mark c.: i'm mark crumpton, and you are watching "bloomberg technology." here is a check of "first word news." the president is working with governors for the immediate deployment of national guard units to the border. the homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen made the announcement today. the president said yesterday he planned to use the military at the border until a wall is built. mexico has started providing transit or humanitarian visas to people in a caravan of central american migrants and says the procession of about 1000 migrants is beginning to disperse. the associated press reports that some people, at the request of the u.s., criticized mexico

for allowing it to proceed. thousands marched through memphis to honor martin luther king jr. on the 50th anniversary of his death, including bernie sanders. dr. king was killed at the lorraine motel on april 4, 1968 at the age of 39. he traveled to memphis to support the sanitation workers strike. jury selection is once again underway for the bill cosby sex assault retrial. the process was suspended for several hours after his lawyers alleged prosecutors removed a black woman from consideration because of her race. prosecutors pushed back, noting two blacks have already been seated as jurors. in new york, i'm mark crumpton. "bloomberg technology" is next. ♪

emily: i'm emily chang, and this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, ceo of facebook, mark zuckerberg, speaks to the press. the company now saying 87 million users were potentially impacted in the recent data scandal. plus, amazon, still under presidential fire. the president ramped up his war of words against the online retailer with a potential cloud contract with the pentagon hanging in the balance. spotify's stock loses some steam on its second day. first, facebook revealed 37 million more users may have had their data in properly accessed by cambridge analytica. that would bring the total number affected to potentially 87 million people. the news came before ceo mark zuckerberg spoke to reporters on a conference call. zuckerberg said it was clear that facebook didn't focus enough on preventing the data from being abused, but that he

is confident they are making progress in security. he added he is the right person to be running facebook despite this breach of trust. mark: i'm the first to admit we didn't take a broad enough view of what our responsibilities were, but i also think it's important keep in mind that there are billions of people who love the services we are building because they are getting real value in being able to connect and build relationships on a day-to-day basis. that's something i'm really proud of our company for doing. i know we are going to keep on doing that. emily: there's a lot more to unpack from this call. i want to bring in sarah frier and gerrit de vynck with us as well. i was listening to that call as well. there are a lot of things to talk about here. facebook updating their privacy policies, not changing it, but making them more clear. also making some changes to how they collect user data.

for the first time that i can remember in a very long time, mark zuckerberg taking 45 minutes of questions from reporters. what stood out most to you? sarah: what stood out was that zuckerberg was even doing this. it will prepare him for his congressional testimony next week where he is going to be grilled under oath, which is a bigger deal. this call gave you a sense that people are wondering if he is the right person for the job. people are wondering if he understands his great responsibility here with a spoke users' data -- with facebook users' data. the thing he kept repeating is that facebook did not take a broad enough look at its responsibilities with regard to user data. he wanted to make the point that now they understand that it's not just about doing what users have signed up for, what's legal, or anything like that, but what people actually expect and hope to get from the service in a way that makes it pleasant to use. emily: i want to dive into cambridge analytica specifically.

87 million people were the maximum number that could be affected. cambridge analytica said 30 million. originally, we reported 50 million. sarah: facebook is making the 87 million people estimate based on the highest possible number that could have happened. zuckerberg explained on the call that they went and looked at the 270,000 people who downloaded this app, figured out the most number of friends they possibly had that were unique at that time, and added those numbers up. facebook has not audited, have not seen cambridge analytica's systems. they don't know what's going on. they are just saying this is the biggest possible number it could be. emily: he said that they didn't know this number until a couple days ago, because there are still a lot of questions.

what did facebook know and when? why has it been this strip of information question mark -- this drip of information? senator ed markey today said there was more than a drip of information, that this is a with reference to this potential cambridge analytica scandal. gerrit, we are all wondering what zuckerberg is going to be like when he is getting fired questions from lawmakers next week. what exactly are we expecting? gerrit: it's a good preview of what he will face next week. it's a very different setting. i would imagine mark zuckerberg has not been in that kind of situation where you have people sitting at a table surrounding you, looking down at you, since maybe he was raising money when he was a college student. it will be interesting to see his response. maybe he will be wearing a suit. that's not something you see very often. in terms of the actual information that comes out of it, i think it will be similar to today. we've looked at what we did. we are changing things.

