Speaker 1: I'm Caroline Hier, Bloomberg's World headquarters in New York, and
Speaker 1: I'm Medelvedlow in San Francisco. This is Bloomberg Technology coming
Speaker 1: up Section two thirteenth front and center as the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court his arguments on the Internet's critical law, while bringing
Speaker 1: the latest from the courtroom and meta taking cues from
Speaker 1: Twitter as the Facebook parent plans to ask users to
Speaker 1: pay for account verification. We're running through the details as
Speaker 1: analysts called the plan a no brainer, and we'll hear
Speaker 1: from the Microsoft president Brad Smith, as the company fights
Speaker 1: to save its sixty nine billion dollar activision deal over
Speaker 1: in Europe. Let's stick with the Supreme Court justices today,
Speaker 1: we're expressing concern about opening Internet companies to lawsuits from
Speaker 1: harmful user posts in a ruling that could transform the
Speaker 1: online world by removing that key legal underpinning section two
Speaker 1: thirty From all, let's bring in Bloomberg's Emily Bernbaum, who's
Speaker 1: tracking all of the proceedings. Emily give us the top
Speaker 1: lines of what the judges were deliberating over in court.
Speaker 1: So the case in question is called Gonzales versus Google.
Speaker 1: They're trying to figure out if YouTube should be held
Speaker 1: liable for promoting terrorism videos. So it's the act of
Speaker 1: recommending the videos that the court is really looking at. Overall, Emily,
Speaker 1: it felt as though some holes were immediately being punched
Speaker 1: into the arguments coming from the Gonzales family. Now, this
Speaker 1: is a motive, this is about the loss of a daughter,
Speaker 1: this is about Islamic terrorism. But what did they have
Speaker 1: an issue with the actual legal arguments here? Yeah, we
Speaker 1: heard a lot of frustration and confusion from the justices
Speaker 1: right off the bad during the almost three and three
Speaker 1: hour oral arguments today. Essentially the justice said, well, what's
Speaker 1: the line you're really drying here? Know, most things on
Speaker 1: the Internet are recommended to users through algorithms, and they
Speaker 1: say that the Gonzalez family hasn't adequately shown what they're
Speaker 1: even trying to do to Section two thirty a rule.
Speaker 1: In terms of the arguments coming from big tech, what
Speaker 1: is its argument at the moment as it stands. We've
Speaker 1: heard in the past from Mark Zuckerberg saying ways in
Speaker 1: which perhaps it could be nuanced or updated. We've actually
Speaker 1: seen what Europe has put in place to be able
Speaker 1: to tackle, perhaps as the Democrats want to be seen tackled,
Speaker 1: some of the rassmate hate speech. But what ultimately do
Speaker 1: you think we're going to come down on a line head?
Speaker 1: Is two thirty going to be brushed aside for the
Speaker 1: time being? At least they're definitely leaving that possibility open.
Speaker 1: The social media companies say, you know, maybe it's time
Speaker 1: for Congress to take a look at Section two thirty.
Speaker 1: But this is not a good question for the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: which is not in the business of making laws or
Speaker 1: creating new policies. So essentially, tomorrow there's going to be
Speaker 1: a case that revolves around similar issues whether social media
Speaker 1: companies can be held liable for eating an embedding terrorism
Speaker 1: under federal laws, and it's possible the Court will hear
Speaker 1: that case decide the answer is, know that social media
Speaker 1: companies can't, under this claim, be held liable for eating
Speaker 1: an ebedding terrorism, and then just scrap the Gonzales View
Speaker 1: Google case altogether. Amy, it's been a busy day. We
Speaker 1: thank you so much for giving us the legalis around
Speaker 1: all of its Emane Banbaum, We thank you. Now we
Speaker 1: want to be digging a little bit more. We want
Speaker 1: to go now to the Chambers of Progress. Founder and
Speaker 1: CEO Adam COCAG. Thank you very much indeed for talking
Speaker 1: us through Adam what you've made of the argument. Now,
Speaker 1: I know in many ways the Chamber of progress, it's
Speaker 1: aligned center left with technology, with the industry. But from
Speaker 1: your perspective, what at the moment would be wrong with
Speaker 1: trying to pick apart Section two thirty as it stands. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's important to differentiate between what Section two
Speaker 1: thirty does, which is really provide a kind of a
Speaker 1: liability routing mechanism. It means that if I go into
Speaker 1: Facebook and I say Bob's a crook, Bob cansume me
Speaker 1: for defamation, but he can't sue Facebook. And the reason
Speaker 1: why we have section two thirty is to ensure that
Speaker 1: Facebook can continue to operate and allow those user comments.
Speaker 1: But that's not really the heart of what was being considered.
Speaker 1: A day. Was being considered a day is when you
Speaker 1: go on to say Spotify, and a song is recommended,
Speaker 1: or you put something in your Amazon shopping cart and
Speaker 1: another product is recommended, or if you go to Google
Speaker 1: search results and you get those recommendations. Do those recommendations
Speaker 1: algorithmically driven? Do those have two thirty protection? That's really
Speaker 1: what the court was grappling with today, and I think
Speaker 1: there was a lot of discussion about whether it's possible
Speaker 1: to separate those algorithmic recommendations from the content itself and
Speaker 1: from the value that those services provide to consumers in
Speaker 1: the first place. And the Chamber of Progress is essentially
Speaker 1: a trade get right. I think it's worth pointing out
Speaker 1: that you represent the technology companies. I would say that's fair.
