WEBVTT - Section 230 In Hot Seat and Meta's Account Verification 0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:17.000 I'm Caroline Hier, Bloomberg's World headquarters in New York, and 0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:20.720 I'm Medelvedlow in San Francisco. This is Bloomberg Technology coming 0:00:20.760 --> 0:00:23.560 up Section two thirteenth front and center as the Supreme 0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:27.000 Court his arguments on the Internet's critical law, while bringing 0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:30.720 the latest from the courtroom and meta taking cues from 0:00:30.800 --> 0:00:33.680 Twitter as the Facebook parent plans to ask users to 0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:37.360 pay for account verification. We're running through the details as 0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:40.159 analysts called the plan a no brainer, and we'll hear 0:00:40.200 --> 0:00:42.920 from the Microsoft president Brad Smith, as the company fights 0:00:42.920 --> 0:00:45.880 to save its sixty nine billion dollar activision deal over 0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:49.120 in Europe. Let's stick with the Supreme Court justices today, 0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:53.639 we're expressing concern about opening Internet companies to lawsuits from 0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:57.080 harmful user posts in a ruling that could transform the 0:00:57.160 --> 0:01:00.600 online world by removing that key legal underpinning section two 0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:03.360 thirty From all, let's bring in Bloomberg's Emily Bernbaum, who's 0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:06.039 tracking all of the proceedings. Emily give us the top 0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:09.040 lines of what the judges were deliberating over in court. 0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:14.160 So the case in question is called Gonzales versus Google. 0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:17.320 They're trying to figure out if YouTube should be held 0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:23.880 liable for promoting terrorism videos. So it's the act of 0:01:23.959 --> 0:01:29.000 recommending the videos that the court is really looking at. Overall, Emily, 0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:33.000 it felt as though some holes were immediately being punched 0:01:33.240 --> 0:01:36.800 into the arguments coming from the Gonzales family. Now, this 0:01:36.840 --> 0:01:38.760 is a motive, this is about the loss of a daughter, 0:01:38.840 --> 0:01:42.440 this is about Islamic terrorism. But what did they have 0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:46.360 an issue with the actual legal arguments here? Yeah, we 0:01:46.480 --> 0:01:50.160 heard a lot of frustration and confusion from the justices 0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:53.320 right off the bad during the almost three and three 0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:58.120 hour oral arguments today. Essentially the justice said, well, what's 0:01:58.160 --> 0:02:01.600 the line you're really drying here? Know, most things on 0:02:01.640 --> 0:02:06.440 the Internet are recommended to users through algorithms, and they 0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:12.800 say that the Gonzalez family hasn't adequately shown what they're 0:02:12.840 --> 0:02:17.080 even trying to do to Section two thirty a rule. 0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:21.120 In terms of the arguments coming from big tech, what 0:02:21.360 --> 0:02:23.720 is its argument at the moment as it stands. We've 0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:25.800 heard in the past from Mark Zuckerberg saying ways in 0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:28.519 which perhaps it could be nuanced or updated. We've actually 0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:30.680 seen what Europe has put in place to be able 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:33.160 to tackle, perhaps as the Democrats want to be seen tackled, 0:02:33.400 --> 0:02:36.760 some of the rassmate hate speech. But what ultimately do 0:02:36.760 --> 0:02:38.359 you think we're going to come down on a line head? 0:02:38.440 --> 0:02:40.200 Is two thirty going to be brushed aside for the 0:02:40.240 --> 0:02:45.360 time being? At least they're definitely leaving that possibility open. 0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:49.320 The social media companies say, you know, maybe it's time 0:02:49.320 --> 0:02:51.480 for Congress to take a look at Section two thirty. 