we are not the same company anymore, sort of lighter on the actual specific kind of information that adds a solid understanding of when they knew what and that kind of thing. emily: he also talked about, of course, upcoming elections, elections where they have done things differently, just over the last year. they did take some action on some russian accounts just in the last 24 hours. you asked a question about how can they really validate whether the third-party apps are using the services properly, are not exploiting the data. take a look at how you he -- how he answered your question on the call. mark: a lot of the strategy has to just evolve. changing the economics of potential bad actors to make it not worth doing what they might do otherwise. so, i think you are right that we are not going to be able to go out and necessarily find every single bad use of data,

but what we can do is make it a lot harder for folks to do that going forward, change the populace on anyone who is considering doing something sketchy going forward, and i do think we will be able to uncover a large amount of that activity of what exists. emily: what do you make of his answer? sarah: if i were a member of congress, i would say, do you mean to tell me you can't give us a number on how many users have been affected by these kinds of data leaks? he would probably say, yeah, i can't. facebook does not know, once the data goes to a third-party, where it goes from there. like i said before, they have not audited this cambridge analytica situation. they will look into all the popular apps that use third-party -- information from people's friends, in order to build their systems. but that was years ago. it could be anywhere by now.

emily: despite all this, facebook shares up 3% after hours, down about 20% since this scandal broke. he was asked on the call, what about these delete facebook campaigns, and he said they hadn't seen any particular measurable impact from these campaigns. we, of course, don't want people to be deleting facebook. gerrit, what do you make of the level of contrition here, at least what we are hearing from him verbally? gerrit: it's more of the same. one of the things that was interesting, he sort of mentioned his initial reaction the year and a half ago now to the election, saying, it's silly that fake news on facebook had a material impact on the election. he brought that up and said, that was a big mistake i made. i think the russia conversation will be a big deal next week.

congress wanted mark zuckerberg to go in the fall when they did the first round of hearings. they just sent their lawyers and privacy experts. this time they have him in the room. we will get a few questions on cambridge analytica and this latest situation, but you will also see a lot of relitigation of all these things we have been talking about since the election, about whether or not it was fair to both the trump campaign and the clinton campaign, whether they had different kind of access to different tools on facebook. and, of course, the whole question of foreign interference in american elections is getting more relevant as the days tick closer to the 2018 midterms. emily: gerrit de vynck, sarah frier, thank you so much. much more to cover in the coming days. zuckerberg's testimony in washington. tomorrow at three clock p.m. eastern time, 12:00 noon, pacific -- tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern time, 12:00 pacific, i will be interviewing sheryl sandberg live from facebook headquarters in menlo park. a lot to ask her. do not miss it.

oracle's ceo has criticized the process for a huge pentagon contract where oracle and amazon are in competition. it seemed designed for amazon to win, according to catz. joining us now, alex wayne. what do we know about this dinner? alex: an interesting dinner. it was an invitation from trump to peter thiel, who brought along safra catz, who apparently returned to this subject a couple times during the day or -- the dinner. as long as a 10-year contract, worth billions of dollars, big business. oracle is afraid that amazon is in the pole position to win the contract. the way the pentagon wants to do is to award the entire business

to a single company. amazon is the leading company in the world on cloud computing. their competitors are trying to get the pentagon to split the business up among multiple companies. they've got some members of congress on their side, who have also asked the pentagon to do this. that's the only way they can hope to defeat amazon in this competition. emily: so, the president was receptive, as we understand it, but could he really interfere, or are there any actual plans to interfere? it's obviously an interesting question, given the fire that amazon has taken from the president over twitter the last few days. alex: we asked sarah huckabee sanders about this at today's briefing. she says the president does not intend to interfere in the contract, but he did hear out catz during the dinner, and he told her that he wants the competition to be fair. one thing he could do to put his thumb on the scale slightly without looking like he is really tipping the contract against or away from amazon is to tell jim mattis that he really thinks the business should be split up among multiple companies. emily: fascinating.

