alisa: i'm alisa alisa parenti in washington and you are watching "bloomberg technology to come let's start with a check of your first word news. jerome powell is one step further towards the coming chairman of the central bank. the senate banking committee has approved powell's nomination. puerto rico is a risk of not receiving federal community disaster loans because it's cash balances may be too high. the federal emergency management agency says it will not provide additional recovery aid until the territory falls below a certain level. the government was predicted to run out of money in late october

due to hurricane maria. haiti has been removed from the list of countries eligible to participate in two temporary work visa programs. the department of homeland security released a note saying haitians who apply for visas have shown high levels of fraud and abuse and a tendency to overstay their visas. rupert murdoch is said to have been hospitalized after back injuryserious earlier this month. according to vanity fair magazine, the media mogul was vacationing on his son's yacht at the time. he is recuperating in an l.a. hospital. global news 24 hours a day more than 2700 journalists and analysts in 120 countries. i'm a alisa parenti. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: i am emily chang, and this is bloomberg technology. coming up, the tech is back on capitol hill. this time, it is all about fighting online extremism. did lawmakers get the answers they were after? plus the cryptocurrency crunch. has the bubble burst? and it is a payday for apple employees. apple plans to bring calm billions of dollars in overseas cash to the united states. we have the story. but first, to our lead. representatives from facebook, youtube, and twitter were on capitol hill once again, this time to testify how they are all testifying -- all fighting online extremism. they appeared before the senate commerce committee, and a lot of the same topics that came up in last year's hearing reared their heads once again, but perhaps the most dire warning came from senator john hester from

montana. >> i just want to say this is a really important issue. from a terrorist standpoint, all the questions we have asked before. our democracy is a risk here. we have to figure out how to get this done right and get it done very quickly, or we may not have a democracy to have you guys up to hear you out. emily: curious, what was your impression today, the general sentiment among lawmakers and how these executives responded? selena >> you heard solid : questions from both democrats and republicans. you heard the tech companies on the defense, making the claims have been making, that they have made incremental improvements, but you heard there were some gaps, and lawmakers were pressing them. speaking to a terrorist use and the wide range of issues of nefarious acts on these platforms.

the general take away from the hearings is that while there have been some incremental measures taken by the tech companies in response to pressure from capitol hill, there is still a lot more to be done both on the terrorist of other in terms actors interfering, for example, in the midterm elections. that came up in the hearing as well. not just terrorists. child sex trafficking has been an issue, and i think you are going to need to see them step up. there were a lot of questions about the resource allocation, wire are there not more dollars and more people? up, "size ofped it these companies, there is still more they could be doing. one last thing, a lot of companies were talking about taking downe content faster and quicker, problematic content. but the still raises the question, once something is

prohibited, why is it even allowed to be uploaded again in the first place? why are they not preventing uploads, something that they have been pushing them to do. like child pornography, and the manchester bombing and others, which are following up on those platforms and were brought up at the hearing today. emily: you talk about the manchester bombing. how that seems to keep popping up on youtube. how did the tech executives responded? and tell us who they are. >> they were on the defensive. lawmakers are wondering why don't have the executives and mark zuckerberg and jack dorsey up on the stand. they were responding to questions not just about terrorism, but also russian manipulation. lawmakers are asking why these rich and powerful companies not allocating enough in these issues? there were several tense issues, particularly with the hawaiian senator and twitter, as in them why did so many resources to this, why there were still fake

russian accounts, bot accounts. even recent incidences like the roy moore campaign gaining thousands of russian followers. take a listen here to what he had to say to twitter. >> based on results, you are not where you need to be for us to be reassured that you are securing our democracy. great extent, people who vote and our adversaries are participating in your platform, how can we know you will get this right and before the midterms? selena for its part, twitter : said it is going to be verified candidates in the upcoming midterm elections. the bottom line from lawmakers is that this is not enough. emily: yet been going over the problems with moderation, what are some longer-term solutions? would be a constructive way to keep these videos off the site and to keep these bots from wreaking havoc?