0:02:51.560 --> 0:02:54.160 But this is not a good question for the Supreme Court, 0:02:54.320 --> 0:02:58.359 which is not in the business of making laws or 0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:03.760 creating new policies. So essentially, tomorrow there's going to be 0:03:03.919 --> 0:03:07.240 a case that revolves around similar issues whether social media 0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.760 companies can be held liable for eating an embedding terrorism 0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:14.519 under federal laws, and it's possible the Court will hear 0:03:14.600 --> 0:03:18.480 that case decide the answer is, know that social media 0:03:18.520 --> 0:03:21.560 companies can't, under this claim, be held liable for eating 0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:24.400 an ebedding terrorism, and then just scrap the Gonzales View 0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:28.640 Google case altogether. Amy, it's been a busy day. We 0:03:28.760 --> 0:03:31.080 thank you so much for giving us the legalis around 0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:34.160 all of its Emane Banbaum, We thank you. Now we 0:03:34.240 --> 0:03:36.600 want to be digging a little bit more. We want 0:03:36.600 --> 0:03:38.120 to go now to the Chambers of Progress. Founder and 0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:41.920 CEO Adam COCAG. Thank you very much indeed for talking 0:03:42.000 --> 0:03:44.960 us through Adam what you've made of the argument. Now, 0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:47.680 I know in many ways the Chamber of progress, it's 0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:52.200 aligned center left with technology, with the industry. But from 0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:55.320 your perspective, what at the moment would be wrong with 0:03:55.480 --> 0:04:00.320 trying to pick apart Section two thirty as it stands. Well, 0:04:00.320 --> 0:04:03.200 I think it's important to differentiate between what Section two 0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:05.600 thirty does, which is really provide a kind of a 0:04:05.680 --> 0:04:08.720 liability routing mechanism. It means that if I go into 0:04:08.760 --> 0:04:11.400 Facebook and I say Bob's a crook, Bob cansume me 0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:14.320 for defamation, but he can't sue Facebook. And the reason 0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:16.920 why we have section two thirty is to ensure that 0:04:16.960 --> 0:04:19.560 Facebook can continue to operate and allow those user comments. 0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:22.200 But that's not really the heart of what was being considered. 0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:24.719 A day. Was being considered a day is when you 0:04:24.760 --> 0:04:27.560 go on to say Spotify, and a song is recommended, 0:04:27.680 --> 0:04:30.919 or you put something in your Amazon shopping cart and 0:04:30.960 --> 0:04:33.479 another product is recommended, or if you go to Google 0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:37.920 search results and you get those recommendations. Do those recommendations 0:04:38.520 --> 0:04:42.719 algorithmically driven? Do those have two thirty protection? That's really 0:04:42.960 --> 0:04:45.640 what the court was grappling with today, and I think 0:04:45.640 --> 0:04:47.920 there was a lot of discussion about whether it's possible 0:04:47.920 --> 0:04:52.320 to separate those algorithmic recommendations from the content itself and 0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:55.080 from the value that those services provide to consumers in 0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:58.880 the first place. And the Chamber of Progress is essentially 0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:01.159 a trade get right. I think it's worth pointing out 0:05:01.200 --> 0:05:05.039 that you represent the technology companies. I would say that's fair. 0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.120 But one of the things I continually hear out here 0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:11.000 in Silicon Valley at least is actually Section two thirty 0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:14.359 protects the user, and that doesn't seem to be a 0:05:14.400 --> 0:05:18.560 point of consideration right now. I think that's absolutely right, 0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:20.880 