Speaker 1: But one of the things I continually hear out here
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley at least is actually Section two thirty
Speaker 1: protects the user, and that doesn't seem to be a
Speaker 1: point of consideration right now. I think that's absolutely right,
Speaker 1: and actually even I would rewind a step, which is
Speaker 1: I think that the fact is if two Section two
Speaker 1: thirty were reformed, the realities that the big companies, the
Speaker 1: Googles and the facebooks would probably be okay because they
Speaker 1: have armies of lawyers. They could you tie up these
Speaker 1: cases and litigation. It's a lot of times those small services,
Speaker 1: you know, Clubhouse emerged on a scene during the pandemic,
Speaker 1: and Section two thirty is really critical for a site
Speaker 1: like that because it can start providing user generated content
Speaker 1: and how do not have to worry about liability prepet protection.
Speaker 1: That as a point that was made in court today,
Speaker 1: but I agree with you, it also protects the users.
Speaker 1: And I think this is not well misunderstood because Section
Speaker 1: two thirty becomes almost a political football, particularly with respect
Speaker 1: Democrats and republic using it as a little bit of
Speaker 1: a tool. But if you got rid of that liability protection,
Speaker 1: I think you would give you would force platforms to
Speaker 1: choose between being say Disneyland, right, which is sort of
Speaker 1: a sanitized environment where nothing was allowed, or a wasteland
Speaker 1: where services were disincentivized to look for that content. And
Speaker 1: that was also a point that came up in court today.
Speaker 1: I think one of the justices made the point that
Speaker 1: the panel of justices and not the sort of definitive
Speaker 1: experts on the internet, and that that comment elicited a
Speaker 1: laugh from those in attendance. You represent the tech companies.
Speaker 1: Is it the Supreme Court that should be considering this?
Speaker 1: Is it even the right place to have this conversation?
Speaker 1: I have to say, and I think a lot of
Speaker 1: others went in today pretty nervous about why the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court would be taking this case, whether it was a
Speaker 1: sign that they were prepared to blow up Section two
Speaker 1: thirty walking out of the arguments. Frankly, I think what
Speaker 1: I heard was a lot of acknowledgment from Justice is
Speaker 1: about the benefits of Section two thirty for the economy,
Speaker 1: for user generated content platforms, for consumers, and so I
Speaker 1: don't think that's as likely now as I, you know,
Speaker 1: as I was worried about at the beginning of the days.
Speaker 1: There's still a possibility that they could say, well, okay,
Speaker 1: maybe certain types of content recommendations don't have as much protection,
Speaker 1: and I do think that could have downstream steaks not
Speaker 1: just for the big companies, but for small companies in
Speaker 1: for consumers as well, certain types like well Adam Well. So,
Speaker 1: as I said, I think people, Section two thirty is
Speaker 1: not even one of the things that it's it's a
Speaker 1: pro competition law, right because it again it allows new
Speaker 1: social networks to emerge, right and not have to have
Speaker 1: the armies of lawyers like Facebook and Google do. That's
Speaker 1: really important. But I also think that the fact that
Speaker 1: this the issue here was about algorithmic recommendations, and when
Speaker 1: you saw the Justice is grappling with was it's really
Speaker 1: hard to look at a service like Google Search and say,
Speaker 1: like Okay, it's all algorithmic recommendations. Right. One of the
Speaker 1: things there was a lot of discussion about was neutrality.
Speaker 1: There's a case where there was a statement of a
Speaker 1: statement of applied neutrality. Even Justice Corsage, who would be
Speaker 1: someone who's somewhat critical Section too thirty said, you know,
Speaker 1: when I really think about it, no algorithm is neutral.
Speaker 1: All algorithms are trying to highlight and privilege certain types
Speaker 1: of content, maybe relevant content, maybe high quality content, And
Speaker 1: so it's really hard to say that there should be
Speaker 1: any kind of neutrality a test applied to the algorithms.
Speaker 1: And I think it was really interesting to see the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court kind of grapple real time with a lot
Speaker 1: of these concepts. I mean, push us towards tomorrow, because
Speaker 1: then it's Twitter's time in a spotlight. And of course
Speaker 1: that is more around how broadly you can read into
Speaker 1: the Anti Terrorism Act in some way this again sadly
Speaker 1: involves death by terrorism. But Twitter's roll and not taking
Speaker 1: down some content. Is this some sort of way in
Speaker 1: which the overall Supreme Court might find an off ramp
Speaker 1: in some way? Well, Emily talked about that a lot
Speaker 1: of people have speculated about that and I think that
Speaker 1: is a very strong possibility. I think one of the
Speaker 1: things that's interesting about the arguments to day around this
Speaker 1: case were you kind of wondered why the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: took this case right, because you know, you even had
Speaker 1: I think again, there were a lot of people who thought, well,
Speaker 1: there were justices like Justice Thomas who were pretty critical,
Speaker 1: who basically have said in previous decisions, will bring us
Speaker 1: more to thirty cases because we kind of want to
Speaker 1: take a fresh look at two thirty. But by the
Speaker 1: tenor of their questions, many of those conservative justices were
Speaker 1: sort of asking, why are we even here? And so
Speaker 1: I do think it was really an interesting signal of
Speaker 1: I think the Justice's interest in looking at two thirty.
Speaker 1: They spent three hours on this, As Emily said, that's
Speaker 1: really unusual. It's about twice as long as they were
Speaker 1: supposed to spend. I don't think tomorrow's case will be
Speaker 1: quite will be quite as lengthy, because it's a much
Speaker 1: narrower statute, this anti terrorism statute. That's a question, and
Speaker 1: I think a much narrower question. Adam Kavakave's Chamber of Progress,
Speaker 1: Fonda and see I thank you so much and Caroline.