>> there are a few issues. you can prevent videos from the uploaded once they have been mark and flagged as problematic. there's technology that exist that can flag it to a database and prevent uploads. the bond video that we see resurfacing -- if that happened flagged to a database, and technology can be used to prevent uploads as a post that scanning it and finding it once it is already up there, that would prevent some of this content from being up there in a continuous loop, and a cat and mouse, and a whack and mold problem. the second problem is bots. there is cap verification, and whether or not there's a human behind the account. these are all policy changes that if twitter wants to take action on, they can. they're different numbers on the percentages of how many accounts are bots.

they said 5%. i have seen higher numbers quoted. who really knows? the bottom line is they can really crackdown on it if they wanted to. the other problem is transparency. tech companies have not been as transparent and terms of how they are removing content and the numbers. it is great to hear how many has been taking down in a week, but if it is going up in a faster rate -- that is not really a sustainable solution. more transparency, several account authentication measures, and lastly, more resources can be devoted to this issue. these are huge companies with a lot of money, and if the public is aggravated enough by these issues, and there's enough pressure, you are going to see this hurt their bottom line. should be smart this is for them to put more dollars in these problems to back up the

rhetoric. emily: this is a continuation of the hearings from last year, what is next? >> they still have to update them not only on the terrorism as, but the russian manipulation part. twitter came up with a big announcement that they will notify accounts who have seen ira or russian backed accounts. that is a big deal because they have been slammed for not being more transparent about who may have been targeted. this is something facebook said before they will try to do. google for its part has not come up with an indication of this, and a senator said they were disappointed in google's response. we are still waiting for twitter's transparency center. apparently it is on the way. in terms of terrorism, company say they have been collaborating or some time to come up with a shared database of digital fingerprints that could collaborate and more quickly catch these videos.

they cite significant numbers that they are capturing 99 or 98% of this content before it is flagged. google said they have 10,000 people dedicated to this issue. facebook wants to up that from 10,000 to 20,000. there are so many instances where these videos are still being uploaded and re-upload it. until lawmakers can see that this is stopping -- the question is that there is more to be done. emily: selina wang who covers twitter for us, and facebook. and for the counter extremism project. thank you, tara, for your input. while the senators look for answers on how to fix social media one of mark zuckerberg's ,mentors shared his ideas on what can be done. take a listen to a bit from our upcoming bloomberg studio 1.0 interview. >> not only is it not enough, it is completely irrelevant. you cannot fix this damage after the fact with people policing it. these things are embedded in the

algorithms. the same thing that makes facebook and most compelling platform for rock 'n roll band and consumer services companies exit the perfect platform for bad actors to abuse people. you only can fix the problem by fixing the algorithms. you have to make is so that anger and fear are not the predominant ways that people are motivated to act on facebook. again, without advertising -- if you are not dependent on advertising or not as dependent on advertising, you do not need people to be addicted. you do not need to make them angry. you do not need to make them fearful. moneyyou do not make them from ads, how do you make money? to pay aying i want subscription. name the price. my point is, if you want to have asked for certain people, fine, give me the option of having a different thing.

what they are doing now is the lazy way out. people are smarter than that. emily: you can catch more of our full interview that there's later this month. coming up, apple plans to bring back billions. all of the details of the tech titans repeat traded cash. -- repatriated cash next. "bloomberg technology" is livestreaming on twitter, check us out on weekdays. 5:00 p.m. in new york, 2:00 p.m. in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: bloomberg news is

reporting that apple will return hundreds of billions of dollars of cash the united states. bloomberg news is reporting that apple will be returning hundreds of billions of dollars of cash to the united states. apple also plans on investing tens of aliens on domestic jobs, manufacturing, and data centers in coming years and give employees a $2500 bonus after the new tax laws. joining us more, bloomberg tech's alex webb, who covers all things apple. so, how they spend this $30 billion? >> it will spend on a new campus for technical support. they have one of these in austin. clearly something that is not is it do in, say, china. so it has to be done in the u.s. emily: how many jobs will that be? >> hundred thousand jobs, which is good news for a political perspective. it is quite a big bump, but it is one caveat. that is over five years. emily: what else does this mean?