and actually even I would rewind a step, which is 0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:23.120 I think that the fact is if two Section two 0:05:23.200 --> 0:05:26.279 thirty were reformed, the realities that the big companies, the 0:05:26.320 --> 0:05:29.160 Googles and the facebooks would probably be okay because they 0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:32.680 have armies of lawyers. They could you tie up these 0:05:32.720 --> 0:05:35.960 cases and litigation. It's a lot of times those small services, 0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:39.240 you know, Clubhouse emerged on a scene during the pandemic, 0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:42.360 and Section two thirty is really critical for a site 0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:45.760 like that because it can start providing user generated content 0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:48.800 and how do not have to worry about liability prepet protection. 0:05:48.839 --> 0:05:51.640 That as a point that was made in court today, 0:05:51.680 --> 0:05:53.679 but I agree with you, it also protects the users. 0:05:53.720 --> 0:05:56.080 And I think this is not well misunderstood because Section 0:05:56.080 --> 0:05:58.839 two thirty becomes almost a political football, particularly with respect 0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:01.440 Democrats and republic using it as a little bit of 0:06:01.440 --> 0:06:04.240 a tool. But if you got rid of that liability protection, 0:06:04.400 --> 0:06:07.360 I think you would give you would force platforms to 0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:10.840 choose between being say Disneyland, right, which is sort of 0:06:10.839 --> 0:06:15.120 a sanitized environment where nothing was allowed, or a wasteland 0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:18.960 where services were disincentivized to look for that content. And 0:06:19.000 --> 0:06:21.120 that was also a point that came up in court today. 0:06:21.920 --> 0:06:25.040 I think one of the justices made the point that 0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:28.720 the panel of justices and not the sort of definitive 0:06:28.760 --> 0:06:31.800 experts on the internet, and that that comment elicited a 0:06:31.880 --> 0:06:36.000 laugh from those in attendance. You represent the tech companies. 0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:38.960 Is it the Supreme Court that should be considering this? 0:06:39.520 --> 0:06:41.839 Is it even the right place to have this conversation? 0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:45.839 I have to say, and I think a lot of 0:06:45.880 --> 0:06:48.799 others went in today pretty nervous about why the Supreme 0:06:48.800 --> 0:06:50.839 Court would be taking this case, whether it was a 0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:54.479 sign that they were prepared to blow up Section two 0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:57.520 thirty walking out of the arguments. Frankly, I think what 0:06:57.600 --> 0:07:00.240 I heard was a lot of acknowledgment from Justice is 0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:03.080 about the benefits of Section two thirty for the economy, 0:07:03.440 --> 0:07:06.720 for user generated content platforms, for consumers, and so I 0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:09.560 don't think that's as likely now as I, you know, 0:07:09.720 --> 0:07:13.600 as I was worried about at the beginning of the days. 0:07:13.640 --> 0:07:16.480 There's still a possibility that they could say, well, okay, 0:07:16.480 --> 0:07:20.720 maybe certain types of content recommendations don't have as much protection, 0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:23.280 and I do think that could have downstream steaks not 0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:25.840 just for the big companies, but for small companies in 0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:30.720 for consumers as well, certain types like well Adam Well. So, 0:07:30.880 --> 0:07:33.240 as I said, I think people, Section two thirty is 0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:35.280 not even one of the things that it's it's a 0:07:35.280 --> 0:07:39.040 pro competition law, right because it again it allows new 0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:42.680 social networks to emerge, right and not have to have 0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:46.800 the armies of lawyers like Facebook and Google do. That's 0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:49.600 really important. But I also think that the fact that 0:07:49.640 --> 0:07:53.160 this the issue here was about algorithmic recommendations, and when 0:07:53.160 --> 0:07:56.040 you saw the Justice is grappling with was it's really 0:07:56.080 --> 0:07:58.560 hard to look at a service like Google Search and say, 0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:01.680 like Okay, it's all algorithmic recommendations. Right. One of the 0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:04.160 things there was a lot of discussion about was neutrality. 