Speaker 1: As we always do, Adam raised many of the points
Speaker 1: we ask our own audiences, what should we do with
Speaker 1: section two thirty. This is what our audience in a
Speaker 1: Twitter poll had to say, actually relatively straightforward. Yes, it
Speaker 1: needs to be amended, but again one of the key
Speaker 1: points is it's supposed to protect the user. And how
Speaker 1: ed we've heard from up before trying to put out
Speaker 1: ways in which perhaps you could amend it, but it
Speaker 1: does end up perhaps benefiting some more than others. What's
Speaker 1: interesting is how, of course Europe's put into place its
Speaker 1: own rules. They've got their own Digital Services Act that's
Speaker 1: coming out in the beginning of twenty twenty four. How
Speaker 1: fines we've been in place to not tackle hate speech
Speaker 1: and the like quickly enough. It's so interesting the way
Speaker 1: in which basically regulators trying to grapple with this question
Speaker 1: anady lawmakers. Yeah, and I don't hear many alternatives being proposed.
Speaker 1: Will continue to track one now coming up hurdles facing
Speaker 1: the sixty nine billion dollars Microsoft Activision Blizzard deal. We'll
Speaker 1: bring you the details and our interview with Microsoft president
Speaker 1: Brad Smith. That's next. This is bloom Bow. I think
Speaker 1: there's a clear path forward towards regulatory approval. The two
Speaker 1: agreements that we announced today I think really provide two guardrails,
Speaker 1: if you will. One shows how we can come to
Speaker 1: terms to make call of Duty available on other platforms.
Speaker 1: Today it was Nintendo. In the future, it can be Sony.
Speaker 1: On the other side, the agreement we've done with video
Speaker 1: really shows how we can address the concerns relating to
Speaker 1: cloud gaming. Microsoft president Brad Smith there on the path
Speaker 1: to approval for the almighty sixty nine billion dollar deal
Speaker 1: with Activision Blizzard joining US and all the intricaces is
Speaker 1: Dina bs and just talk to us, Tina, you're reporting
Speaker 1: in a moment. There is, of course Brad Smith over
Speaker 1: in Europe trying to convince as to why this deal
Speaker 1: should go through, really trying to take on the UK.
Speaker 1: It's warriors about call of duty mainly. But do you
Speaker 1: think ultimately he's going to be able to persuade. I
Speaker 1: was going to say, you're talking the path to approval,
Speaker 1: it might also be the path to a block. That
Speaker 1: concern about call of duty was flagged by all three
Speaker 1: of the major regulators that are holding up the steal.
Speaker 1: At this point, the UK European Union and USFTC. And
Speaker 1: you know. One of the questions for Microsoft then, which
Speaker 1: Brad Smith answered rather definitively, is well, okay, if you
Speaker 1: could buy Activision Blizzard and only under condition that you
Speaker 1: divest Call of Duty or you divest the Activision portion
Speaker 1: which owns Call of Duty, would you do it? And
Speaker 1: we got a pretty definitive answer for mister Smith. He said,
Speaker 1: you know, it's quote isn't quote feasible or realistic to
Speaker 1: think that one game or one slice of this company
Speaker 1: can be carved out. So he seemed to be ruling
Speaker 1: out something that was proposed, particularly by the UK regulator,
Speaker 1: which was a structural remedy. He focused instead on behavioral remedies.
Speaker 1: That's what Microsoft wants. The difference there is there would
Speaker 1: be promises by Microsoft that to change certain behavior or
Speaker 1: not do certain things in order to address concerns, rather
Speaker 1: than a divestiture of some part of the acquired company.
Speaker 1: Did know there were what Brad Smith called guard rails.
Speaker 1: He talks about the deals within Nvidia and with Nintendo.
Speaker 1: What do we learn about those deals on Tuesday? Sure,
Speaker 1: so you'll remember the Nvidia deal was actually announced on
Speaker 1: the eve of Microsoft going to meet with the FTC
Speaker 1: in an attempt, I would imagine to convince the FTC
Speaker 1: that Microsoft did not want to make Call of Duty
Speaker 1: exclusive and to assuage those concerns. It did not work.
Speaker 1: The deal is officially signed now, and another deal which
Speaker 1: was announces to give you a bunch of games too,
Speaker 1: Invidios g Force cloud gaming service, which is another one
Speaker 1: of the concerns that all of these regulators have raised,
Speaker 1: whether this deal would allow Microsoft to dominate gaming subscriptions
Speaker 1: and cloud gaming. So Smith's point was that those deals
Speaker 1: kind of give you an indication of what Microsoft is
Speaker 1: thinking around behavioral guard rails. He also took game again
Speaker 1: at Sony rather theatrically pulling out what he said was
Speaker 1: the exact contract that Microsoft had offered Sony to give
Speaker 1: it ten years of access to Call of Duty, which
Speaker 1: which Sony has not been willing to sign Dinna. All
Speaker 1: of this, of course, is sort of some sounds of
Speaker 1: optimism that came from Brad Smith, but ultimately it feels
Speaker 1: as though the red line is in place. They will
Speaker 1: not be buying this unless they can have Call of Duty.
Speaker 1: That's right, that is, that is basically what Smith said
Speaker 1: they do not believe that it is feasible logical there's
Speaker 1: any way for them to buy you know, Activision Blizzard
Speaker 1: and then sell off to Best call of Duty. And
Speaker 1: so Microsoft will have to look to convince regulators that
Speaker 1: it can you agree to again these behavioral remedies, these
Speaker 1: guardrails that Smith talked about, rather than a divestiture. Now.
Speaker 1: Smith was optimistic in an interview that he did with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Television earlier about the chances of that and in
Speaker 1: particular the chances of convincing the USFTC, which has been
Speaker 1: mary start upon it thus far to this dealon as soon.