is if you interesting really look at the numbers, they are going to spend $350 billion in the u.s. over the next few years. odds are they were going to spend most of that money already. the new money for the tax bill and $30 billion spent on the u.s., if you subtract that from what they have offshore at the moment, they still have a huge pile of cash and that is what shareholders will be really excited about. the restat happens to of that cash that currently remains overseas? >> there are three ways they can use it. buybacks from shareholders, and repayment of debt. and him in a -- in a day -- m&a. debt a hundred billion dollars in debt. there are spending a lot of dollars on their m&a. so i think, broadly speaking, the expectation that a lot of money is going to shareholders. emily: what is the expectation of the m&a technology? we know the biggest company they have ever bought is beats. that was a $3 billion

acquisition. we have seen them make moves in music streaming. they bought shazam. do we think they are making moves toward more acquisitions, and if so, what kind? >> generally, they look at people like microsoft, because massive deals require -- that direct on the whole thing. apple says they have a lot of money, and we can use it to spend on r&d, and anything anyone can do, we can do internally. there is a sense they may be interested in the content because they want to build up the services business, and semiconductors, chips. there are certain moves they have made which indicate they have those interests. emily: how does this position apple with respect to the wider climate and what is happening with the administration? >> there hasn't been a response from trump just yet, which we are waiting on that. i'm sure he will jump on this as a sort of way of underscoring his huge campaign plans of the

new jobs coming back to the u.s. apple employs several thousand people in china, indirectly through its supply chain. bringing jobs here is a plot point for the political ledger. emily: alex webb, who covers apple for us, thank you so much for that update. sticking with apple, analysts who cover apple can't agree with the fate of the company. sean harrington downgraded the stock to neutral. bank of america/merrill lynch raised its target to $220. that is a new target for the company. shares closing up over 1%. coming up, bitcoin's plunge continues, tumbling below $10,000. what is weighing down the world's largest cryptocurrency -- cryptocurrency? that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: broadcom says it is under investigation from u.s. antitrust officials for potentially anti-competitive contact. the chipmaker says that the problem i the federal trade commission is a material to its business. the company made a hostile bid to buy rubble -- rival qualcomm. bitcoin continues to tumble, this time below $10,000, lost almost 50% from a record set over a month ago. it brings more trauma to the digital coin market has lost more than 300 alien dollars in value in just days. it also comes after a dizzying rally that pushed bitcoin higher by 1400% last year. put this into context for us. what is happening? >> there's a couple different

ways to frame this. one is what you said come that the market's down from all-time highs, and the other way to frame this is it is up 1000% over the past year. all we have done is gone back to the all-time highs that we set only six weeks ago, so it has not been much of a correction yet, at least not in comparison to some historical corrections. shows the chart perspective on bitcoin slides. where do you think this is going? are we coming back to earth? is this reality? >> if we try to think about what is going on in the market today, it makes sense in the context that there was speculative activity in the launch of these derivatives and futures products that should lead to the institutionalization of bitcoin. i think that was a kind of "self the news" type of event and some of the investors that piled in

beforehand exited. that said, some people were expecting these institutions to enter the market and come bulging out of the gate. in reality, institutions move more and scales of years. emily: do you think we are in a bitcoin bubble or that a bitcoin bubble is popping right now yahoo! >> i don't think we are over the next three years. if price goes lower from here, then we certainly will call it a bubble. but, i think we could see it higher than three years from now, and we will say it wasn't much of a bubble. emily: you invest in blockchain focused companies. how is this impacting the investing landscape? what is coming across your desk? how enthusiastic, or is it changing your level of enthusiasm? >> we have a long duration in all of our positions. we have to be patient with this market. you have taken a little bit of money off the table -- and we can always buy back in some of the positions we like at cheaper prices, and will do that when the time is right.