obviously something we will continue to watch. alex wayne for bloomberg in washington, thank you so much for that update. more details on the shooting at google's youtube headquarters on tuesday. police have identified the shooter as a video creator who was upset with the company for claims limited her audience. the suspect, 39 years old of san diego, killed herself after wounding three others in the san bruno, california, campus. one victim remains in serious condition. the other two were released from the hospital on tuesday night. since the shooting, we have heard from google. the ceo said, "there are no words to describe the tragedy that happened today. we are focused on supporting our employees and community during

this difficult time. thank you to police and first responders for their efforts and to all for messages of support." other tech leaders spoke out as well. tim cook tweeting, "from everyone at apple, we send our sympathy and support for the team at google, especially the victims and their families." twitter ceo jack dorsey tweeted, we will cover what we know about the shooting, as well as the larger implications later this hour. coming up, spotify shares now dipping after tuesday's new york stock exchange debut. we talked to a key early investor in the music streaming company next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: sony stands to reap almost $1 billion from its stake in spotify. the amount reflects the stock sale on tuesday and the value of sony's remaining stake after spotify's listing. sony operates the world's second-largest record label and largest music publisher. sticking with spotify shares, sliding after a day after it went public in a direct listing on the new york stock exchange. the music service -- streaming service kicked off trading with the share price just under $166. spotify has more than 70 million subscribers, valued at $28.7 billion now. i want to bring in bloomberg's caroline hyde, who is standing by with an early investor. caroline: i'm pleased to bring in p.j. parson, a partner at one of the first investors in spotify. p.j., i have to read out a stat to our viewers. phenomenal what you guys did. 600 times is what united, your particular -- what you netted, your particular fund.

you invested in spotify when it was worth just $35 million. it is now worth a cool $25 billion. have you sold? are you holding on to some of your shares? p.j.: we are holding on the majority of our remaining holdings. we did sell some year ago, but we do really believe in the prospects of the company going forward and we think that the company has a long way -- just as daniel said the other day, it's just the second inning of a long game here. caroline: daniel at, one of the cofounders himself. p.j., some of the analyst commentaries coming out at the moment, still no sells, merely buys and holds. some are concerned about the margin. some are worried about the competition and how that puts pressure on the pricing going forward. how does it continue to be a step ahead of the competition? p.j.: the company has a few competitive advantages that are very hard for the others to replicate. one is that it actually reaches

the entire device ecosystem, not just apple products or within the u.s., which is the case with amazon. i think also that the business model is largely a function of -- that the entire music industry is now moving towards a very well orchestrated idea of creating a marketplace, largely the brainchild of daniel and his team, and they can thereby disintermediate a significant part of the industry and thereby significantly improve the margins. caroline: you mentioned at the start that we have seen a little bit of a selloff -- emily mentioned at the start that we have seen a little bit of a selloff. i'm looking at my bloomberg. you can look at how spotify is trading.

it rallied a little bit at the end of trade, but we were off by 2%, underperforming the market, underperforming pandora, sirius today. what about the direct listing and the volatility we see in the shares? do you feel the direct listing was the best way to go, rather than an ipo? p.j.: i think it's a bit early to really draw any firm conclusions about that. it's clear that the company made the decision to do a direct listing because there was very little point in having the cost of an underwriter to raise capital or to sell secondary shares where there was no interest in raising capital, nor selling secondaries in a more conventional manner. the downside is obviously that you don't have the kind of investment banking methodology or propping up the share price a few days after the listing. i think that was part of the expectation with many, including us, that there would be and probably will be some volatility going forward, until the market has fully understood the quality of the company and maybe seen

another quarterly report or so, that they have their business in great order. caroline: what about you going forward? i understand this is the single biggest ever return for your fund. you have money to put to work, one billion euros, more than. what are you going to invest in next? p.j.: we do see a lot of interesting things going on in europe and also here in the united states. i think the difference with the