0:08:04.200 --> 0:08:06.280 There's a case where there was a statement of a 0:08:06.360 --> 0:08:09.640 statement of applied neutrality. Even Justice Corsage, who would be 0:08:09.840 --> 0:08:12.720 someone who's somewhat critical Section too thirty said, you know, 0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:15.600 when I really think about it, no algorithm is neutral. 0:08:15.880 --> 0:08:20.000 All algorithms are trying to highlight and privilege certain types 0:08:20.040 --> 0:08:23.440 of content, maybe relevant content, maybe high quality content, And 0:08:23.520 --> 0:08:25.400 so it's really hard to say that there should be 0:08:25.400 --> 0:08:28.240 any kind of neutrality a test applied to the algorithms. 0:08:28.240 --> 0:08:30.080 And I think it was really interesting to see the 0:08:30.120 --> 0:08:32.320 Supreme Court kind of grapple real time with a lot 0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:35.800 of these concepts. I mean, push us towards tomorrow, because 0:08:35.800 --> 0:08:39.280 then it's Twitter's time in a spotlight. And of course 0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:43.000 that is more around how broadly you can read into 0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:47.520 the Anti Terrorism Act in some way this again sadly 0:08:47.559 --> 0:08:52.160 involves death by terrorism. But Twitter's roll and not taking 0:08:52.200 --> 0:08:55.000 down some content. Is this some sort of way in 0:08:55.040 --> 0:08:59.240 which the overall Supreme Court might find an off ramp 0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:02.200 in some way? Well, Emily talked about that a lot 0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:04.160 of people have speculated about that and I think that 0:09:04.240 --> 0:09:05.760 is a very strong possibility. I think one of the 0:09:05.800 --> 0:09:08.440 things that's interesting about the arguments to day around this 0:09:08.480 --> 0:09:11.960 case were you kind of wondered why the Supreme Court 0:09:12.000 --> 0:09:15.040 took this case right, because you know, you even had 0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:16.600 I think again, there were a lot of people who thought, well, 0:09:16.640 --> 0:09:19.680 there were justices like Justice Thomas who were pretty critical, 0:09:19.760 --> 0:09:22.200 who basically have said in previous decisions, will bring us 0:09:22.280 --> 0:09:24.920 more to thirty cases because we kind of want to 0:09:24.960 --> 0:09:26.880 take a fresh look at two thirty. But by the 0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:30.000 tenor of their questions, many of those conservative justices were 0:09:30.000 --> 0:09:32.319 sort of asking, why are we even here? And so 0:09:32.360 --> 0:09:34.920 I do think it was really an interesting signal of 0:09:35.000 --> 0:09:37.959 I think the Justice's interest in looking at two thirty. 0:09:38.000 --> 0:09:40.040 They spent three hours on this, As Emily said, that's 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:41.920 really unusual. It's about twice as long as they were 0:09:41.960 --> 0:09:44.920 supposed to spend. I don't think tomorrow's case will be 0:09:45.160 --> 0:09:48.360 quite will be quite as lengthy, because it's a much 0:09:48.559 --> 0:09:52.000 narrower statute, this anti terrorism statute. That's a question, and 0:09:52.040 --> 0:09:56.240 I think a much narrower question. Adam Kavakave's Chamber of Progress, 0:09:56.240 --> 0:09:58.560 Fonda and see I thank you so much and Caroline. 