emily: what positions do you like right now? what are you optimistic about? >> with the market is going down, i certainly like bitcoin. bitcoin is the most resilient of all the assets out there. it doesn't rotate all the way to usd -- a lot of it stays trapped in the ecosystem, and their flight to safety is bitcoin. while most investors consider it to be far out in the risk spectrum, and within the bitcoin currency, this is considered the safe haven. emily: what are you most excited about? what is the next bitcoin? >> i believe some of the smaller assets have the potential to go further down. how do we explain those types of valuations? emily: you can't. >> i think we can. largely it is because early stage investing has been romanticized a lot over the past couple of decades. people hear about these stories, and it's an opportunity most

investors have not had access to. they have created an opportunity for investors to cooperate -- to participate the first time. they are like kids in a candy store, going while. with early-stage investing, failure rates are very high. emily: i'm curious. are you waking up every morning and checking the price? is it that type of volatile in your workplace? >> we are not emotionally tied to it because we are long-term investors. emily: but this is a big move in a matter of weeks. >> but in the ecosystem, forced fires are healthy, and that is what we are seeing here. a lot of people rushed in and the last three months because they got was easy money -- free money in this market. i think it is a healthy reminder that it is a painful lesson of risk in these markets.

emily: spencer, thanks for sharing the ins and outs. coming up, facebook had a lot to answer about on capitol hill. our next guest still thinks it still has much more to come clean about. that is next. if you like bloomberg news, you can check us out on the radio, the radio app, bloomberg.com, or in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> you are watching bloomberg technology. i and debra mao. checking in on first world headlines. apple says it will bring back hundreds of billion dollars of overseas cash back to the u.s. president trump has hailed the move as a huge win for american workers have a usa meanwhile, sources have told bloomberg that the tech giant has told employees they will be getting bonuses of $2500 following the introduction of the new tax law. the latest said beige book has provided varied input about how the changes will impact the economy but considerably different assessments across regions and companies with no

unified view. the report appears generally supportive of the central bank's outlook for 2.5% economic growth and three interest rate increases. christine lagarde wants germany to step up government spending to boost growth. seesmf chief says the fund a strong case for the economy to take advantage of its buzz it -- budget surplus to invest more in public infrastructure such as growth and railways, adding the government should not rule out running a deficit. north and south korea will march under one unified lag during the opening ceremony of next month's winter olympics, the strongest sign yet of an easing in recent tensions. the two koreas have not marched together at an international sporting event since 2007. in singapore, checking markets midsession in asia. we are seeing general upside in these markets for yet another day. we are trying to hold onto those record highs. you can see very strong moves

coming from taiwan. of course, getting back to record highs. the nikkei also looking quite strong. a little movement when you look at the currency markets. japanese yen down by about .1% and we are awaiting the data out of china. andese fourth quarter gdp, the industrial production, and retail sales do later. there have been some strong upside coming through and a lot of soft commodities, to be dei, crude as well moving higher, 5.4%. when you look at the sectors overall, there is a little bit of a debt on some of those property stocks that have run hot lately -- a little bit of a dip, but a big pickup in tech players today supported by the move you saw earlier. financials also looking good, up by about .3%.

regional index moving to record highs after we .aw a little bit of a debt -- a little bit of a dip. emily: this is "bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. facebook, youtube, twitter all feeling the heat from lawmakers. >> we now have more than 7500 people who are working to review terror content and other potential violations. we have 180 people who are focused specifically on countering terrorism. emily: facebook's efforts against online extremism isn't the only think the company is defending lately. the very nature of their business is being questioned.

