♪ mark: i am mark crumpton in new york. you are watching "bloomberg technology." here is a check of first word news. house speaker paul ryan will not seek reelection this fall. he made the announcement today and said he is leaving with no regrets. >> i am proud of what this congress has achieved and i believe its future is bright. the economy is strong. we have a given americans greater confidence in the lives, and i have every confidence i will be handing this gavel onto on to 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 jim 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 president praised china's 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 iran, an ally of syria, al-assad,t bashar 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" is next. ♪

emily: i am emily chang in new york. this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg wraps up his second day of a grilling in washington. on day two, questions were more pointed and answers a tad more evasive. 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. but first to our lead. it's been a long two days for mark zuckerberg. still the facebook ceo emerged mostly unruffled after 48 hours of congressional grilling. zuckerberg generally kept his cool, even as lawmakers downplayed his apologies over failures to protect user privacy and assurances to do better. some key takeaways, regulatory proposals are coming, but 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 in testimony. shares rose through both days of the hearing. data collection, particularly off facebook for those who were not on facebook, emerged as a key concern. joining us now to dissect of the , our48 hours in washington guests who have been following every step of these hearings. my take away from day two, more pointed questions, better informed questions. zuckerberg still generally unflustered, but a little more evasive and a little more nervous. david: they were really attacking him and trying hard to sort of bait him today. you have to give him a lot of credit for equanimity. he kept his cool. some of the questions he did not fully answer, and he may have said some things that are incomplete also. emily: there was a striking exchange with one representative

who asked about facebook's practice of collecting data for people who don't even have facebook. take a listen to that exchange. >> facebook has detailed profiles on people who have never signed up for facebook, yes or no? >> congressman, in general, we collect data for people who have not signed up for facebook for security purposes. emily: so, he says they collect data for security purposes, but they also collect data for advertising purposes. and i do think that is a question that actually came up over and over again that he did not fully answer. david: it did not seem like he fully wanted to 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 even a little confused in his own mind, would be my guest. he probably doesn't think about that stuff very much. but in fact there is probably

more than one way, 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 share option or a facebook like option, even 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: ben, talk to us a little bit about this particular issue. too many times to count, in fact, that lawmakers seemed to focus on. ben: i am sorry, i lost my earpiece. if you can hear me, i going to am talk about some key takeaways because i could not hear your question. one of the things that really struck me was that people went in a little bit more on what the privacy regulations could look like. a key question 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 the user agreement, that it is really complicated to understand. and that is the kind of thing they think should really be made a lot more plain. that may play into what zuckerberg has planned here, because they do plan to roll out some changes on that privacy agreement to comply with european regulations coming into force next month. it is still one thing they said might need to be formally legislated or regulated. emily: thank you for that overview. the question i asked was this issue of whether facebook tracks you off facebook, whether or not you have a facebook account, which came up over and over again. and it is a question that i believe zuckerberg never fully answered and certainly did not seem to want to answer. you know, talk to us about how this has suddenly become an emerging concern and where you think the chips fell on that

issue. en: yeah, absolutely. i thought that one was interesting. it's the kind of exchange you could play in a political ad. look, this is not just about users, not just about people who consented under a particular privacy regime when third-party data could come in, 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 really sort of digging down on. now i not sure how that am congressman got onto it, but i thought it was particularly impressive questioning. and given the number of conservatives and republicans sort of coming down on zuckerberg for his perceived liberal leanings, or the platforms liberal leanings, i could see them making an issue of that going forward. emily: that was the other issue, the content. and that, the other thing that really came up over and over again, which is how responsible is facebook for the content on its platform.

now we talked yesterday about how it seemed he was giving more than he has in the past by acknowledging he believes facebook has some sort of moral obligation when it comes to the content on its platform, but not necessarily a legal obligation when it comes to content on that platform. he almost backed away from that little bit today. david: i did not see every minute of it today. i didn't have nine hours, but i watched a lot of it. but he did say to senator cornyn yesterday he did believe they are responsible for the content, which is a major shift towards that responsibility that he has never been willing to accept before. i do think this thing that so many of the republicans were hammering with, that facebook is a liberal bastion against the right is complete horse manure, and not accurate at all. in fact, there is equal if not more critiques from the left, from centrists. everybody thinks their data is not sufficiently attended to on facebook.

but these people cannot accept that they are not unduly discriminated against. in fact there is evidence that facebook has done things in the opposite direction institutionally. emily: now on the issue of regulation, as i said earlier, zuck 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. mark 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 in place. emily: so 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 are next. yesterday zuckerberg promised they would bring some regulatory

or legislative proposals, which is pretty interesting, unusual to have a company suggest ways that congress could regulate itself and its peers. and 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. but the other thing that happens now is we get proposals. there are a number of privacy proposals that have come through congress in the last couple years, but they can vary very wildly. some of them are relatively conservative. some of them are relatively liberal. now we get to hash out which of those will happen. there is a political timetable here, as we say in washington. nothing happens after the august recess because then you head into an election year and you don't want to do anything that could appear in an attack ad. so they would have to get it done in a fairly crunched timeframe. i think the question is if the momentum will be there in one month or six months after the election when they are turning back to these things. emily: ben and david, thank you

for hanging with us the last couple of days 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 and others. we will talk about new york versus silicon valley with our guest next. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio or the app. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: we have been covering all angles of the unprecedented testimony of facebook ceo mark zuckerberg in washington the last couple days. since the cambridge analytical scandal broke, it has put serious pressure on facebook stock, wiping out gains in 2018.

