the platform, and they have done a horrible job
Speaker 1: of moderation and a horrible job of enforcing the terms.
Speaker 1: I actually give them credit for trying, particularly in to
Speaker 1: do a better job of that, but I think they
Speaker 1: really have not done a good job. And COVID disinformation
Speaker 1: is a great example of something that just ran ramp.
Speaker 1: But there's also an enormous amount of abuse of groups
Speaker 1: that are, shall we say, out of power, right, so
Speaker 1: particularly people of color, women and others who use Twitter
Speaker 1: in order to have a voice. I mean, it's one
Speaker 1: of the great things that Twitter does is it gives
Speaker 1: those who are out of power of voice. The problem
Speaker 1: is that the algorithm also allowed those who want to
Speaker 1: suppress those voices to do that suppression very effectively. So Roger,
Speaker 1: there's a lot we don't know about Elon Musk's intentions
Speaker 1: for Twitter. He may not know exactly what he wants
Speaker 1: to change. I'd love to hear your prediction. How does
Speaker 1: Twitter look different under Elon Musk and let's say two years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I am I I don't honestly know. Because here's what's
Speaker 1: really weird about this deal. So Musk came to Twitter's
Speaker 1: board a little bit more than a week ago with
Speaker 1: a proposal to buy the company. Yet he had no financing,
Speaker 1: no plan, and he had not filed the proper paperwork
Speaker 1: with the Security Exchange Commission. So the board reacted as
Speaker 1: one would expect. It engaged to poison pill and it
Speaker 1: said slow down. And then a few days later, all
Speaker 1: of that gets reversed and the deal is suddenly accepted
Speaker 1: and there is financing now, but as far as I know,
Speaker 1: no plan has been shared with shareholders, and the filing
Speaker 1: issues with the SEC have not been resolved to my acknowledge.
Speaker 1: And so you have a situation where a serial violator
Speaker 1: of securities laws is being allowed to do one of
Speaker 1: the largest go private transactions in history without any scrutiny,
Speaker 1: which is disappointing, but I think not surprising this environment,
Speaker 1: And you know, I just think of this as shareholders.
Speaker 1: The problem with going private transactions is that the people
Speaker 1: doing the buying know what they're going to do, and
Speaker 1: they have a plan to create value. The people doing
Speaker 1: the selling are not party to that, and there's something
Speaker 1: fundamentally unfair. You know. I do believe there's a lot
Speaker 1: of opportunity on Twitter to create value, and I really
Speaker 1: believe the public shareholders would go along with if somebody
Speaker 1: told them what the plan was and did someone in
Speaker 1: convincing way, the same way Jeff Bezos system repeatedly at
Speaker 1: Amazon and the way they read Hastings and repeatedly at Netflix.
Speaker 1: Now what's interesting is this could never have happened at
Speaker 1: Facebook this way, given the dual class shares structure, the
Speaker 1: power that Mark Zuckerberg still wields there. And I wonder
Speaker 1: if you think that's a good or bad thing, given
Speaker 1: how much you have critiqued Facebook. Well, to be clear,
Speaker 1: I think dual class equity is a terrible idea and
Speaker 1: should not be permitted, you know. I just think it's
Speaker 1: totally contrary to the shareholder interest. And again, in the
Speaker 1: case of Twitter, I believe the company has been very
Speaker 1: badly managed. I mean, this board allowed the company to
Speaker 1: operate with a c yellow who had a full time
Speaker 1: job at another company. It's now accepting a transaction from
Speaker 1: somebody who I think is the CEO of what for
Speaker 1: other companies? You know, I just look at this as
Speaker 1: a massive policy failure at every level. And again, this
Speaker 1: is nothing to deprecate Elon Musk. He may have a
Speaker 1: great plan. In fact, I hope he makes Twitter a
Speaker 1: lot better. But at the same time, the things he
Speaker 1: talks about most are actually the areas in which Twitter
Speaker 1: is most flawed, and the proposals he's offered for fixing
Speaker 1: those things are not obviously fixes in a world where
Speaker 1: Twitter monetizes through advertising, using algorithms to amplify the most
Speaker 1: extreme speech. Interesting you mentioned Jack Dorsey and his role.