our next guest called them "a living, breathing crime scene for what happened in the 2016 election." there have been called the closest thing to silicon valley has to a conscience. great to have you here on the show. thatdid you hear today makes you think things are any worse or better than perhaps you would have thought? >> i think no matter what these companies want to say that they do, they have unleashed pandora's box. facebook has 5 million advertisers cycling through every day. there is no way to check what 5 million advertisers -- how they can match those characteristics to each of millions of users. there's billions of channels on the new tv and there is no way to know or be accountable to all that complexity, so they have unleashed this civilization scale mind control machine that they do not even know what thoughts they are pushing into 2

billion people's minds. as roger likes to say, 2 billion people use facebook, more than the number of followers of christianity. 1.5 billion years youtube, more than the number of followers of islam, and these sites have more influence than those. emily: would you think of the changes that facebook announced focusing on friends and content from family in the newsfeed as opposed to use? >> it is a step in the right direction, and zuckerberg titled post that we are embracing time as the future for the company. it is great that they are embracing the content, but the real challenge goes against the advertising based business model. you cannot ask someone who's entire stock price is dependent on wall street that we have this many minutes of people's day.

they say we're going to cut down on how much time people spend, they can do a tiny bit, but not that much. the real question is if they are willing to examine the business model. emily: you call facebook a living, breathing, crime scene. that is a bold claim. what do you mean? >> the point is that nobody has access to what happened to the election. only facebook has that data, and the question becomes, can we trust facebook for telling us the truth? literally a year ago, mark zuckerberg said it's a crazy idea that fake news had any input best impact on the election, and they continue to delay and defer the release of the information. as roger and i, and many other researchers the lots of background research and found that the russian campaign had influenced 150 million people.

facebook did not admit that until the day of the november 1 hearing. if they are telling us we should trust them to self regulate, they have not really won our trust. started calling attention to this when you were at google from 2012 to 2016. what the first google memo, and said something within the company. what were you raising alarm bells about, and what was the response? >> the memo in 2013, i was a product manager, and i didn't think were taking our responsibility seriously. i made a presentation that basically said never before in history has 50 engineers, 20 to 30 years old living in san francisco influenced what a billion people are thinking and what they're doing with their time and attention. we have enabled this channel that is exploiting peoples cognitive biases, exploiting

people's psychology. google and other large tech caught -- large technology companies have a moral responsibility in addressing this problem. the presentation went viral and spread to 21 -- to 20,000 people and became the number one meme in the internal tracking system. i had been talking about this in stuffway before this about fake news and elections and everything else. awareness that these technology companies have influence on culture, election, children's development -- more than any other political actor. how do we start to have that conversation ethically, and be careful with how we are steering people's thoughts? emily: how did larry respond? >> across the company, there is a real seriousness of taking to heart the message -- google is an ethical company and have good intentions and the , elephant in the room is the business model. the advertising based business

all of these attention-based companies -- youtube, snapchat, twitter, facebook -- are all in the business of capturing people's attention. youtube has stated goals is how we get billions of hours watching on this product as long as possible. larry: did he acknowledge that, share or sympathize with your views? we spend billions of hours on this product as possible. emily: do they sympathize with your views? >> i don't recall with my meeting with larry. conversation likes to get avoided because it is an uncomfortable thing to look at. it is an innocuous thing. how much time people spend in the web browser, because they wanted to know how much time people were spending on the web versus an in app. it is useful to know, but as soon as you measure how much time people spend in a browser, certainly these 20-year-olds try to maximize how much time people spend on the web. so, you manage what you measure. have to ask ourselves, what do

we actually care about? are these products designed for addiction? there are huge consequences for children. emily: there really isn't a lot of research on how tech impacts children, shockingly. we actually don't know. >> there's an article that gave a lot of traction that talks about the many cultural and social impact of how addiction to smartphones has changed our relationship -- changed children's dynamics and relationships. when are they having sex. when are they going out. people are more isolated, more depressed. snapchat, for example, puts the number of days in a row that you sent a message as a kid to all of your friends. it is a persuasive, manipulative design technique to keep this ball getting tossed back and forth every day. if they stop throwing the ball back and forth, they lose the number, so kids start refining -- defining the currency of their friendship based on whether they are sending this empty message back and forth.