Speaker 1: In APTC administrative report, Smith said that, you know, he
Speaker 1: thought if Microsoft could work things out with Brussels, could
Speaker 1: work things out with London, they would be okay in
Speaker 1: watching a DC as well. Bloomberg's Deiner Bass, thank you
Speaker 1: so much time now for talking tech. Let's check out
Speaker 1: what's going on over in China. E commerce leader JD
Speaker 1: dot Com closed down eleven percent of the US market
Speaker 1: close after a media report said it was planning a
Speaker 1: subsidy campaign to compete against its rival PDD Holdings in
Speaker 1: the amount of ten billion one that's about one point
Speaker 1: five billion dollars elsewhere. Maytue is expanding into Hong Kong
Speaker 1: in hiring up to ten thousand people in China's mainland
Speaker 1: that according to the Singtow Daily Sighting sources, the Chinese
Speaker 1: shopping platforms trying to beat back competition from new entrance
Speaker 1: like bike Dance in the one hundred and five billion
Speaker 1: dollar Chinese food arena. And finally, two key members of
Speaker 1: China's most influential scientific body have outlined the country's plan
Speaker 1: to circumvent US chip sanctions for the first time. The
Speaker 1: scientists say China should have mass a portfolio of patents
Speaker 1: that govern the next generation of chip making, from novel
Speaker 1: materials to new techniques, which could propel China's chip ambitions
Speaker 1: while giving the country clout to push back against those
Speaker 1: US sanctions designed to hamstring is semi conductor sector. Now
Speaker 1: the switch from China to crypto and talk about coin
Speaker 1: based shares now hiring after hours kind of bouncing around.
Speaker 1: We have been lower when its latest earnings hit here
Speaker 1: with more Bloomberg nali bassectionally, what jumped out of you
Speaker 1: from those numbers for coin based took the market a
Speaker 1: while to decide what it liked. Yeah, One thing that's
Speaker 1: really interesting here is you had revenue overall coming above estimates,
Speaker 1: but you had transaction revenues coming below estimates. There has
Speaker 1: often been the king in the room when it came
Speaker 1: to coin base trading volumes and fees that they got
Speaker 1: behind it. But now you do have coin Base looking
Speaker 1: to how it's diversifying that subscription and services revenue in
Speaker 1: particular is coming in hot, and you have the CFO
Speaker 1: of coin Base speaking of Bloomberg separately, we have a
Speaker 1: live blog on the terminal that is still accounting for
Speaker 1: a lot of what she said, and with a company
Speaker 1: is saying that really shows you that subscription and services
Speaker 1: revenue that includes by the way, staking ed is starting
Speaker 1: to come back to a place that can diversify it
Speaker 1: enough to get it away from the volatility that you
Speaker 1: were typically worried about with coin Base. Let's see if
Speaker 1: the market sticks to that narrative. Staking a story that
Speaker 1: you've been tracking closely where users basically book a yield
Speaker 1: on coin deposits. What did coin Base have to say
Speaker 1: about staking in particular? A couple of things are really
Speaker 1: important here. They say that their business is not like,
Speaker 1: for example, the crack and business that recently settled with
Speaker 1: the S and C without admitting or denying wrongdoing here.
Speaker 1: But when you look at coin Base, and we recently
Speaker 1: talked to their chief legal officer about this, they say
Speaker 1: that they're different. I think more important than that, what
Speaker 1: is material is that the CFO told Bloomberg that in
Speaker 1: their ten Q they're not planning on disclosing a new
Speaker 1: regulatory matter to this effect. And separately, that chief legal officer,
Speaker 1: in a podcast with The Scoop with Frank Chaparo, had
Speaker 1: said separately that they did not receive a wells notice
Speaker 1: tied to the staking service. So those are some things
Speaker 1: that are all clear for coin Base for now. They
Speaker 1: still have a regulatory overhang. We had spoken to an
Speaker 1: analyst on Bloomberg Television earlier that was more concerned about
Speaker 1: the moat when it came to Coinbase. But again, when
Speaker 1: you look at the institutional business, their ability to diversify,
Speaker 1: that is a story that they're leaning on here. Again
Speaker 1: shares super Bowl little aftermarket ed, but so far in
Speaker 1: the green right. Bloomberg Snai Basset that earning school kicking
Speaker 1: off in around five minutes. We'll keep track of those headlines.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, welcome back to being my Technology.
Speaker 1: I'm Cauline Hand and Neil and I met Ludlow in
Speaker 1: San Francisco. I'll just stay with Metachez. This is really
Speaker 1: interesting news over the weekend. The company's talking about a
Speaker 1: subscription tier of verification allah Twitter following in the footsteps,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's interesting. Shares actually markedly higher at
Speaker 1: the open on Tuesday, on a day where megacaptech, big tech,
Speaker 1: social media appears all significantly lower. We kind of fell
Speaker 1: away carow towards the end of the session, down half
Speaker 1: percentage point. But broadly analyst reception to this plan, which
Speaker 1: came out over the long weekend here in the US,
Speaker 1: was positive, even though you know, okay, we're down half
Speaker 1: percentage point. One note in particular caught my eye, particularly
Speaker 1: because we have such a brilliant guess coming up next.
Speaker 1: And that's what Bank of America had to say about this,
Speaker 1: and they say it's intriguing, clearly following on from what
Speaker 1: Twitter has done with Twitter Blue. But it's this last
Speaker 1: line the point that really I'm seizing on Caroline. Audience
Speaker 1: size could be limited by the number of creators and
Speaker 1: influencers on Meta's platforms. You and I've been talking for
Speaker 1: weeks now about how important the creator and the influencer
Speaker 1: is on platforms like Instagram, YouTube talk becoming kind of
Speaker 1: a powerhouse in that respect, and the analyst nervousness is
Speaker 1: actually on the core Facebook product, for example, it might
Speaker 1: not be there. Yeah, I wonder how we square that
Speaker 1: circle of hooking in more content creators, getting them to
Speaker 1: pay up it going straight to the bottom line, But
Speaker 1: ultimately how much does this max out at? Let's ask
Speaker 1: a veteran of the startup world, Lauren Schneffer ran Creator
Speaker 1: Partnerships for Facebook for more than four years, currently host
Speaker 1: Creator Upload podcast. So my immediate reaction when I saw
Speaker 1: this was, Oh, I wonder how all the influences and
Speaker 1: creators who already have a blue check mark are going
Speaker 1: to feel about this. But what do you think the
Speaker 1: reaction is from the creator community. Well as I understand
Speaker 1: that they're not going to lose it and they don't
Speaker 1: have to pay for it a thirty habits, so I
Speaker 1: think that they're fine with it right now. But I
Speaker 1: think in general, the thing that what people aren't really
Speaker 1: focusing on as much is the what you're going to
Speaker 1: get for that subscription. Other than the Blue check Park,
Speaker 1: which is customer service. And I can tell you that
Speaker 1: this is a huge issue even if you're a managed
Speaker 1: partner at Facebook or Instagram. Just the level of sort
Speaker 1: of transparency and how you get things fixed is incredibly difficult.