0:09:58.559 --> 0:10:01.480 As we always do, Adam raised many of the points 0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:03.520 we ask our own audiences, what should we do with 0:10:03.600 --> 0:10:05.959 section two thirty. This is what our audience in a 0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:10.040 Twitter poll had to say, actually relatively straightforward. Yes, it 0:10:10.080 --> 0:10:11.800 needs to be amended, but again one of the key 0:10:11.800 --> 0:10:16.400 points is it's supposed to protect the user. And how 0:10:17.000 --> 0:10:20.199 ed we've heard from up before trying to put out 0:10:20.200 --> 0:10:22.760 ways in which perhaps you could amend it, but it 0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:26.520 does end up perhaps benefiting some more than others. What's 0:10:26.559 --> 0:10:29.080 interesting is how, of course Europe's put into place its 0:10:29.080 --> 0:10:32.160 own rules. They've got their own Digital Services Act that's 0:10:32.160 --> 0:10:34.679 coming out in the beginning of twenty twenty four. How 0:10:34.720 --> 0:10:37.160 fines we've been in place to not tackle hate speech 0:10:37.160 --> 0:10:39.080 and the like quickly enough. It's so interesting the way 0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:41.680 in which basically regulators trying to grapple with this question 0:10:41.720 --> 0:10:46.079 anady lawmakers. Yeah, and I don't hear many alternatives being proposed. 0:10:46.080 --> 0:10:48.760 Will continue to track one now coming up hurdles facing 0:10:48.760 --> 0:10:52.280 the sixty nine billion dollars Microsoft Activision Blizzard deal. We'll 0:10:52.280 --> 0:10:54.920 bring you the details and our interview with Microsoft president 0:10:54.960 --> 0:11:07.360 Brad Smith. That's next. This is bloom Bow. I think 0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:11.079 there's a clear path forward towards regulatory approval. The two 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.640 agreements that we announced today I think really provide two guardrails, 0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:17.400 if you will. One shows how we can come to 0:11:17.559 --> 0:11:20.520 terms to make call of Duty available on other platforms. 0:11:20.640 --> 0:11:23.480 Today it was Nintendo. In the future, it can be Sony. 0:11:23.920 --> 0:11:26.640 On the other side, the agreement we've done with video 0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:29.200 really shows how we can address the concerns relating to 0:11:29.240 --> 0:11:33.559 cloud gaming. Microsoft president Brad Smith there on the path 0:11:33.600 --> 0:11:36.920 to approval for the almighty sixty nine billion dollar deal 0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:41.160 with Activision Blizzard joining US and all the intricaces is 0:11:41.200 --> 0:11:44.720 Dina bs and just talk to us, Tina, you're reporting 0:11:44.760 --> 0:11:47.400 in a moment. There is, of course Brad Smith over 0:11:47.440 --> 0:11:49.520 in Europe trying to convince as to why this deal 0:11:49.520 --> 0:11:51.920 should go through, really trying to take on the UK. 0:11:52.280 --> 0:11:55.320 It's warriors about call of duty mainly. But do you 0:11:55.360 --> 0:11:58.840 think ultimately he's going to be able to persuade. I 0:11:58.920 --> 0:12:00.959 was going to say, you're talking the path to approval, 0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:02.880 it might also be the path to a block. That 0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.080 concern about call of duty was flagged by all three 0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:08.600 of the major regulators that are holding up the steal. 0:12:08.640 --> 0:12:13.560 At this point, the UK European Union and USFTC. And 0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:17.600 you know. One of the questions for Microsoft then, which 0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:21.440 Brad Smith answered rather definitively, is well, okay, if you 0:12:21.480 --> 0:12:25.360 could buy Activision Blizzard and only under condition that you 0:12:25.440 --> 0:12:28.400 divest Call of Duty or you divest the Activision portion 0:12:28.480 --> 0:12:30.560 which owns Call of Duty, would you do it? And 0:12:30.800 --> 0:12:34.360 we got a pretty definitive answer for mister Smith. He said, 0:12:34.440 --> 0:12:37.480 you know, it's quote isn't quote feasible or realistic to 0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:39.520 think that one game or one slice of this company 0:12:39.559 --> 0:12:42.320 can be carved out. So he seemed to be ruling 0:12:42.320 --> 0:12:45.880 out something that was proposed, particularly by the UK regulator, 0:12:46.280 --> 0:12:50.640 which was a structural remedy. He focused instead on behavioral remedies. 0:12:50.679 --> 0:12:53.800 That's what Microsoft wants. The difference there is there would 0:12:53.800 --> 0:12:58.040 be promises by Microsoft that to change certain behavior or 0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:00.840 not do certain things in order to address concerns, rather 0:13:00.880 --> 0:13:04.360 than a divestiture of some part of the acquired company. 0:13:05.160 --> 0:13:07.840 Did know there were what Brad Smith called guard rails. 