venture industry right now, for instance, from 20 years when i started, is that we are addressing huge markets, fundamental market shift, like entire multitrillion dollar financial institutions industry, it's ripe for disruption. you see also the there is a lot of venture capital money going into that space, so we are quite excited about that. also, obviously, the ideas of disrupting the traditional way of selling stuff, typically through stores. this is the direct to consumer trend, i think, is here to stay and will build over time. caroline: some of the fin tech businesses you are in -- what does this mean for the european ecosystem? spotify is a european company. p.j.: yes. i think it is tremendously important. there will be more strong european companies going public within the next three to six months, i know for a fact. caroline: which ones? p.j.: i don't think i'm at liberty to say that. but anyway, i think europe has come of age now and can deliver

truly strong companies that impress also on the most discerning american investor. caroline: p.j., always great to have you on. talking about what's to come in the next three to six months. emily: coming up, why your next iphone may look radically different. we look at the latest products group -- product scoop. ♪

emily: in the latest revolving

door in technology, apple has hired google's top artificial intelligence executive to help the iphone maker catch rivals in one of the most important fields in modern technology. he will report to the ceo, tim cook. apple has lagged kind amazon, google, and microsoft when it comes to ai. the tech giant wants to make sure that future iphones will stand out in a crowded market. in a bloomberg school, we have learned the company is working on touchless gesture control -- and curved screens. the control feature would let users perform some tasks by moving the finger close to the screen without touching it. spacex capsule has arrived at the iss after a two-day journey. the dragon capsule and its shipment was captured by the space station's robot arm today. it will remain attached for about a month, returning to earth in may. coming up, president trump ramping up his critiques of

amazon, but will the administration take action against the tech giant and would it make an impact? this is bloomberg. ♪

>> of breaking new story coming out is ill at the moment. -- out of brazil at the moment. it does pave the way for him to serve in jail. he did try to remain at liberty being handled a lengthy prison sentence. the decision is likely to shape the outcome of october's elections and what really would be the combination of what has been termed by some as an epic corruption scandal. that is just breaking at the moment.

looks like he is headed to jail once again after the supreme court rejected his appeal. trump administration has indicated it is willing to negotiate with china as trade escalate. china has announced reciprocal tariffs on a range of u.s. products. china is targeting soybeans, automobiles, chemicals, and aviation and says measures will when the u.s. implements its own tariffs. a further round of change as an embattled commodity trader until the final round of trade. three independent nonexecutive withtors were appointed significant experience in restructuring and turnaround.

>> in asia, gains of over 1% across several markets, but a hat half of asia's market cap is an accounted for with china, hong kong, and taiwan offline. asia stocks are recovering. singapore nearly 2% higher, which could hint at how hong kong will perform at the reopened on friday and japanese stocks adding 1.7% as the yen edges forward. the aussie falling. the rupee gaining 2.7% ahead of the decision. taking a look at other movers in the currency space, you see the function on the terminal is high, but an outlier today. care must be taken about the impact on the sector and that

policy should stay accommodative. we do have the yuan fluctuating, rising after officials spoke about watching for peculiar behavior. the yuan leading gains among currencies monitored by the u.s. emily: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. facebook ceo speaking to reporters on a conference call earlier, after revealing that 37 million more people may have had their data in properly accessed by a research firm tied to president trump's 2016 presidential campaign, bringing the total number of affected users to 87 million potentially. take a listen to what he had to say about taking legal action against the political consulting firm, cambridge analytica. mark: we've stood down temporarily to let them do an audit. once that's done, we will resume ours so we can get answers to the questions you are asking

and, ultimately, to make sure that none of the data persists or is being used improperly. if it makes sense, we will take legal action if we need to do that to protect people's information. emily: in the meantime, facebook stock has been climbing after hours, up just over 3% at the moment. meantime, president trump's criticisms of amazon have come into focus this week. speaking at the white house tuesday, trump said the post office must renegotiate its deal with the retailer to increase amazon shipping costs. earlier in the show, trump's negative opinion of amazon could threaten a multibillion-dollar pentagon cloud computing deal that amazon is computing for -- competing for. shares of amazon have been under pressure since the president began tweeting about the company, but the selling slowed down after bloomberg reported that there were no active discussions about turning the power of the administration against the company.