Speaker 1: And I think this is a huge opportunity because you're
Speaker 1: getting some customer service and a live chat. There's never
Speaker 1: been that opportunity before, so for creators and otherwise, I
Speaker 1: actually think this is a huge opportunity at not a
Speaker 1: huge price point, and I think it's a welcome change.
Speaker 1: I think people have been looking for a way to
Speaker 1: get answers and this is a way in. And also,
Speaker 1: what does the fluid chuck mark even mean anymore? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: it's sort of devoid of all meaning. Certainly, when I
Speaker 1: was there, the criteria for getting one was ever evolving.
Speaker 1: As you know, when I got there, you had to
Speaker 1: be on very specific kind of databases like an IMDb
Speaker 1: or a Wikipedia, and there were no YouTubers on Wikipedia
Speaker 1: at the time, so we had to expand that. So
Speaker 1: it's ever evolving. And honestly, I feel like, again it's
Speaker 1: sort of lost all meanings. So I feel like this
Speaker 1: now gives me something very tangible for that, and I,
Speaker 1: for one like it. I'm really happy for it, and
Speaker 1: I think it will be a welcome change. So it
Speaker 1: gives something to the creative What about the content consumer,
Speaker 1: because in some ways the blue check mark for them
Speaker 1: was meant to be authenticity clearly and perhaps with a
Speaker 1: customer care and with this level of disigence, you'll definitely
Speaker 1: get that, but also sort of a mark of creative
Speaker 1: excellence in some way. Do you think that that is
Speaker 1: any is that vaguely lost? We have different ranks of
Speaker 1: who gets it and what about companies as well. I
Speaker 1: don't think that it has meant I think it has
Speaker 1: meant all everything and nothing for so long. I think
Speaker 1: if you look at the people, and this was even
Speaker 1: when I was there and I haven't been there for
Speaker 1: several years. The people some people that got it and
Speaker 1: did it. There was no rhyme or reason for it.
Speaker 1: You have people with like huge followings that couldn't get verified,
Speaker 1: and then those without big followings could. It just didn't
Speaker 1: really make any sense so for me, and then of
Speaker 1: course all the platforms kind of did their version of
Speaker 1: it and it meant something slash nothing for them. So
Speaker 1: I don't know I think this gives me some real meaning.
Speaker 1: And I think that generally speaking across social we should
Speaker 1: be focused on verified profiles, you know, and I think
Speaker 1: everybody's talking about bots, Well, how do you get rid
Speaker 1: of that. This is a way to get rid of that,
Speaker 1: you know, you verify our identity. And I also want
Speaker 1: to speak to like for a while now, you know, Facebook,
Speaker 1: if you get hacked or something, they're asking for a
Speaker 1: government issued ID, and a lot of folks have been
Speaker 1: very wary to give Facebook that, you know, information for
Speaker 1: obvious reasons. But for some reason, when you put sort
Speaker 1: of a little bit of friction and a paywall in
Speaker 1: front of it and then then require a government idea,
Speaker 1: I think that people are going to be more willing
Speaker 1: to work with Facebook as a platform. And it just
Speaker 1: engenders more trust because you feel like, Okay, well i'm
Speaker 1: paying for something, I'm going to get something for this.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get my blue check mark, I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: my customer service, etc. So I don't know, I think
Speaker 1: this is a welcome change and also a huge pivot.
Speaker 1: When I was at Facebook, I can distinctly remember Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg sort of laughing at the idea that Facebook would
Speaker 1: ever charge for anything, because this was before the time
Speaker 1: when we all sort of realized that we were being
Speaker 1: we were paying in our data. Right, this is pre
Speaker 1: Cabridge Analytic, So we've all been paying for a long time,
Speaker 1: to be honest, and now it's just like it's not
Speaker 1: that much less than twenty bucks a month and I
Speaker 1: get all these services. I'm I'm not mad at it. Lauren.
Speaker 1: Let's jump in the into timing. You were a Facebook
Speaker 1: as it was then known twenty fourteen to twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Why is this happening now? This is just a response
Speaker 1: from meta to direct competition from the likes of Twitter
Speaker 1: and TikTok, etc. I mean, I think there's there's several reasons, right,
Speaker 1: Like I think they've been dealing. They think there's there's
Speaker 1: the bot issue that they're trying to and they're trying
Speaker 1: to focus on, you know, verifying identity and they're figuring
Speaker 1: out a way to do that. And I think this
Speaker 1: is really a response to and almost acknowledging the fact
Speaker 1: that we have been paying for these services with our
Speaker 1: personal data, so now this is another way to do it.
Speaker 1: And this is also something they've been trying to solve
Speaker 1: for a long time in terms of propping up some
Speaker 1: sort of customer service. So I think there's a lot
Speaker 1: of things going on and the reasons behind this. And
Speaker 1: I will also say that I don't see this as
Speaker 1: a huge cashcout for Facebook, like I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: imagine this is some huge certainly not for quite a while.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that that's the reason behind it.