0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:11.240 He talks about the deals within Nvidia and with Nintendo. 0:13:11.320 --> 0:13:14.800 What do we learn about those deals on Tuesday? Sure, 0:13:14.840 --> 0:13:17.600 so you'll remember the Nvidia deal was actually announced on 0:13:17.640 --> 0:13:20.400 the eve of Microsoft going to meet with the FTC 0:13:20.800 --> 0:13:23.280 in an attempt, I would imagine to convince the FTC 0:13:23.400 --> 0:13:26.199 that Microsoft did not want to make Call of Duty 0:13:26.240 --> 0:13:29.319 exclusive and to assuage those concerns. It did not work. 0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:33.160 The deal is officially signed now, and another deal which 0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:36.640 was announces to give you a bunch of games too, 0:13:36.800 --> 0:13:40.520 Invidios g Force cloud gaming service, which is another one 0:13:40.559 --> 0:13:42.920 of the concerns that all of these regulators have raised, 0:13:42.920 --> 0:13:46.239 whether this deal would allow Microsoft to dominate gaming subscriptions 0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:50.199 and cloud gaming. So Smith's point was that those deals 0:13:50.360 --> 0:13:52.560 kind of give you an indication of what Microsoft is 0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:57.600 thinking around behavioral guard rails. He also took game again 0:13:57.600 --> 0:14:00.920 at Sony rather theatrically pulling out what he said was 0:14:00.960 --> 0:14:04.319 the exact contract that Microsoft had offered Sony to give 0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:06.400 it ten years of access to Call of Duty, which 0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:10.440 which Sony has not been willing to sign Dinna. All 0:14:10.480 --> 0:14:14.040 of this, of course, is sort of some sounds of 0:14:14.200 --> 0:14:19.160 optimism that came from Brad Smith, but ultimately it feels 0:14:19.160 --> 0:14:21.520 as though the red line is in place. They will 0:14:21.560 --> 0:14:24.560 not be buying this unless they can have Call of Duty. 0:14:25.200 --> 0:14:27.680 That's right, that is, that is basically what Smith said 0:14:27.720 --> 0:14:31.080 they do not believe that it is feasible logical there's 0:14:31.120 --> 0:14:33.760 any way for them to buy you know, Activision Blizzard 0:14:34.080 --> 0:14:36.520 and then sell off to Best call of Duty. And 0:14:36.560 --> 0:14:40.800 so Microsoft will have to look to convince regulators that 0:14:40.880 --> 0:14:44.520 it can you agree to again these behavioral remedies, these 0:14:44.560 --> 0:14:47.640 guardrails that Smith talked about, rather than a divestiture. Now. 0:14:48.040 --> 0:14:51.120 Smith was optimistic in an interview that he did with 0:14:51.120 --> 0:14:55.600 Bloomberg Television earlier about the chances of that and in 0:14:55.640 --> 0:14:59.840 particular the chances of convincing the USFTC, which has been 0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:02.960 mary start upon it thus far to this dealon as soon. 0:15:03.080 --> 0:15:06.320 In APTC administrative report, Smith said that, you know, he 0:15:06.440 --> 0:15:09.160 thought if Microsoft could work things out with Brussels, could 0:15:09.160 --> 0:15:10.960 work things out with London, they would be okay in 0:15:11.040 --> 0:15:14.960 watching a DC as well. Bloomberg's Deiner Bass, thank you 0:15:15.000 --> 0:15:26.960 so much time now for talking tech. Let's check out 0:15:27.120 --> 0:15:30.000 what's going on over in China. E commerce leader JD 0:15:30.120 --> 0:15:33.120 dot Com closed down eleven percent of the US market 0:15:33.160 --> 0:15:35.800 close after a media report said it was planning a 0:15:35.880 --> 0:15:40.440 subsidy campaign to compete against its rival PDD Holdings in 0:15:40.440 --> 0:15:43.120 the amount of ten billion one that's about one point 0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:47.320 five billion dollars elsewhere. Maytue is expanding into Hong Kong 0:15:47.640 --> 0:15:50.840 in hiring up to ten thousand people in China's mainland 0:15:50.880 --> 0:15:54.440 that according to the Singtow Daily Sighting sources, the Chinese 0:15:54.440 --> 0:15:57.880 shopping platforms trying to beat back competition from new entrance 0:15:57.960 --> 0:16:00.760 like bike Dance in the one hundred and five billion 0:16:00.760 --> 0:16:04.160 dollar Chinese food arena. And finally, two key members of 0:16:04.240 --> 0:16:08.200 China's most influential scientific body have outlined the country's plan 0:16:08.320 --> 0:16:11.840 to circumvent US chip sanctions for the first time. The 0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:15.000 scientists say China should have mass a portfolio of patents 0:16:15.240 --> 0:16:18.440 that govern the next generation of chip making, from novel 0:16:18.480 --> 0:16:22.359 materials to new techniques, which could propel China's chip ambitions 0:16:22.480 --> 0:16:25.320 while giving the country clout to push back against those 0:16:25.400 --> 0:16:29.840 US sanctions designed to hamstring is semi conductor sector. Now 0:16:29.920 --> 0:16:32.840 the switch from China to crypto and talk about coin 0:16:32.920 --> 0:16:35.760 based shares now hiring after hours kind of bouncing around. 