Speaker 1: He tweeted earlier that thanking Ellen for taking Twitter out
Speaker 1: of a quote unquote impossible situation, which is certainly interesting
Speaker 1: commentary given that he was the one in charge for
Speaker 1: so many years. Roger McNamee of Elevation Partners. Always great
Speaker 1: to have you, Roger. We could continue this conversation for hours,
Speaker 1: We'll have to leave it here. Time now for our
Speaker 1: Crypto Report and our crypto contributor Sanale Boss Sectionale micro
Speaker 1: Strategy recently turned to a bank to borrow against its
Speaker 1: own bitcoin to buy more bitcoin. And that bank that
Speaker 1: it turned to with silver Gate, you've got a special
Speaker 1: guest who knows a thing or two about that. Yeah, absolutely, Emily.
Speaker 1: I want to bring in silver Gate CEO Alan Lane
Speaker 1: now because he's been really facilitating this and a lot
Speaker 1: more in the cryptocurrency space when it comes to loans. Alan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. Why are you
Speaker 1: comfortable lending against bitcoin to this degree and how have
Speaker 1: regulators become comfortable with it? Yeah, I appreciate the question
Speaker 1: and the opportunity you got to talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about silvergateing and what we do here. We've actually we've
Speaker 1: been banking the bitcoin and broader cryptocurrency ecosystem since early
Speaker 1: so we've been doing this now for you know, for
Speaker 1: several years. And um, when we first started, it was
Speaker 1: bitcoin only. It was before our theoryum and all the
Speaker 1: other tokens and um, you know, as you're aware of,
Speaker 1: bitcoin is a digital bearer asset and it trades twenty
Speaker 1: four hours a day, seven days a week around the world,
Speaker 1: and so um, that really gets to the heart of
Speaker 1: your question, which is when we're lending against bitcoin, we
Speaker 1: take the private keys as collateral for our loan. We
Speaker 1: have possession of those keys, and we have the ability
Speaker 1: if our borrower doesn't pay us back, or if we
Speaker 1: need to satisfy a margin deficiency, we can actually liquidate
Speaker 1: the bitcoin. And we can we can sell up twenty
Speaker 1: four hours a day, seven days a week. You know,
Speaker 1: bitcoin is so volatile though, I mean, how does that
Speaker 1: work for you when one day it's forty six dollars
Speaker 1: and then that stay it's thirty eight thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: such a short amount of time, within weeks. Does that
Speaker 1: create a create complications for you in terms of taking
Speaker 1: it as collateral, Well, it certainly could. Um and that
Speaker 1: gets to some of the design features of our Send
Speaker 1: Leverage products, So we call the products send leverage. SEND
Speaker 1: is actually an acronym and it stands for the silver
Speaker 1: Gate Exchange Network, which is the seven access to fiat
Speaker 1: banking rails that we provide to the digital currency industry.
Speaker 1: And we bank companies such as coin Basin, Square and
Speaker 1: coin and Gemini and crack In and um It's you know, etcetera,
Speaker 1: and um we enable them to move US dollars twenty
Speaker 1: four hours a day, seventies a week across our platform. UM.
Speaker 1: And then that gets to the heart of our ability
Speaker 1: then to also sell bitcoin quickly if we need to. Now,
Speaker 1: so far we've been doing this lending now for a
Speaker 1: little over two years. We've not had to liquidate anybody's
Speaker 1: bitcoin because of of the fact that we start in
Speaker 1: a very overcollateralized position. So um, someone has to pledge
Speaker 1: more bitcoin to us than what we're willing to lend
Speaker 1: to them. So we build in some pushion up front.
Speaker 1: So let's switch gears here and talk about d M
Speaker 1: because you guys had bought the assets when that the
Speaker 1: project really started here by Facebook look to sell. What
Speaker 1: does this mean for you? And you're pushing to stable
Speaker 1: coins and doesn't mean that you'll be a much bigger
Speaker 1: player moving forward working with regulators sure well as as
Speaker 1: to how big will be, that's all to be determined. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, our goal isn't to be a specific size,
Speaker 1: but rather to help our customers solve the problems that
Speaker 1: they're trying to solve in these ecosystem And a stable coin,
Speaker 1: as you know, is meant to be. It's a tokenized
Speaker 1: dollars UM and UM different from Bitcoin, which we were
Speaker 1: just discussing, which can be very volatile because it's price
Speaker 1: is really set by mark at factors. It's really just
Speaker 1: supply and demand, whereas with a stable coin, what we're
Speaker 1: trying to do is we're trying to keep the value
Speaker 1: of that token at a stable price UM, and in
Speaker 1: the case of a dollar back stable coin, it would
Speaker 1: be one dollar would equal one one silver Gate issued
Speaker 1: stable coin token UM. Now we currently bank all of
Speaker 1: the existing regulated stable coin issuers in the United States
Speaker 1: that would be CIRCLE with their USDC token US as
Speaker 1: well as the Geini Dollar, the Patch Dollar, and True USD.