Speaker 1: I think that they know that this is they are
Speaker 1: trying to get back in the good g races of folks,
Speaker 1: and I think that this is a way of them
Speaker 1: being able to provide tangible services and people can see
Speaker 1: an actual benefit from it, and they will feel there's
Speaker 1: a real exchange. And not to mention the fact that creators,
Speaker 1: who I consider small businesses and you know, sort of
Speaker 1: brick and mortar small businesses can suffer real sort of
Speaker 1: devastation with their businesses if their Facebook gets hacked or
Speaker 1: their Instagram gets hacked. And this is a way I mean,
Speaker 1: I still get I haven't in a facebooks in story digteen.
Speaker 1: I still get friends of friends, you know, dming me
Speaker 1: when they get hacked, and it's devastating. And so this
Speaker 1: is a way to really figure out a way around that,
Speaker 1: and I think that they know it's time. It's too big.
Speaker 1: They need real, sort of provided services for folks to
Speaker 1: help with these situations. On your point on the sort
Speaker 1: of sales boost, bloom Bag Intelligent Analysts put out a
Speaker 1: note earlier saying that it could add two to three
Speaker 1: billion dollars annually in sales. But actually, in the grand
Speaker 1: scheme of things, as you say, that's not a great deal.
Speaker 1: Focus on the creative. I mean, it's sorry if I
Speaker 1: don't you try. We saw this segment though, Lauren talking
Speaker 1: about how YouTube has the creators, TikTok has the creators historically,
Speaker 1: metter is not how do they get them on board? Well,
Speaker 1: I Facebook is like, so I work at a company.
Speaker 1: I'm the host of a podcast, but I also I'm
Speaker 1: a VP of corporate development at a company called Jelly Smack,
Speaker 1: and one of the primary things that we do is
Speaker 1: take creators from YouTube and then we move them over
Speaker 1: to Facebook and other platforms. There's actually a huge creator
Speaker 1: community on Facebook. It's just a little bit under the
Speaker 1: radar and it's frankly just not as cool as other platforms,
Speaker 1: but there's real creators making real money on that platform today.
Speaker 1: So I think it wants to be known to your
Speaker 1: point more is like a place where creators kind of
Speaker 1: start their careers. It's not that yet, So I think
Speaker 1: this is one way to potentially help creators get in
Speaker 1: and understand why they should, you know, because they'll be
Speaker 1: able to get sort of services from Facebook. But I
Speaker 1: don't know that this is going to be. I think
Speaker 1: it's more going to be if you're already on Facebook.
Speaker 1: I don't know this is going to be a way
Speaker 1: for that. Creators are going to sort of flock to
Speaker 1: the platform as a result of this, because it's verification
Speaker 1: is going to be in something very different. Now it's
Speaker 1: just going to be verifying your identity. But I think
Speaker 1: it's going to be I don't know. I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be adopted widely. Here's to customer services. Larene,
Speaker 1: thank you, I hear Jenny Smack, VP of Corporate Development,
Speaker 1: and of course the co host and creator upload podcast
Speaker 1: Great Insight, We thank you so much. Mean while coming up,
Speaker 1: well how is general to AI impacting on very own future?
Speaker 1: And open a eyes roll and kicking off the hype
Speaker 1: that's next and Edgie got some more shares to watch
Speaker 1: out for. Yeah, just a quick check on pala Alto
Speaker 1: Networks up more than seven percent in after hours, strong
Speaker 1: beat on revenue in extended trading, really driving those shares.
Speaker 1: I think what we're looking at there is actually the
Speaker 1: performance during Tuesday's session, but take my word for it,
Speaker 1: we're up more than seven percent in after hours and
Speaker 1: strong bookings as well. Continue to track that as the
Speaker 1: cause ongoing. This is Bloomberg. Open a Eye does are
Speaker 1: a ton of credit for taking what happened with transformers
Speaker 1: and large language models and taking it out of the
Speaker 1: research labs of these big tech companies. They're really at
Speaker 1: the front lines of bringing these technology to lots of
Speaker 1: application developers and users. So to give up a credit.
Speaker 1: When they release chat GPT, they were very careful to
Speaker 1: put in place safeguards to prevent certain types of toxic
Speaker 1: or harmful content or dangerous content from being shared. The
Speaker 1: timing and the press that's received about open AI, I
Speaker 1: think is actually great and it actually highlights the opportunity
Speaker 1: that's out there. I wouldn't be surprised if in the
Speaker 1: next six to twelve months we have models that are
Speaker 1: actually capable of truthfulness. I think every company is going
Speaker 1: to be an AI company, and everything we do at
Speaker 1: work and how we live is going to be transformed
Speaker 1: by AI. AI is probably the most important next generation
Speaker 1: technology of this decade. A lot of optimism, a little
Speaker 1: grands speak there from our recent guests talking about the
Speaker 1: impact of open AI on the quick rise of generative
Speaker 1: AI in just the recent months, and about the very
Speaker 1: impact of artificial intelligence on our lives moving forward. And
Speaker 1: that's just one of the topics on which a new
Speaker 1: Bloomberg original series makes a deep dive. It's the Future
Speaker 1: with Hannah Fry looking at breakthroughs across themes such as
Speaker 1: AI but also crypto, climate, chemistry, ethics. Who name it
Speaker 1: in premieres tomorrow, I'm very pleased to say. Therefore, the
Speaker 1: Bloomberger Eternals host in University College London, Professor Hannah Fry
Speaker 1: joins us now for more And Hannah, I mean deep
Speaker 1: knowledge of mathematics, someone who's passion for learning and for teaching.