that is the number one way for teenagers in the u.s. to communicate. you have 100 million teenagers out there throwing empty messages back and forth. is any of this designed to help us? emily: as you mentioned, i remember reading that and also remember there really was no stand taken. it is fairly, in my opinion, neutral. in part, i think, because we do not have a lot of the answers here. >> what we can know is the motivations. what are thousands of engineers going to work to do every day? do they go to work saying gosh, how can we strengthen the public square? no. they go to work to drive up one number. how much people are engaging with and how much time is spent on the surfaces. i want to live in a world where the tech industry is helping humanity, and there a lot of ways we can do that. basically it is about changing and we are lighting technology

with human values, and why will we not have it be that way? emily: have you heard from facebook? >> i have had lots of conversations, and these people industry are my friends. my friend started instagram -- and i think the has been a reluctance to admit the extent of the scope of the problem and the business model is the problem. i think there is a lot of good intentions, but until we get clear business model that advertising is fundamentally misaligned with democracy -- at the business model has to capture your attention, then it is better for me to give you things that you agree with them to show you things that you disagree. if i show that reality is more complicated are different than how you think it. emily: does a subscription model eliminate all these conflicts? customernges who the

is. if all of us pay for the product, you have thousands of engineers going to work every day working for people who pay. emily: well facebook eliminate -- emily: what about people who can't afford a subscription to level the playing field? >> i think the challenge is that the advertising business model has indebted us were whole change in culture. how much do those culture action now these cost us in terms of extra data plan usage? is the free business model really free? if you add up all of the costs to society and your data plans -- half of the stuff that we download on our phone is ads. if you cut that out, and actually have these people -- we would save money as consumers as well. we have to figure out what is that price point and what we are willing to pay for it. the reason roger and i are doing this, mark zuckerberg's mentor and i met on the show. emily: i know, you and roger met here and started this big project. crusade.

>> i think we have to get clear on what it will cost us. the reason he and i are doing this work -- we don't think we can survive for a four to live on this model as is. we can't going down this road. emily: how do you think the danger compares to what google or apple or twitter presents? >> the thing about facebook is that it is the product that reaches the most amount of people. it is the primary surface area for disinformation campaigns, bad actors to manipulate the public area if the scale of facebook that makes it the predominant source of the problem. obviously, twitter and youtube are also influencing the global leaves and radicalizing people with more conspiracy theories. i do think that facebook deserves the most because of the

influence, whether they know -- they want to or not. anything they do will negatively and positively impact people. that is what i mean by pandora's box, and now they have unleashed this machine that has automated thoughts. it is doing it indonesia, wally, and genocides in certain cultures in the world -- bali. it is impacting politics and culture. the engineers of the company do not even necessarily speak the language of the places where it is impacting politics or culture. we have a free press and can talk about fake news and some of these issues. imagine in countries like berm a internety just got the overnight, and now there is a and people are crossing the border into bangladesh. if you get over to protect the public square, not just your in the west, but around the world. emily: how do you think you're going to make this change happen? >> the first thing is to create a cultural awakening.

i think people do not even think to question their relationship with technology. the first thing is going out there making sure people understand this misalignment of incentives. is engaging employees. i really think that the employees of these companies not feeling satisfied with their leadership -- not taking issues seriously, is going to be the number one driver in change. the delete uber campaign didn't kill revenues for their business, but it totally changed the culture. there was a shunning effect. nobody wanted to work at uber. there was a huge exodus of employees, and change had happened. the same thing will happen at facebook. it will be hard to attract the best people in the world if you don't take this seriously. emily: made a lot of people very rich. hard to walk away from. >> what roger and i found is a lot of people from facebook we did make a lot of money and