0:16:35.800 --> 0:16:38.960 We have been lower when its latest earnings hit here 0:16:38.960 --> 0:16:42.240 with more Bloomberg nali bassectionally, what jumped out of you 0:16:42.280 --> 0:16:44.360 from those numbers for coin based took the market a 0:16:44.400 --> 0:16:46.800 while to decide what it liked. Yeah, One thing that's 0:16:46.800 --> 0:16:50.000 really interesting here is you had revenue overall coming above estimates, 0:16:50.040 --> 0:16:53.600 but you had transaction revenues coming below estimates. There has 0:16:53.720 --> 0:16:55.960 often been the king in the room when it came 0:16:56.000 --> 0:16:58.800 to coin base trading volumes and fees that they got 0:16:59.000 --> 0:17:01.960 behind it. But now you do have coin Base looking 0:17:01.960 --> 0:17:05.600 to how it's diversifying that subscription and services revenue in 0:17:05.720 --> 0:17:08.720 particular is coming in hot, and you have the CFO 0:17:09.000 --> 0:17:11.520 of coin Base speaking of Bloomberg separately, we have a 0:17:11.520 --> 0:17:13.960 live blog on the terminal that is still accounting for 0:17:14.000 --> 0:17:15.919 a lot of what she said, and with a company 0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:18.760 is saying that really shows you that subscription and services 0:17:18.760 --> 0:17:21.840 revenue that includes by the way, staking ed is starting 0:17:21.880 --> 0:17:25.359 to come back to a place that can diversify it 0:17:25.480 --> 0:17:27.840 enough to get it away from the volatility that you 0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:31.120 were typically worried about with coin Base. Let's see if 0:17:31.119 --> 0:17:34.800 the market sticks to that narrative. Staking a story that 0:17:34.840 --> 0:17:38.199 you've been tracking closely where users basically book a yield 0:17:38.560 --> 0:17:40.760 on coin deposits. What did coin Base have to say 0:17:40.800 --> 0:17:43.360 about staking in particular? A couple of things are really 0:17:43.359 --> 0:17:45.879 important here. They say that their business is not like, 0:17:46.080 --> 0:17:48.720 for example, the crack and business that recently settled with 0:17:48.760 --> 0:17:51.960 the S and C without admitting or denying wrongdoing here. 0:17:52.160 --> 0:17:53.879 But when you look at coin Base, and we recently 0:17:53.880 --> 0:17:56.760 talked to their chief legal officer about this, they say 0:17:56.800 --> 0:17:59.159 that they're different. I think more important than that, what 0:17:59.320 --> 0:18:02.240 is material is that the CFO told Bloomberg that in 0:18:02.320 --> 0:18:05.000 their ten Q they're not planning on disclosing a new 0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:08.639 regulatory matter to this effect. And separately, that chief legal officer, 0:18:08.720 --> 0:18:12.400 in a podcast with The Scoop with Frank Chaparo, had 0:18:12.440 --> 0:18:15.119 said separately that they did not receive a wells notice 0:18:15.280 --> 0:18:18.600 tied to the staking service. So those are some things 0:18:18.600 --> 0:18:21.040 that are all clear for coin Base for now. They 0:18:21.080 --> 0:18:23.879 still have a regulatory overhang. We had spoken to an 0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:26.520 analyst on Bloomberg Television earlier that was more concerned about 0:18:26.520 --> 0:18:29.080 the moat when it came to Coinbase. But again, when 0:18:29.119 --> 0:18:32.280 you look at the institutional business, their ability to diversify, 0:18:32.400 --> 0:18:34.840 that is a story that they're leaning on here. Again 0:18:35.040 --> 0:18:38.240 shares super Bowl little aftermarket ed, but so far in 0:18:38.280 --> 0:18:41.760 the green right. Bloomberg Snai Basset that earning school kicking 0:18:41.760 --> 0:18:44.120 off in around five minutes. We'll keep track of those headlines. 0:18:44.440 --> 0:18:54.960 Thank you so much, welcome back to being my Technology. 