for more, tom forte, senior research analyst at da davidson. how much is this smoke from the president? how much do believe there could be fire? tom: when you look at president trump and his intent here, i think he has a strong feeling against jeff bezos, to the extent that jeff bezos, the ceo and founder of amazon, also owns "the washington post." i feel like a lot of these tweets are directed at amazon, but the real target is "the washington post." for amazon, the company, given that he is the president, you have to take these tweets seriously. in the case of the postal service, i do think amazon is getting a bit of a sweetheart deal, so i think the president is accurate in that regard. emily: one of the president's latest tweets -- "i'm right about amazon costing the post office massive amounts of money for being there delivery boy. amazon should pay these costs and not have them borne by the

american taxpayer." we've learned the post office does make money on their relationship with amazon. perhaps they should be making more money. that is up for debate. how do you think this will affect amazon in the near term? tom: first and foremost, all of the tweets from the president basically convince me that the second headquarters from amazon will be in his backyard. headquarters, three are in -- if you look at the 20 finalists for the second headquarters, three are in either washington, d.c., or a suburb of washington, d.c. this process of picking the second headquarters is about influence, and where else could amazon have more influence than being next door to washington, d.c.? why is that important? having influence with the policy in washington, d.c., including the president, i think is very important. as far as applications for the postal service, it's possible they could pay a higher rate.

i think why i say sweetheart deal is that amazon could probably not get the same economics with fedex, ups, or any of the regional players. but the good news for amazon is they're increasing their first party logistics assets. they have air freight. they have trucking. interestingly now with their whole foods locations and bookstores, they have a physical presence that they can also leverage to work on their logistics efforts. i will give a quick example. when i go to my local whole foods, i'm greeted with an amazon locker. it's another place i can pick up products i order on amazon or return them. while there is potential that disruption to amazon from losing the postal service, perhaps in the most dramatic scenario, i think the impact would not be as significant as some fear. emily: what about the bigger picture regulatory issues? we were speaking earlier about a

huge pentagon cloud computing contract that amazon competitors believe seems destined to win. safra catz complained about this to the president. there was no evidence the white house would actually interfere here. on a broader regulatory level, there is concern about how big amazon is becoming and how many industries they are getting their hands into. is that something the president could stand in the way of? tom: most of what amazon does increases competition, lowers the price for the consumer. at this point in time, i don't think antitrust is a significant risk to amazon. on cloud computing, to that end, amazon's strategy has been the early leader in the space, passing on lower costs to its customers. netflix is a great example of that. let's be frank. when was the last time anyone ever talked about oracle and lowering prices? never.

so, i think that it's an opportune -- it's opportune for competitors of aws to want to have the president's ear, but when it comes to this potentially very large federal contract, if he wants what's in the best interest of the country, meaning the lowest-cost provider to the federal government, it is likely aws and amazon. emily: tom forte. we will continue to follow and watch the president's twitter account. coming up, keeping the internet safe from extremist content. we talked to the man helping to stop that content from ever being uploaded in the first place. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: authorities say they have found no connection between the woman who opened fire at the youtube headquarters yesterday and the three people she shot. police identified 39-year-old nasim aghdam as a video creator who was upset with the company for policies she claims limited her audience. for the latest, i want to bring in mark. the last 24 hours, we have been trying to get as much information as possible of the -- possible about what happened here. give us the latest on the motive. >> the most likely motive is that she was upset about youtube's policies. we've seen from her videos that have now been taken down yesterday, her website, that she was a strong vegan rights activist. she posted a lot of videos about animal rights. some of them look like -- looked like protest -- grotesque images of animals being tortured. it's something we've been hearing from youtube creators. some claim that youtube is hurting their livelihoods.