Speaker 1: But you've also been keeping a keen eye on some
Speaker 1: of the extraordinary hurrah around artificial intelligence, which you know
Speaker 1: you're a fellow brit deep mind. That was a lot
Speaker 1: of that being baked over there in the UK. What
Speaker 1: do you make of the hype and the reality. I
Speaker 1: think in a lot of ways. I mean, these large
Speaker 1: language models have been around for quite some time, and
Speaker 1: I think that this current generation that we have now
Speaker 1: are a step forward. But I wouldn't say that there's
Speaker 1: this seismic shift in quite the way that they appear
Speaker 1: to be in public perception. The big difference, of course,
Speaker 1: is that now the it has access to them in
Speaker 1: a way that they didn't before, So I think it's
Speaker 1: really that the public is kind of catching up with
Speaker 1: where things stand. But I think that with that the
Speaker 1: impressiveness of this new generation, I think that there is
Speaker 1: also maybe a sort of false impression that these algorithms
Speaker 1: are capable of doing things that they're perhaps not quite demonstrating.
Speaker 1: You know. For instance, I still don't think that we
Speaker 1: are in a world where any artificial intelligence anywhere has
Speaker 1: ever demonstrated a conceptual understanding of what it was creating.
Speaker 1: Hannah Big Wednesday Night Ahead. We'll get into the details
Speaker 1: of the show in just a second, but I'm looking
Speaker 1: across the six episodes, right, and it's not just simply
Speaker 1: a look at AI. You're looking at, for example, technology
Speaker 1: and AI within social inclusion. You go global or around
Speaker 1: the world, give us some of what we can expect. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm really supposed to come. I really wanted this whole
Speaker 1: series to be about not just technology in and of
Speaker 1: itself in isolation, but really about the impact of technology
Speaker 1: on society. So, as you say, one of the episodes
Speaker 1: is about technology for social inclusion, the idea that there
Speaker 1: are new creations that might be able to help people
Speaker 1: with disabilities to combat the way that some groups end
Speaker 1: up being marginalized. So we go, there's a place around
Speaker 1: the corner from here in Brooklyn where they are building
Speaker 1: the most beautiful, elegant prosthetic limbs that can be controlled
Speaker 1: by your mind essentially, or a company in London that
Speaker 1: are creating these glasses that can subtitle conversations as they happen,
Speaker 1: so that people who are deaf or hard of hearing
Speaker 1: might be able to use that kind of technology. But
Speaker 1: I think it's not just the series. It's not just
Speaker 1: about listing all the new technologies that are coming, it's
Speaker 1: really thinking about their impact. Because in that episode, I
Speaker 1: also go to talk to some disability rights campaigners and
Speaker 1: ask them about how they feel about these new silver bullets,
Speaker 1: and their response really is actually, can we just have ramps,
Speaker 1: you know, like actually we'd like brail and maybe like
Speaker 1: a carpet that leads up to the reception desk of buildings.
Speaker 1: It's all very well good to get excited about these
Speaker 1: new kind of fangled technologies, but really we have the
Speaker 1: technology already that can really impact on people's lives, and
Speaker 1: we're what we're lacking is a sort of societal will
Speaker 1: to implement it. Well said Well, I can't wait to
Speaker 1: tune in the first one, the one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: year life, so delving deep on longevity. Joy to have
Speaker 1: her here with us, of course. Plume Meg original hostan
Speaker 1: University College London professor Hannah Fry. We thank a. Don't
Speaker 1: forget to catch the premiere. It's actually at ten thirty
Speaker 1: pm New York time right here. I'm bring their TV
Speaker 1: or you can just go ahead, can stream it too? Ed?
Speaker 1: Hey like tech? Hey yeah, big night, My night sorted.
Speaker 1: Let's stick with AI though, and bringing James Cliff, CEO
Speaker 1: of Durable, which is an AI website builder and service
Speaker 1: business software name. And I've been excited to have you on, James.
Speaker 1: I've been tracking what Durable's up to. But the starting
Speaker 1: point here is everything we've just talked about. This moment
Speaker 1: in AI is huge, and I'd just like to ask
Speaker 1: you what's that experience been like for your company in
Speaker 1: recent weeks and months as interest kind of built up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's been incredible. In my fifteen years of building things
Speaker 1: on the internet, this is definitely the fastest growth company
Speaker 1: I've ever been been a part of. It's certainly a wave,
Speaker 1: it's a trend. People are so excited about this technology,
Speaker 1: and just the use cases that we're seeing are just
Speaker 1: incredibly exciting. And yeah, really really stoked to see the
Speaker 1: impact of AI and society, but actually seeing real users
Speaker 1: in real life using this, it's been incredible. This is
Speaker 1: a simplistic way of looking at your technology, but basically
Speaker 1: a quick way of developing a website using AI. What
Speaker 1: are some of the tools that your company uses, some
Speaker 1: of the underlying technologies to make that happen. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: we had our own in house website builder and then
Speaker 1: we lay it on this whole AI engine. So we're
Speaker 1: using open AI to generate the copy with our own
Speaker 1: prompt engine. We're picking images from a free stock photo archive,
Speaker 1: so really just using AI on top of our own
Speaker 1: technology layer to build this brand new user experience. James,
Speaker 1: let's get to some of the more click baity part
Speaker 1: of well, our media that we know and love that
Speaker 1: we're part of. But there is an element going on
Speaker 1: in people's stress test generative AI, particularly of course the
Speaker 1: chat GPT part of it. What are you making of
Speaker 1: some of the coverage, what are you making about its
Speaker 1: achilles heels, some of the worries that we have, the
Speaker 1: way in which we we've seen to be setting it
Speaker 1: completely bonkers. Yeah, it's I mean, it's a new technology.
Speaker 1: It's exciting. There's always going to be a period of
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a lot more headlines coming out, for sure.