Speaker 1: They all use our platform, the silver Gate Exchange Network
Speaker 1: and our a p I s to facilitate minting and
Speaker 1: burning of their stable coins. And what we're trying to
Speaker 1: do is bringing so those existing stable coins, by the way,
Speaker 1: they're primarily primarily used for for defy, for cryptocurrency trading UM.
Speaker 1: What we're trying to do is bring a stable coin
Speaker 1: into the market that would primarily be used for commerce
Speaker 1: and cross border remittance and and the d M protocol
Speaker 1: was purpose built for payments, and that's why it was
Speaker 1: attractive for us UM. And we're excited to now own
Speaker 1: that technology and to bring a stable point to the market,
Speaker 1: hopefully by the end of this year. Allen, we'll have
Speaker 1: to have you back as regulators put more guard rails
Speaker 1: on this industry. That's silver Gate Bank CEO, Allen Lane,
Speaker 1: Emily Bowery, Joannale, Allen, thanks coming up. Pit is not
Speaker 1: the ring that rolls them all, but it can track
Speaker 1: your sleep, heart rate, and even your body temperature. We're
Speaker 1: gonna see how it fairs or will fare in the
Speaker 1: crowded field of wearables in an exclusive interview with Cora. Next,
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg, or the finished wearable tech startup is
Speaker 1: getting a new leader. Tom Hale, former president of moment
Speaker 1: of Global, which owned survey Monkey, in charge of growing
Speaker 1: their wearable subscription business, specific the fitness ring that tracks sleep,
Speaker 1: heart rate, body temperature and more. Let's talk about it
Speaker 1: all in our exclusive interview with Tom Hale himself and
Speaker 1: Erika managing partner at for Runner Ventures and or at
Speaker 1: Share of the Board. Time. I want to start with you,
Speaker 1: how do you think Ura will stand out in a
Speaker 1: very crowded field of wearables amongst giants like Apple well
Speaker 1: or as a smart ring that delivers you personalized health data,
Speaker 1: insights and guidance that foster healthy habits. But we started
Speaker 1: with sleep because it's the foundation of health. Of us
Speaker 1: will sleep every night, of us will exercise regularly or
Speaker 1: say that we will and sleep. It's just it's the
Speaker 1: universal solvent. It helps you feel better, perform better, improves
Speaker 1: your mood, reduces your appetite, increases energy, improves your complexion,
Speaker 1: it reduces inflammation. It's it's a nightly habit for most
Speaker 1: of us, and most of us don't do it very well.
Speaker 1: The ring as a form factor is really differentiated because
Speaker 1: of the location on the body gives you a more
Speaker 1: accurate signal. Most consumer friction around wearable techno oology is
Speaker 1: about accuracy, relevancy, and especially battery life and wear A
Speaker 1: wear ability or as ring addresses his head on and
Speaker 1: is like the sleek, small, powerful uh computer on your
Speaker 1: finger with the strength that's a hundred times stronger than
Speaker 1: a riskable. Now you're the former CEO Hart Pizzing Rye
Speaker 1: stepped down? Why is that? And why do you think
Speaker 1: Tom is the person for the job? You know, I
Speaker 1: think that, um, sorry, you know, we we really think
Speaker 1: her preat for all all the contributions that he's made
Speaker 1: with the company, and I think that right now this
Speaker 1: transition is indicative of where the company is in its
Speaker 1: scale and stage of growth, and Tom's really the leader
Speaker 1: that we need right now. With the CEO search, we
Speaker 1: were looking for a nuanced combination of deep technical and
Speaker 1: product expertise with with an authentic cultural fit with our
Speaker 1: international team and aspirational mission. It was a really tall
Speaker 1: order and Tom immediately rose to the top. He brings
Speaker 1: decades of technology leadership cross complex consumer and B two
Speaker 1: B companies. He's got knowledge of subscription business models and
Speaker 1: driving international expansion forward. He's got situational experiences and scaling
Speaker 1: teams from hyper growth through I p O, all of
Speaker 1: which is critical to AURA in this next phase of growth. Now, Tom,
Speaker 1: you've got some interesting sports partnerships. I know Chris Paul
Speaker 1: is the user, Lindsay Vaughan partnerships with the NBA, w NBA,
Speaker 1: NASCAR F one. How do you think these kinds of
Speaker 1: relationships can help drive growth. Well, everybody aspires to be
Speaker 1: like a superhuman, but not everybody can beat Chris Paul.