that's certainly the claim she made. clearly, this is an extreme example. it seems like this is a response probably driven by mental health issues as well. emily: what do we know about how google and youtube are responding to this, given that this woman got into a private patio at youtube headquarters, which presumably there is badge access? someone with a gun shouldn't have been able to get inside. mark: youtube has been really quiet today. it's likely they will change their policy. there was a great story this morning about how companies like youtube, google, facebook, silicon valley -- they are structured like college campuses. they were meant to have this really open and free environment. this may change that. emily: what about the bigger story about the big policy changes that youtube has been making?

we talk a lot about the obvious creators, like logan paul and people who you recognize but there are so many creators out there who do use youtube's platform and youtube is making big decisions that are dramatically impacting how creators are paid, how creators are -- the rules around what kind of content can be uploaded and all of that. mark: i talked to a research director at columbia. he said one of the issues -- youtube has made a series of policies, but they have been rather reactive and not proactive. there is this tug-of-war between advertisers and lawmakers and the general public, who say you are not doing enough to moderate the content, some of the offensive content on their website. in response, they have limited the number of ads. then you have creators saying, you are doing too much. youtube is not communicating well what the changes are. emily: these are the kinds of videos that perhaps should never have been uploaded in the first place, right, or should never have been allowed? mark: that's a debate.

emily: then they are changing their policy. mark: that's the debate that youtube has had for years. even before they were bought by google, it was broadcast yourself. they have been fairly dedicated to this idea that anyone can go upload any video at any time. the metaphor that the leadership have been using is, we started out as a small town and now we are this big city, and clearly there is this big unwieldy city where they haven't put enough rules in place to prevent these issues. emily: all right, mark bergen, thanks so much. i know you will continue to report on this story and we will hear more from you. reports that the youtube shooter posted online rants about the company have some people asking if that should have raised a red flag. my next guest has made a career of tracking illicit content online and developing technology that helps identify things like child pornography and extremist videos. it's technology that could be used to create socially responsible networks online.

it's the latest installment in the socially responsible network series. i want to bring in dr. hany farid. his work with companies like cep and microsoft has led to the detection and prevention of the uploads of millions of images of child or not her feet, as -- child pornography as well as extremist videos. i want to hear your reaction to this shooting at you to -- at youtube. for so many minutes at the beginning of this situation, we didn't know what had happened. now that we have a fuller picture of the story. what's your take on this? dr. farid: there's no doubt that there are complex issues when you deal with platforms of the size of facebook and of youtube. youtube has hundreds of hours uploaded every minute.

there are going to be complex issues. we've always known that. we've always tried to contend with that. our point has been, while there are gray areas, the types of video you were just talking about, there are other areas that are unambiguous. when we have videos of child pornography, when we have videos of a beheading, when we have calls to violence, glorification of violence, those range from a legal to clear and unambiguous violations of the terms of service. so, my view of the situation is that the platforms have been, and your previous guest mentioned this, more reactive than proactive. if you're going to have policies in place, which i think we all agree you have to have -- we may disagree on what the policies are, but i think we would agree that we should have policies. i argue, let's argue about the policy. let's argue about what we want on our social media platforms. but then we have to be transparent. we have to have due process. we have to be consistent in the application of those rules.

that's something technology companies have not been very good at, and i think they could do much better to avoid exactly the types of confusion and misunderstandings and frankly being tugged in both directions. emily: you suggested the establishment of a cyber ethics commission to counter the lies of technology. can you explain this as it relates to this discussion? dr. farid: sure. i think for the last two decades or so we've seen somewhat of a wild west in silicon valley. it has led to an amazing growth of internet companies and social media, and lots of wonderful things in our lives, but i think we would all agree, over the last year and a half or so, we have seen the dark side of that from the data privacy issues to the election tampering to the child pornography to the online extremism and on and on and on. so, i think we have entered and continue to enter a very complex digital age. i don't think that we are thinking about these things as thoroughly and carefully as we have.