0:18:54.960 --> 0:18:57.639 I'm Cauline Hand and Neil and I met Ludlow in 0:18:57.680 --> 0:19:00.600 San Francisco. I'll just stay with Metachez. This is really 0:19:00.680 --> 0:19:04.840 interesting news over the weekend. The company's talking about a 0:19:04.880 --> 0:19:09.240 subscription tier of verification allah Twitter following in the footsteps, 0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:12.239 and you know, it's interesting. Shares actually markedly higher at 0:19:12.280 --> 0:19:15.560 the open on Tuesday, on a day where megacaptech, big tech, 0:19:15.640 --> 0:19:18.480 social media appears all significantly lower. We kind of fell 0:19:18.520 --> 0:19:21.600 away carow towards the end of the session, down half 0:19:21.640 --> 0:19:25.200 percentage point. But broadly analyst reception to this plan, which 0:19:25.200 --> 0:19:27.119 came out over the long weekend here in the US, 0:19:27.520 --> 0:19:29.840 was positive, even though you know, okay, we're down half 0:19:29.880 --> 0:19:32.680 percentage point. One note in particular caught my eye, particularly 0:19:32.720 --> 0:19:35.000 because we have such a brilliant guess coming up next. 0:19:35.000 --> 0:19:37.679 And that's what Bank of America had to say about this, 0:19:37.720 --> 0:19:41.439 and they say it's intriguing, clearly following on from what 0:19:41.480 --> 0:19:43.960 Twitter has done with Twitter Blue. But it's this last 0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:47.560 line the point that really I'm seizing on Caroline. Audience 0:19:47.600 --> 0:19:50.399 size could be limited by the number of creators and 0:19:50.560 --> 0:19:53.520 influencers on Meta's platforms. You and I've been talking for 0:19:53.640 --> 0:19:57.600 weeks now about how important the creator and the influencer 0:19:57.720 --> 0:20:01.240 is on platforms like Instagram, YouTube talk becoming kind of 0:20:01.240 --> 0:20:04.200 a powerhouse in that respect, and the analyst nervousness is 0:20:04.240 --> 0:20:07.080 actually on the core Facebook product, for example, it might 0:20:07.119 --> 0:20:10.000 not be there. Yeah, I wonder how we square that 0:20:10.040 --> 0:20:13.320 circle of hooking in more content creators, getting them to 0:20:13.320 --> 0:20:15.240 pay up it going straight to the bottom line, But 0:20:15.320 --> 0:20:18.800 ultimately how much does this max out at? Let's ask 0:20:18.800 --> 0:20:22.399 a veteran of the startup world, Lauren Schneffer ran Creator 0:20:22.480 --> 0:20:25.840 Partnerships for Facebook for more than four years, currently host 0:20:26.119 --> 0:20:30.040 Creator Upload podcast. So my immediate reaction when I saw 0:20:30.080 --> 0:20:33.240 this was, Oh, I wonder how all the influences and 0:20:33.280 --> 0:20:35.320 creators who already have a blue check mark are going 0:20:35.359 --> 0:20:37.119 to feel about this. But what do you think the 0:20:37.160 --> 0:20:40.240 reaction is from the creator community. Well as I understand 0:20:40.240 --> 0:20:41.560 that they're not going to lose it and they don't 0:20:41.560 --> 0:20:42.879 have to pay for it a thirty habits, so I 0:20:42.920 --> 0:20:45.320 think that they're fine with it right now. But I 0:20:45.359 --> 0:20:48.679 think in general, the thing that what people aren't really 0:20:48.720 --> 0:20:51.000 focusing on as much is the what you're going to 0:20:51.080 --> 0:20:54.240 get for that subscription. Other than the Blue check Park, 0:20:54.280 --> 0:20:57.160 which is customer service. And I can tell you that 0:20:57.200 --> 0:20:59.480 this is a huge issue even if you're a managed 0:20:59.520 --> 0:21:03.760 partner at Facebook or Instagram. Just the level of sort 0:21:03.800 --> 0:21:07.160 of transparency and how you get things fixed is incredibly difficult. 0:21:07.680 --> 0:21:10.199 And I think this is a huge opportunity because you're 0:21:10.240 --> 0:21:12.479 getting some customer service and a live chat. There's never 0:21:12.520 --> 0:21:14.960 been that opportunity before, so for creators and otherwise, I 0:21:15.040 --> 0:21:16.919 actually think this is a huge opportunity at not a 0:21:16.960 --> 0:21:19.560 huge price point, and I think it's a welcome change. 0:21:19.720 --> 0:21:21.840 I think people have been looking for a way to 0:21:21.880 --> 0:21:24.240 get answers and this is a way in. And also, 0:21:24.600 --> 0:21:26.960 what does the fluid chuck mark even mean anymore? Right? Like, 0:21:27.000 --> 0:21:29.879 it's sort of devoid of all meaning. Certainly, when I 0:21:29.920 --> 0:21:33.840 was there, the criteria for getting one was ever evolving. 0:21:34.040 --> 0:21:36.320 As you know, when I got there, you had to 0:21:36.359 --> 0:21:39.760 be on very specific kind of databases like an IMDb 0:21:40.040 --> 0:21:42.679 or a Wikipedia, and there were no YouTubers on Wikipedia 0:21:42.720 --> 0:21:44.639