Speaker 1: I think as you have this brand new technology and
Speaker 1: really smart people trying to break the technology, you're going
Speaker 1: to see a lot of breaking points. I think the
Speaker 1: ethics are something to really consider. But the reality of
Speaker 1: AI right now, it's it's human input, right so you
Speaker 1: have a human being that is putting a prompt in
Speaker 1: they're training the AI. I think where it gets really
Speaker 1: interesting in the future is this idea of artificial general
Speaker 1: intelligence when the AI is thinking for itself. I think
Speaker 1: we're about one hundred years out from that, but that's
Speaker 1: the future that we really have to be thinking about.
Speaker 1: And I think a lot of smart people are are
Speaker 1: really working through the addicts. Here James Clift, which we
Speaker 1: had along there, thank you so much, Durable CEO there,
Speaker 1: We thank him. It's a memoir of grief, of adversity,
Speaker 1: and of a drive to thrive the urgent life. My
Speaker 1: story of love, loss and Survival is written by Bozma
Speaker 1: Saint John, one of the most well known C suite
Speaker 1: executives across Silicon Valley in recent years, leading marketing at
Speaker 1: giants like Netflix, Uber, Apple. How can people live life
Speaker 1: to their fullest in the face of adversity and how
Speaker 1: can companies like the ones that you work for enable that.
Speaker 1: We're welcome to discuss a little bit more. Bozema, It's
Speaker 1: great to have some time with you. You tell stories.
Speaker 1: You've been telling stories all your life for businesses. You've
Speaker 1: also been telling stories to help reduce bias. I think
Speaker 1: of share the mic now when it comes to Instagram
Speaker 1: and other platforms. Is it in your story they want
Speaker 1: to share? Well, First, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: You know you're You're right. I've been sharing stories, telling stories,
Speaker 1: narratives for my entire career. And I feel like right now,
Speaker 1: at this moment in time, you know, we've all been
Speaker 1: suffering some sort of loss over the last three years
Speaker 1: at the very least, right if not longer, loss of identity,
Speaker 1: loss of comfort, loss of sometimes loved ones, and we
Speaker 1: are still not able to necessarily come all the way
Speaker 1: clean about it, you know, to bring it into a
Speaker 1: public eye. We feel ashamed. We need to hide it.
Speaker 1: We need to hide our suffering and our disquiet. And
Speaker 1: I think it's about time for us to start saying
Speaker 1: those types of things out loud. You know, we're whole
Speaker 1: human beings. We're not just ectional side. We're also the
Speaker 1: personal side. And so how do we bring both of
Speaker 1: those to really bring the whole person your story as
Speaker 1: well of loss with Peter, your husband, and of cancer.
Speaker 1: Of course, you've grieved lots of children, and you've sort
Speaker 1: previous loved ones. I think of other executives, I mean,
Speaker 1: Chao Sama comes to light of someone who shared the
Speaker 1: story of loss and trying to bring a full self
Speaker 1: to work. Talk to us about all the companies that
Speaker 1: you've worked at, big technology companies, allowing that that you
Speaker 1: can be your full self or whatever way that is,
Speaker 1: and that sometimes a drive to survive and a drive
Speaker 1: to thrive can be a drive for happiness too, not
Speaker 1: just a general desire to get ever higher. Yes, it's
Speaker 1: so true. You know, the companies that I've worked for
Speaker 1: and many that are in tech, you know, there's such
Speaker 1: high pressure environments. You know, you're moving so fast. You
Speaker 1: have to think ahead two steps, three steps, four steps ahead.
Speaker 1: And what happens if you are dealing with something that's
Speaker 1: very present, you know, something that is dragging you down.
Speaker 1: Grief has a way of pulling you to the past.
Speaker 1: It doesn't allow you to dream of the future. So
Speaker 1: how could you possibly think about the next thing that's
Speaker 1: coming if you are grieving? You know, I think that
Speaker 1: we have to open space for that, And for me,
Speaker 1: it is felt that in this present time, there's been
Speaker 1: more conversation around mental health. There's been more conversation around
Speaker 1: how we can be whole human beings, but there's still
Speaker 1: a lot of oooh, what I would say about taboo,
Speaker 1: you know, around that, And I think it's time for
Speaker 1: us and knock that down really and begin to have
Speaker 1: more open dialogue so we understand the fullness of our
Speaker 1: employees our colleagues. For certain, it will be a better
Speaker 1: working environment if we are allowed we se the need.
Speaker 1: But as maure cmo at Netflix for a time, and
Speaker 1: I wondered if you could reflect on some decisions that
Speaker 1: Netflix had made that perhaps weren't something received positively by everyone,
Speaker 1: namingly the decision to charge for password sharing and add
Speaker 1: in and ad supported tiers. You know, those were two
Speaker 1: really profound moments for Netflix is offering. How do you
Speaker 1: assess how they handled that? Well? Look, I think storytelling
Speaker 1: is very tough. You know, there's so much that happens
Speaker 1: in corporate boardrooms to make decisions that you believe are
Speaker 1: best for all customers. You know, even though I wasn't
Speaker 1: part of the decision to make that choice, I do
Speaker 1: think that storytelling has a way of being sometimes, you know,
Speaker 1: hard to really get the whole story out if you
Speaker 1: don't have a perspective on how it actually benefits everyone.
Speaker 1: So for me, I think there's an opportunity always to
Speaker 1: think about the benefits to challenges that people make. Base
Speaker 1: Once a business makes the decision that is good for
Speaker 1: the business and also good for the customer. We wish
Speaker 1: I had more time go follow her for more badass
Speaker 1: balls as she's known. But Bostimus said, John, we thank
Speaker 1: you so much for spending some time with us. The
Speaker 1: urgent life Honey memoir. That does it for this edition
Speaker 1: of bloom Bag Technology. Don't forget a lot to recap
Speaker 1: from this show and much more this week, and check
Speaker 1: out our podcasts on Apple, Spotify, I Heeart, wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcast. And there's a lot more to come
Speaker 1: from Caroline and I this week. This is Bloomberg Differ