actually agree with roger and i. this is not opinion, it is the truth. it is hard to come up against the source. he said we built a mind controlled machine. shot-blocker said that we can't believe what we're doing to children. i think more and more voices are going to start to come out because they have to feel like it is safe to do something. emily: tristan harris, former design at google, and now with crusade. great to have you. mark zuckerberg says he is optimistic about a daca fix. he has been calling members of congress and added they want to fix this, but we need to keep the pressure on so they know we hold them accountable. coming up, regulators to protect the internet with regulations. we'll talk to one company that has petitioned the courts. this is bloomberg.

♪

emily: facebook, twitter, and google told lawmakers that they support a legislative effort to restore net neutrality rules. this as the legal fight repeal of the regulations. various lawsuits have been filed include -- including one on behalf of 21 states attorney general's and protection groups like free press and public knowledge, and one by the company mozilla. joining us now from mozilla -- wrote the block post about this lawsuit -- blog post about this lawsuit.

>> the notion is protecting the internet as a global resource accessible to all. we would like to reinstate those open internet principles, pencils we have all worked and lived under since the inception of the internet, and to get that so we can get all of us as consumers to have this global resource available to us. emily: others have complained -- about the rules being rolled back. in some ways, it is a wonder we have not seen stronger action from tech giants. the ceo of netflix says that you -- net neutrality is important but not their priority right now. what do you think of that? >> i think that most tech companies support, through alliances. that is what it is important for us to make a statement as a plaintiff, so we can control the litigation. we want to be a party here. emily: you said that you shall -- that ending net neutrality as

we know it could end the internet as we know it. why is that such a bad thing? we just had a long conversation about how the internet is not perfect. >> the way it is set up is that we all have access to information that we want. i don't want to be alarmist, but think about politics and what if an isp believed a certain way with respect to political issues and blocked or throttled content regarding the other side of that issue so no one could get access to it? it can impact not just the way people think, but our democracy. it could impact the way the global world sees the u.s. as well. this is an issue and the internet is an issue that no one country should regulate and certainly no private entity should determine what private access you get in your home. emily: what are the next steps? >> the litigations will continue, and we have to see how that plays out. it is a longer process in litigation. we see lots of legislation right now. there is a vote in congress to

repeal and rollback those orders. we can see legislators themselves writing legislation to be able to formally codified open internet principles. orly: are you working with speaking to other organizations considering filing lawsuits of their own? >> we have colleagues who believes strongly in this and some of them have joined and will be intervenors in an litigation. they're going to fight just like we are. emily: chief media officer for mozilla, thank you so much for joining us. we will be watching. we'll also hear from california attorney tomorrow on the show. about the case to keep net neutrality. coming up, another tech company said to be exploring a public offering in 2018 details on that next. and a feature i want to bring to your attention -- our interactive tv function. check out at tv on the bloomberg terminal. you can watch live, if you missed an interview, you can go

back to it. is for bloomberg subscribers only. check it out on tv . this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: a story we are watching. surveymonkey is accelerating conversations with banks to go public this year. the company is expected to be closely watching how other companies fare in the market. surveymonkey is considering making a last-minute acquisition of another company in the space to enhance value. and the weinstein company could have a better in miramax, which was founded by the weinstein's. it could allow the brothers to keep a role in the business. the weinstein company has been seeking a buyer since the october dismissal of harvey weinstein after sexual assault allegations. that does it for this addition of bloomberg technology. a reminder that we are

live on twitter. technology ont weekdays, 5:00 p.m. in new york, 2:00 p.m. in san francisco. that is all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees. chalene: the following is a paid presentation brought to you by beach body, but filmed by me on my iphone and directly from my heart. hold up. i want to ask you a question. how do you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror? not so good? like, gross? who is this person? like you know you have to do something, but it is so confusing. there are fad diets, extreme workouts, and it is working for other people, but it is not working for you. you just want a system, a