i think often, as you said earlier, we are being reactive versus proactive. the same way we had a committee established 20, 30 years ago to deal with the complexities of modern medicine and modern biology, i think we should bring some of the best minds together and start thinking about how we live in this very connected, very complex, very digital world. everything from the social media issues we are talking about to the self driving cars, we've seen some troubling and complex things over the last few weeks -- i don't think we are prepared to think about them at a technological level, a legal level, a philosophical, a moral, and economic level. we have to give more thought to that before we run headfirst in, create these in on that we don't know how to control, then are trying to back our way out of that. i don't think that's the right way to do business. emily: on that note, some people might say youtube created a monster. facebook is too late. can we put the genie back in the bottle at this point? dr. farid: i think that's the

critical and the right question to ask. the simple answer is, i don't know. we have been calling for years and in some cases for decades for the technology companies to think more critically about what they are doing. in many ways, i think you are right that he -- that these monsters are there. they are at a scale that is unprecedented. it's not clear how we are going to back our way out of this. there are a few things we can start doing. we can start thinking about regulation the way we do every other industry. we have to tread lightly. that regulation could make it even worse. -- bad regulation will make it even worse. the advertisers who fuel silicon valley, who are literally the fuel of youtube and facebook, need to think long and hard about whether they want to be on these platforms and what pressure they can bring. i think we as a public have to think about how we engage online. i think there is a spectacular amount of bad behavior online, and we as a public have to take responsibility for that.

across the boards, we have to be looking -- taking a hard look at where we are, it is i think people have woken up here in 2018 and it's not a pretty landscape, what we are seeing online. if we want to return the internet to its original promise, i think we are going to have to make some hard decisions and rethink some really fundamental things of how we do things on a day-to-day basis. emily: in the minutes and hours after the youtube shooting yesterday, we saw fake news immediately making its way into tweets, into social media posts, conspiracy theories being spun off about what exactly was going on. it was extremely immediate. what is the real risk here? what is the real risk to our democracy, to our society if this isn't contained? dr. farid: yeah. so, first of all, this is not the first time. every time there has been a tragedy like this, the first thing that happens is the fake news comes out.

so, this is the shootings that happened in florida, every terror attack over the last five years -- we are immediately inundated with rumors and innuendo and fake news. in many ways, this is the responsibility of social media, to debate into the system. the system is designed to engage you, to keep you on the platform as long as possible, and the sensational and the outrageous do that. the social media companies have a serious response of to deal with how they are promoting this. we have a public response to the in doing that as well. i think if we can't agree on basic facts, i don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it is a threat to our democracy. you can't have democracy without agreeing on basic facts. emily: dr. hany farid, thank you so much, giving it to us straight. coming up, how does lyft keep up the competition with uber after the competitor raised billions of dollars from investors? we will hear from john zimmer. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in a bid to compete with uber, lyft is testing a subscription service in the u.s. the company has been testing the plan in 29 cities, charging by the month instead of per ride. we recently caught up with lyft cofounder and president john zimmer in our latest episode of "studio 1.0." we talked about the ride-hailing startup plus competition with uber. take a listen. john: take it back maybe 3 1/2, 4 years now. uber raises $3 billion. we had what i believe is a lot of money and still is a lot of money, $100 million in the bank. they have 30 times the capital of us, and they are trying to destroy our business using that money. and that was, to be blunt, it was scary. someone attacking the business, incentivizing drivers not to

drive on our platform. but the team had such drive and such passion. and we were smart about the tactics we used that were asymmetrical. and we rose up -- that was the time we had maybe even single-digit market share. we raised the capital we needed. we built an incredible team. by coming up as the underdog, but with the vision, i'd say the leaders on vision, we've been able to build a team that is not just doing it for a monetary reason and not just doing it to win, although we intend to win, and that's something that drives us. we are very competitive, but we also have a team that's values-based and mission driven. ultimately, that's why we will win. emily: john zimmer, lyft's president and cofounder. you can catch our full conversation with him tonight on "studio 1.0." that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." a reminder -- we are live

streaming on twitter, @technology. 5:00 p.m. new york, 2:00 p.m. san francisco. that's all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪ retail.

under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

>> the following is a paid program. the following is a paid presentation by lifelock. paid for by lifelock. >> look around. so many of us are on our phones and laptops. we are shopping online and filling out forms and applications. in the connected world we live in, our information is everywhere. we enter our names, birthdays, social security numbers all