Speaker 1: But you know, exercises only one portion of the equation
Speaker 1: of health, sleep is the other part. And quite frankly,
Speaker 1: when we start to hear about the travel, the troubles
Speaker 1: that some of our ambassadors are facing, and you know,
Speaker 1: learning learning to sleep better. But it's really inspiring to everybody.
Speaker 1: We all want to be like Lindsay Vaughan, but you
Speaker 1: know we can relate to her. And I think that's
Speaker 1: really one of the powers of of AURA is that
Speaker 1: it's a level for everybody. I know that personally for
Speaker 1: myself because you know, in the fall of this year
Speaker 1: was a pretty stressful year and I was my sleep
Speaker 1: was was really hammered. I ordered an AURA ring over
Speaker 1: the holidays. Improved my sleep and my overall health within
Speaker 1: a matter of weeks. And when I saw that, that
Speaker 1: that power, that behavior, that that just made it clear
Speaker 1: that this was an opportunity I had to jump at
Speaker 1: now or is now value at two point five five
Speaker 1: billion dollars, URI is an I PO coming up soon
Speaker 1: while we see something like that this year, you know,
Speaker 1: we're just get starting. It's getting started here. We're eager
Speaker 1: to build out our membership experience for both the individual
Speaker 1: consumers as well as our enterprise partners. When we originally
Speaker 1: invested in Aura's four runner back in ten. We always
Speaker 1: believe in the big vision of changing population level health
Speaker 1: that with each ring, each night of sleep, all of
Speaker 1: this would ladder up to data and insights I could
Speaker 1: really save people's lives. We're beginning to deliver on those aspirations,
Speaker 1: and as we scale, will certainly consider the best financing
Speaker 1: paths to support growth, including going public and being available
Speaker 1: for all to take part in our collective success. Right now,
Speaker 1: we've got our heads down and we're going to continue
Speaker 1: to deliver the best experience for our members. Tom, how
Speaker 1: are you thinking about the macro economic environment. Obviously, markets
Speaker 1: are in turmoil. I think we're starting to see it
Speaker 1: bleed into the private markets. Inflation is a big concern
Speaker 1: for all consumers. Well, you know, interestingly enough stress and
Speaker 1: anxiety is really good for our business, so quite frankly,
Speaker 1: we might see some benefits from that. But clearly the
Speaker 1: macro market is is one we got to pay attention
Speaker 1: to and and frankly we're just here for the long
Speaker 1: term to build our business and build the value for
Speaker 1: our customers. Uri, I gotta ask you, women hold just
Speaker 1: six point seven percent of board rolls board chair roles globally,
Speaker 1: so you know the fact that you're in that seat,
Speaker 1: UM means a lot. What more can we do to
Speaker 1: move the needle here? You know, it's a stat I
Speaker 1: actually recently learned myself. I didn't know that it was
Speaker 1: a rare to be a chairperson of a board. Um.
Speaker 1: I've been you know, honored to serve on the OR
Speaker 1: board since and I took over because the team asked
Speaker 1: me too. They felt like I had a collaborative leadership
Speaker 1: in communication style that could bridge the various voices around
Speaker 1: the table. And it turns out I'm like strong communication
Speaker 1: and listening skills are two of the most helpful skills
Speaker 1: to have in leading aboard. So you know, I know
Speaker 1: companies are working hard to add women to their boards.
Speaker 1: I think that it's about twenty percent now of women
Speaker 1: holding board seats globally, which is good, good, but not great. Um.
Speaker 1: I think further elevating women to board chair positions not
Speaker 1: only adds those diverse voices to the decision making, but
Speaker 1: also fundamentally changes the way boards are run. Amen to that, uh,
Speaker 1: you're a Kim for Runner Ventures chair of the OR
Speaker 1: board along with r CEO Tom Hale. Thank you both
Speaker 1: will keep watching and that does it. For this edition
Speaker 1: of Boomberg Technology Big Day Tomorrow again, earnings from Meta
Speaker 1: PayPal pinterest will also be joined by and Wichetski of
Speaker 1: twenty three and me. I'm Emily changing in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg h