congress has achieved and i believe its future is bright. we have ay is strong, given americans greater confidence in the lives, and i have every confidence i will be handing this gavel onto the next republican speaker of the house next year. mark: president trump is still considering possible u.s. military options against syria. he met with defense secretary james mattis on the matter today. that meeting comes after the president tweeted a warning to russia to expect a barrage of missiles. the president is scheduled to meet with state governors and congressional members tomorrow to gauge the impact of his tariff proposals. the meeting comes after the china'st praised president xi jinping for toning down the rhetoric on what some say was the beginning of a trade war. as israel marked its holocaust remembrance day, prime minister benjamin netanyahu warned iran not to test israel. israel is on high alert after syria,n ally of

threatened to respond to an airstrike on a syria military base monday that the syrian government, russia and iran blamed on israel. i am mark crumpton in new york. bloomberg technology's next. ♪ emily: this is bloomberg technology. facebook ceo mark zuckerberg wraps up his second day of growing in washington. on day two, questions were more pointed and answers, more evasive. apple versus silicon valley. -- the big apple versus silicon valley. and renewed prospects for a deal between sprint and t-mobile five months after conversations to merge fell apart.

first to our lead. it's been a long two days for mark zuckerberg. emerged mostly unruffled after 48 hours of congressional grilling. zuckerberg generally kept his even as lawmakers downplayed his apologies over failures to protect user privacy and assurances to do better. there is no clear agreement on what regulations will look like or what facebook would support. still, shareholders and seem to be relieved that zuckerberg can hold his own. shares rose through both days of the hearing. data collection, particularly facebook,were not on emerged as a key concern. we have an following every step of these hearings. two, moreay from day pointed questions, better informed questions.

zuckerberg still generally unflustered, but a little more evasive and a little more nervous. guest: they were really attacking him and trying hard to bait him. you have to give him a letter of credit for equanimity. he kept his cool. did notthe questions he fully answer and he may have said some things that were incomplete also appeared -- also. emily: there was a striking exchange when asked about facebook's practice of collecting data for people who don't even have facebook. take a listen. >> facebook has detailed profiles on people who have never signed up for facebook, yes or no. general, wean, in collect data for people who have not signed up for facebook for security purposes. emily: he says they collect data for security purposes, but they

also collect data for advertising purposes. i do think that is a question that came up over and over again that he did not fully answer. david: it doesn't seem much he wanted to fully answer that, and that is a shame. because unfortunately, deception in front of congress is something for which you pay a high price. i don't think he was trying to be dishonest. i think some of these things are confused in his own mind, would be my guest. he probably doesn't think about that stuff very much. there is probably several ways facebook gathers data about nonusers around the internet. they have an ad network and they do that. emily: one of those ways is if a website has a facebook option or a facebook like option, if you use that button they can see what you're doing, right? david: if it is a facebook like button, they can see it. emily: talk to us a little bit about this particular issue.

too many times to count, lawmakers focused on it here. ben: i am sorry, i lost my earpiece. about some keylk takeaways because i cannot hear your question. one of the things that really struck me was that people went in a little more on what the privacy regulations could look like. was whether we need a bureau of privacy here in d.c. that could oversee these issues. we also heard a lot of lawmakers talking about user agreement that is really complicated to understand. that's the kind of thing they think should really be made a lot more plain. that might play into what zuckerberg kind of had planned, because they do plan to roll out some changes on that privacy agreement to comply with european leg relations -- regulations coming next month. emily: thank you for that

overview. was thision i asked issue of whether facebook tracks you off facebook, whether or not you have a facebook account, which came up over and over again. is a question that i believe zuckerberg never fully answered and certainly did not seem to want to answer. talk to us about how this has suddenly become an emerging concern and where you think the chips sell on that issue -- fell on that issue. ben: i thought that one was interesting. it's the kind of exchange you could play in a political ad. this is not just about users, not just about people who consented under april -- under a particular privacy regime. your friend's data could come in with your consent. it's the kind of thing i could see who people want to make facebook a political issue

digging down. i am not sure how that congressman got onto it, but i thought it was particularly impressive questioning. given the number of conservatives coming down on zuckerberg for his perceived liberal leanings, i could see them making an issue of that going forward. emily: that was the other issue, the content. the other thing that really came up over and over again, which is how responsible is facebook for the count on -- content on its platform. it seemed he was giving more than he had in the past by acknowledging he believes facebook has a moral obligation when it comes to the content on its platform, but not necessarily a legal obligation. he almost backed away from that little bit today. david: i did not see every minute of it, i didn't have nine hours, but i watched a lot of it. he said to senator cornyn

yesterday he believed they are responsible for the content, which is a major shift towards that responsibility that he has never been willing to accept before. -- thinkk the next this thing that so many republicans are hammering with that facebook is illiberal bias against the right is complete horse manure, and not accurate at all. in fact, there is equal if not more critiques from centrists. everybody thinks their data is not sufficiently attended to on facebook. but these people cannot accept that they are not unduly discriminate against. there is evidence that facebook has done things in the opposite direction institutionally. emily: on the issue of regulation, as i said earlier, zuckerberg has said over and over again it is not a question of if, but what kind of regulation. take a listen to what he had to say today. >> i think that it is inevitable that there will need to be some regulation. so my position is not that there should be no regulation, but i

also think you have to be careful about what regulation you put into place. emily: ben, what happens now? he has said he is supportive of regulation. he has given some indication of the general principles he would be supportive of. but when it comes to turning it into law and getting facebook to support it, what is really next? ben: two things i think our next. yesterday zuckerberg promised they would bring some regulatory or legislative proposals, which is unusual to have a company suggest ways that congress could regulate itself and its peers. by the way, i think some of its peers, google in particular, are pretty nervous with some of those things zuckerberg suggested he would be open to. the other things that happens now is we get proposals. there are a number of privacy proposals that have come through congress in the last couple vary very they can

wildly. now we get to hash out which of those will happen. there is a political timetable, as we say. nothing happens after the august recess because then you head into an election year and you don't want to do anything that would appear in an attack ad. so they would have to get it done in a crunched timeframe. momentumion is if the will be there in one month or six months after the election when they are turning back. emily: ben and david, thank you for hanging with us and getting us through it. coming up, first mark capital is one of the biggest venture capital firms in new york with investments in airbnb, chapa five and pinterest. we will talk about new york versus silicon valley. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio or the app. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ been covering all angles of the unprecedented testimony of mark zuckerberg in washington the last couple days. since the cambridge analytical scandal broke, it has put serious pressure on facebook stocks, wiping out gains in 2018. they recovered a little over the last couple days. what about the private market? here to discuss that and more, we're joined by managing director at -- obviously i know these are different worlds, but how have you been watching what has been going on with facebook and rising concerns about user privacy and user control over how they interact with technology? guest: of course we're watching it very carefully.

sentimenti think the in the public market mirrors a very much the private market. yesterday i think people were pleasantly surprised that mark was able to handle the scrutiny yesterday and held his own and he saw that in the public markets. in the private markets we feel the same way. the overarching question is whether or not it will be increased regulations. i think he made a good point about increased regulation. the bigger companies like his are going to be able to weather that storm. smaller companies, that becomes a much bigger burden for them. so that is a question. but ultimately i don't see any sort of slowdown in private market investing. emily: are these questions you're asking about in pitch meetings, how are you collecting this data, and is this -- not necessarily legal, what does

this meet our moral standard of what is possible? beth: privacy has always been a concern. those are questions we definitely ask. it is always how do you use that data. facebook has taken the stance that they are a tool company and that these was not important, was not part of their pervue. it puts increased scrutiny on that as companies grow. emily: is the public market volatility in the tech markets impacting private valuations at all? beth: we have not seen it. if anything, private company valuations have been steady, if not accelerating. emily: we often compare new york to silicon valley. new york i know there's a lot of exciting things in the tech scene but there is still not been a multibillion dollar exit. when will that happen? beth: we are seeing continued

acceleration. a lot any market about new york and how it will grow. we have seen over the last five years a big increase not only in the number of companies that are being founded here, but the note -- the number of exits. we have a nice pipeline of potential companies that will exit at multiple billion dollars valuations, whether it is oscar health, padre, there are some in the top line -- pipeline. the other question is where are those venture dollars going. i get asked a lot, is new york a real market? and i would say almost every single deal that we have looked at over the last two years have had silicon valley investors competing for them. emily: your second female partner, which is awesome. i just wrote a whole book about diversity in silicon valley.

some of the things i heard anecdotally is that new york is better than silicon valley with diversity or new york feels more inclusive. i spoke to many entrepreneurs who left silicon valley for new york and keep building their companies here. do you think there is any truth to that that new york is less than a brotopia than silicon valley? beth: new york has always been a melting pot not only for the people here, but the industry's year. we know that 40% of tech workers here are women. 20% are people of color. that's a traumatic difference than -- a dramatic difference than silicon valley. so yes, i believe here is more diverse. emily: what still needs to happen? it is certainly not enough. beth: it is certainly not enough, that is true. market,ill a developing and so we're seeing really nice trends here. i think we will continue to see

more dollars come in here. in the third quarter of 2017 we saw more dollars come to new york than silicon valley. i think we will continue to see that trend. emily: beth ferreira, thank you so much for joining us. we speak to one of the congressman who grilled mark zuckerberg on the hill earlier, representative leonard lance of new jersey. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ facebook ceo mark zuckerberg's marathon questioning before congress has wrapped. one of the representatives who gave mark zuckerberg in these of his mind, republican leonard lance of new jersey. >> do you believe that that action violated your consent agreement with the federal trade commission? bute do not believe it did, regardless, we take a broader

view of what our responsibility is to protect people's privacy. >> i think it may have violated the agreement with the federal trade commission and i am sure that will be determined in the future. emily: i would like to welcome representative lance, who joins us from capitol hill. how satisfied were you with mark zuckerberg's testimony today? rep. lance: i asked him a direct question, and he responded. i tend to disagree with his response. the federal trade commission is now investigating the answer -- the matter. i hope the investigation occurs in a timely fashion. emily: what are you most concerned about? rep. lance: i'm concerned about the privacy of the american people, and certainly the privacy of the american people was violated in this situation. and moving forward, we have to make sure that it does not happen again. emily: so do you think that regulation, more regulation is necessary? rep. lance: i am a cosponsor of a bill sponsored by marsha

blackburn of tennessee, the browser bill. that would have a system that would be more protective of the privacy of the american people and you would have to opt in. i think that is the way we should proceed. the browser bill is for all forms, also isp's. i think that is the way to proceed. emily: beyond the browser bill, is there any regulation that you that therert, given are a wide range of topics at play here beyond privacy. surelance: i want to make that companies have the ability to innovate, but that does not mean that they should be in a situation where they invade the privacy of the american people. and certainly congress wants to make sure that that does not occur. i think the browser bill would go a very long way in that regard. ryan: now, speaker paul now reportedly will not run for

reelection. i feel like i have to ask you about this, since we have you. do you think that is good or bad for the republican party? rep. lance: i think that the speaker will continue to be involved to the highest extent in his responsibilities to the end of the year. he will remain speaker until the end of the year. he will continue to be engaged in fund raising, for example. i wish him and his family well. i think this is a personal decision based on the fact that he wants to help raises children -- raises children in wisconsin. cynical town and there are all sorts of explanations. i believe the speaker when he says he wants to help in the rising of his children. moving forward he is going to help republicans across the country through the year. then there will be a new speaker in january. emily: do you believe it has anything to do with friction with the president? rep. lance: i do not. i believe it has to do with the fact that paul is a young man,

48 years old, he has his whole life ahead of him. he will be very successful in whatever he does and i take him at his word. he and his wife are raising their three children in janesville, wisconsin and he wants to be more involved in that. emily: back to facebook, going forward, i know you have the browser bill, but the bigger picture, how much of the responsibility to protect, to self regulate falls on facebook, and how much do you think this falls on congress and the law? rep. lance: i think it's a combination of both. weekoo of facebook last indicated that she thought the company had not done as good a job as it should do, and that is obviously the case. mr. zuckerberg and affected the same thing, both to the senate yesterday into the house today. we should i think

move forward with the browser legislation and we should not rely on what the facebook or any other company says because it is the responsibility of all of us working together to protect the privacy, not only of the american people, but people across the globe. this affects not only citizens here in this country, what those across the globe as well. that is why the british parliament is investigating this matter as well. interviewed sheryl sandberg last week and she also told me facebook's business model did not point to change. and this is a company that has told a multibillion dollar business leveraging data that users, that we share with facebook. they rent the data in the order to target advertising. knowing what we know now, does it concern you that the business model will remain as is? rep. lance: i think the business model might have to change based upon legislation we passed here

in congress. if we passed the browser of -- legislation that i hope we do, then to some extent the business model has to change, perhaps not completely, but certainly every company has to operate within the parameters of the law. emily: do you have any concerns that facebook will not be ready for the midterm elections? zuckerberg said they are working on new products, new tactics, new a.i. he hopes it will be ready by the midterms, but will it be? rep. lance: i don't know. i certainly hope it will be because we want to make sure the integrity of the process is protected. emily: thank you so much for your time. ♪

♪ mark: you are watching "bloomberg technology." here's a check of first word news. treasury secretary steve mnuchin told a house appropriations subcommittee that the u.s. may impose what he calls a very strong sanctions on iran.

>> i think to the extent that the president decides not to sign the waiver and we do reimpose those sanctions, not only will there be primary sanctions, but secondary sanctions. i believe they will continue to have a very strong impact on the economy in iran. ark: president trump has set may 12 deadline to either improve or scrap the nuclear court tehran signed with six world powers including the u.s. saudi arabia says it intercepted a ballistic missile over riyadh and shutdown two drones. it is the latest attack showing improved military capabilities three years into the conflict. president trump has signed a new law aimed at curbing sex trafficking. the law passed congress overwhelmingly. it weakens a legal's seal for online -- thousands filled a stadium today

for a memorial service for winnie mandela, who died april 2 at the age of 81. the ruling african national congress for which mandela had a working relationship over the years is holding memorial events across north africa, including today's ceremony and an official funeral scheduled for saturday. it is just after 5:30 p.m. here in new york. paul allen now has a look at the markets. paul: all the major u.s. indexes ended up lower after some tension in the middle east with president trump warning that missiles are coming in syria. also the news that paul ryan will not be running for reelection. all the major indexes down. it is setting us up for a few declines in the asia-pacific when we get going. we will look at the futures currently off about 1/10 of 1%.

dollar alsoussie holding its recent advance. this is after the reserve bank of australia amid comments overnight about the risks of a trade war. we see the japanese yen also strengthening against the u.s. highest since 2014 not only on tension in the mideast, but a yemen missile attack on saudi arabia. gold was up about 1% recently edged back. ♪ ♪ emily: this is "bloomberg technology." mark zuckerberg is time on capitol hill is over. a new bill has already been introduced.

requireent act would the ftc to create new online privacy protections for users of sites like facebook and google. to discuss the last days of hearings and what new laws my come out, i would like to welcome a congressman who is located in the heart of silicon valley. representative khanna, you have been watching mark zuckerberg being grilled. on what topics did you come away reassured and on what topics did you come away more concerned? rep. khanna: i was pleased that mark zuckerberg subjected himself to five hours of testimony to the senate and house. this was long overdue. facebook should have been testifying much earlier. i was pleased he is at least open to well-crafted regulation. i was concerned in two areas.

one, the senate seems to have a knowledge gap. many have not use facebook or twitter and it was apparent after they ask their first question. they were really unable to press him or get into depth. not zuckerberg's job to just clean up a mess. it is congress's job to regulate, to pass laws. we were the ones elected to protect the american public. and there was not sufficient commitment or discussion about what an internet bill of rights would look like. emily: what should congress do, then? rep. khanna: well, i think there is some very common sense things we ought to do. first you ought to have a right to know your data. for example, if you want to know your financial information you can get your credit report. you can know who has asked for that information, was trying to get information about you. you should have the ability to do that with all of your data. google,, twitter,

cambridge analytica, you should be able to reports of your data. second, you should be able to update your data. third, you should be able to move or delete your data. europe has a comprehensive set of these rights. i think the year in regulation taketoo far, but we should some of those principles and have a robust framework here in the united states. emily: we're talking about a massive data breach that happened on facebook's platform and on facebook's watch. we are talking election that was meddled in by state actors on facebook's watch. in both cases, facebook had warnings. facebook new about these issues before the company revealed them to the public. so, where did facebook fall short, in your opinion? rep. khanna: they clearly did fall short entity to assume responsibility. they fell short in disclosure. all the reports i read suggest they do about this breach --

the knew -- they knew about the region 2015. they notified nobody. had they done that, a lot of harm could have any voted. -- avoided. they also did not have sufficient oversight. to be paid in rubles and have and havingying ads that not set off alarm bells is deeply concerning. third, they allowed false propaganda to spread and go viral without any verification. i am glad they are now owning up to the mistakes. i still believe in the power of social media to do good, but there were clear abuses and the need to be transparent going forward and make real effort to fix it. but that is not enough. congress also needs to regulate. we cannot rely on the self-regulation of facebook or tech companies. emily: a lot of the questions today focused on facebook's

tracking of users off facebook, including users who never signed up for it in the first place. should facebook be able to track user behavior across the internet, off facebook, even if they don't have facebook, which means they have not agreed to the terms of service. rep. khanna: this is exactly why we need an internet bill of rights. firefox,le, if you use facebook would never be able to do that because facebook contains your data. whereas if you use the safari browser, they may give the cookies or that data to facebook if they have agreements with facebook. and you actually have to go change on your iphone the default settings on safari to say no, i do not want my data shared. this is what i mean where members of congress need to be using these platforms more. they don't need to be computer scientists but they need to understand what these platforms do. we then need to have laws moving

usersowards firefox for have the right to know what is happening with her data and had the data contained so facebook cannot do these searches. it is why you can go on the internet, surf the internet and want to buy ties, then certainly on facebook even know you have never liked ties, you start seeing ads for ties. often hasuse facebook information that advertiser shared with them. i do think an internet bill of rights. that from happening. leave you said we cannot the security of our elections up to an internet entrepreneur. facebook says it is working on new tools that will be in place before the midterm elections prevent what happened in 2016 from happening again. do you believe them, and if not, how concerning is that? and what can congress do? isn't it really on facebook to make sure that doesn't happen again? rep. khanna: i do believe they are acting with good intent.

they haveabout this, grown from a platform of a few hundred thousand people to 2 billion people in 12 to 14 years. it's really a next her ordinary antform, an -- really extraordinary platform and it's an extraordinary platform. congress needs to significantly fund the national -- m.i.t., carnegie mellon, research institutions so we can do the research in machine i. that will be necessary to protect our national security and prevent this kind of russian meddling or other types of interference. that is for congress to make those kind of investments in research and development, and we're not making those. second, we need to have a right -- individuals having the right to secure data and making sure there are ad disclosures.

there is a bill along those lines so that facebook is required by law to comply, and that will put added incentive other engineers to come up with a solution if they have a legal liability that incentivizes them to do that. emily: but that is not necessarily going to happen before november. rep. khanna: you are right. unfortunately, given the speed with which congress moves, i am not optimistic these laws will be passed before then. all i would say is until then, congress should try to act as much as we can, because we are putting ourselves at risk without those laws. and i do hope that facebook and other tech companies will realize that more of these breaches will further he wrote the public trust. these are platforms that are largely widely admired. there are a lot of people who look to tech with a positive framework, a positive sense. and they risk losing that if

there are more and more of these breaches. i think it is an facebook's self interest to put as much resources behind this to solve the problem. but it is not going to be easy, and there is vulnerability there. emily: thank you so much as always for joining us here today on "bloomberg technology." rep. khanna: thanks for having me back on. emily: in the battle for e-commerce supremacy in india, walmart might be about to leave amazon in its wake. they are said to be leaning towards selling to walmart. both companies are bidding for a controlling stake and a $20 billion valuation. that is $8 billion more than flip card -- a major give walmart stake in 1.3 billion people. sprint and t-mobile in talks for a possible merger again. all the details. and take a look at this chart.

this shows the net worth of facebook ceo mark zuckerberg, tied greatly to facebook step price. it has -- facebook stock price. it has taken a hit, but an uptick the last few days. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: a major partnership in the streaming landscape. spotify and hulu announced solidifying their partnership i -- by offering a bundle for $12. 99 a month. two parties offer the bundle

for students in september, but they are expanding the promotion . two of the largest wireless carriers in the u.s. are talking about a possible deal again. according to people familiar with the matter, sprint and t-mobile have restarted talks five months after efforts to combine collapsed. at the time the issue is how control of the combined company would be shared. caroline, this has come up over and over again. what could make this time different? caroline: that's the key question. and whether or not because he basically in agreement of price point. why did it fall but -- fall apart last time? control. but this time the markets got excited again. this time we saw yet another pop. a 17% increase in spring price alone. that's a $4 billion increase in market capitalization.

$3obile also got a pop of billion. so there is hope clearly, which is exciting the markets. they are hoping they can scale through this. combining the number three and number four player would help leapfrog past at&t. it would have about 100 million users, still just behind verizon's more than 116 million users. you would get scale, the ability to get -- and spectrum, they have an area of growth for 5g that would work by combining the two. the issue is regulation. the analyst once again highlighting regulation hurdles. it is bigger than the at&t time warner deal. emily: so obviously the owners of two mobile, telecom, not going to let it go without a good price. what could seal the deal?

caroline: exactly that. price, or the issue of control. price point we could see even more money being asked for t-mobile. the u.s. in particular we have another 40% being asked by some analysts. premium is the only thing that really would allow deutsche telekom to give over one of its main revenue-winning assets. this would either come added the cost for the main controller of sprint, or they would have to decide that he would cede control. in 2017, they could not strike enough price or an agreement to give control to deutsche telekom, which owns t-mobile. it would have to be either some kind of give on either price or control.

many analysts are saying you're likely to see control ceded. why? because of the debt power they have. this shows you the debt distribution on softbank. check out that number, particularly at the bottom. $125 billion is how much they have in debt. this could bring them a little more easily to the discussion table. emily: thank you so much. stay with me, we are going to talk about what else but facebook. european regulators were watching mark zuckerberg's testimony on capitol hill. we will talk about what faces the social media giant in europe. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: cambridge analytica has announced its acting ceo has

stepped down and return to his former job at the company, chief did officer. he was named acting ceo mark 20th when the board suspended alexander next. this was after he was filmed saying controversial things. according to several reports, -- the privacy scandal has been at the center of criticism of facebook and has featured prominently in these days of testimony this week by facebook ceo mark zuckerberg before congressional committees. speaking of facebook, many reactions to the testimony, including those in the eu. europeans do not seem to be convinced. she took to twitter citing his pledge he would accept responsibility for his company's failures, saying apparently this is not been that important until now. joining me now in the studio, alex. what is the reaction in europe

over these last two days of testimony and his last couple of weeks where they have taken a stronger line of privacy? in europe there is a far greater concern with privacy. reasons.r historic the general data protection regulations. more broadly looking at facebook in europe, there has always been a certain question mark about why does silicon valley companies need to much data. , are theyon is shutting the farm door after the horse has bolted? interestingly, zuckerberg has said he thinks that europe's data privacy rules is a standard that should be applied around the world, and facebook will apply it around the world whether or not u.s. decides to

do something similar. it is interesting that mark zuckerberg was one of the 87 million whose data was potentially misused by cambridge analytica. what should we make of this leaders sit -- leadership shuffle? caroline: i think we have got to remember that cambridge analytica still feels that it has done no wrong. we keep hearing from the company, they have been claiming once again that we did not break any laws, is what they have taken to twitter saying. thissay they did not use 87 million data treasure trove in the 2016 presidential election. they did not use it in an eu referendum. i think this is why we are seeing so much shuffling at the top of the original look up. alexander -- top of cambridge analytica. they had secret video of him bragging about some of the more questionable tactics he used in

campaigns at cambridge analytica . he has now fully resigned. the chief did officer who was acting as ceo has gone back to his usual role. i think it just means there is yet more confusion at the helm. emily: speaking of confusion, zuckerberg said something interesting today, that they are looking more dave -- more deeply at cambridge university and if there something bad going on more broadly. what does he mean by that? caroline: horror at the very heart, throwing them under the bus, it would seem. the very vanguard of academic institutions at the heart of the u.k. he is questioning whether they are going to investigate researchers at cambridge university. notably, there was firm rhetoric coming from cambridge university

in response. they said they were rather surprised that mark zuckerberg has not overall known about what was going on at the university of cambridge. he himself is saying they need to understand whether you say something that was going on at cambridge university bad overall. in response, cambridge university said we have made them aware. not only did we write them a letter on the 21st of march asking them for evidence against -- they said we have been publishing findings of our data and our research since 2013. you should know about this. we knowast question, facebook is will be testifying in the u.k. in a few weeks. 30 seconds, how will it be different from what we saw here? alex: the problem is there are a lot of different lawmakers asking questions and they were constrained by time. each.inutes, five minutes

that is very little. in the u.k. that will not be the case. there are fewer people, a bit more time. that gives them a far greater opportunity to take into the nitty-gritty and hopefully get more substantial answers, which zuckerberg not delivered today. emily: rather than saying ok, you can come back to me. thank you both. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology" in new york. check us out 5:00 new york. that's all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ haidi: mission accomplished. two, even survived a as critics retain doubts. betty: lawmakers say techniques more regulation and government action could be in order. , they suddenlye more hawkish term with policymakers bending towards a faster pace tightening. betty: and the sound of trade warning and that spot between