shares did recover a little bit over the last couple days. what about investor sentiment in the private markets though? here to discuss that and more, we are joined by our guests. two curious, obviously 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? beth: sure, of course we're watching it very carefully. right now i think the sentiment 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 you 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 regulation. i think he made a good point about increased regulation. the bigger companies like his are going to be able to weather

that storm. the smaller companies, that becomes a much bigger burden for them. and so there is a question there, but ultimately i don't see any sort of slowdown in private market investing. if not, the continued acceleration. emily: are these questions you're asking about in pitch meetings, how are you collecting this data, and is this really, not necessarily legal, what does but does this meet our moral standard of what is possible? beth: privacy has always been a concern. so those are questions we definitely ask, how do you use that data? facebook has taken the stance that they are a tool company and that piece was not important, was not part of their purview. it puts increased scrutiny on that as companies grow. emily: and is the public market

volatility, specifically in the , impacting privatempactin 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 still has not been that multibillion dollar exit. when will that happen? will that happen? beth: we are seeing continued acceleration. there has been a lot of buzz in the market about new york and how it will grow. and we have seen over the last five years a big increase not only in the number of companies that have been founded here, but the number of exits. we also have a nice pipeline of potential companies that will exit at multiple billion dollars valuations, whether it is oscar health or others, there are some

in the pipeline. so the question i get 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. mark's now you're first 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 idea 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 ies are here. we know that 40% of tech workers

here are women. 20% are people of color. that's a dramatic difference than silicon valley. so yes, i believe here is more it is a little bit more diverse. emily: but what still needs to happen? it is certainly not enough. beth: it is certainly not enough. i think that is true. it is still a developing market, and so we're seeing really nice trends here. and 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. 4.2 versus i think we will 4.1. continue to see that trend. emily: beth ferreira, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. emily: all right. coming up, we speak to one of the congressman who grilled mark zuckerberg on the hill earlier, representative leonard lance of new jersey. coming up next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: facebook ceo mark zuckerberg's marathon questioning before congress has wrapped. one of the representatives who gave mark zuckerberg a piece of his mind, republican representative leonard lance of new jersey. >> do you believe that that action violated your consent agreement with the federal trade commission? mark: we do not believe it did, but regardless, we take a broader view of what our responsibility is to protect people's privacy. >> thank you. 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 now from capitol hill. so representative lance, how satisfied were you with mark zuckerberg's testimony today? rep. lance: i asked him a direct question and, emily, he responded. i tend to disagree with his response. the federal trade commission is now investigating the matter.

i hope that the investigation occurs in a timely fashion. emily: so 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. and that would have a system that would be more protective of the privacy of the american people and you would have to opt in. and i think that is the way we should proceed. the browser bill is for all forums, not just edge providers, but also isp's. i think that is the way to proceed. emily: beyond the browser bill, is there any regulation that you would support, given that there are a wide range of topics at play here beyond privacy.

? rep. lance: i want to make sure 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. emily: now, speaker paul ryan 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. and emily, i think this is a personal decision based on the raisehat he wants to help

his children in janesville, wisconsin. this is a very cynical town and there are all sorts of explanations. i believe the speaker when he says he wants to be involved in the raising of his children with his wife. moving forward he is going to be working on behalf of republicans across the country through the year. and there will be a new speaker come 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, . he is 40 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 with that. emily: now back to facebook, going forward, i know you have the browser bill, but 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. coo of facebook, sheryl sandberg last week indicated , that she thought the company had not done as good a job as it should do, and that is obviously the case. and mr. zuckerberg in effect said the same thing, both to the senate yesterday into the house today. therefore, i think we should move forward with the browser legislation and we should not rely on what 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 really of people across the globe. because this not only affected citizens here in this country, but those across the globe as well. that is why the british parliament is investigating this matter as well. emily: i interviewed sheryl sandberg last week and she also

told me facebook's business model is not going to change. and this is a company that has built a multibillion dollar business leveraging data that users, that we, share with facebook. they said repeatedly they don't sell that data, but 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. pass, as 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 laws created by the congress of the united states. emily: do you have any concerns that facebook will not be ready for the midterm elections? you know, 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.

♪ rep. lance: i certainly hope it will be because we want to make sure the integrity of the process is protected. emily: we will leave it there. representative leonard lance, thank you so much for your time. ♪ welcome to the xfinity store.

i can tell you about... streaming the most free tv shows and movies on the go. yeah, and... xfinity internet. it's so fast! and you can save by... by getting up to 5 mobile lines included. whoa, you're good. i'm just getting started. ♪ simple. easy. awesome. come see how you could save $400 or more a year with xfinity mobile. plus ask how to keep your current phone. visit your local xfinity store today.

i am paul allen with the first word headlines. toshiba is likely to miss its chip-sale deadline. aimed atd delay a deal raising cash to offset losses at its nuclear arm. toshiba has seen no progress from beijing, but hopes to sell the unit to a consortium by make, even if china's green light is a few days late. sinceng kong dollar fell the range was imposed since 2005. the spot rate reached 785 on thursday according to new

york-based traders who saw the move. the hong kong monetary authority is obliged to buy the hong kong dollar if there are such orders. such moves would push up interest rates. global news 24 hours a day powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries. this is bloomberg. i am paul allen. this is bloomberg. markets, aon the mixed session, but asian stocks set to snap a three-day prize. thee may be back on with chinese ministry of commerce saying there have been no new goshen's yet on the trade negotiations yet. let's take a look at the market. the hang seng has erased gains. u.s. futures are pointing higher. isseoul, korea, the kospi

fluctuating and korean bonds taking a hit. forecast is being revised lower for 2018. the rupiah is slipping with indonesian stocks, perhaps investors digesting news on next year's presidential race. let's check in on the hibor, libor spread. the hong kong dollar knocking on the 785 handle. libor-hibor spread holding your the widest in the decade given excess liquidity in the local hong kong dollar market. a last look at hong kong, the hang seng near session lows, while volatility has subsided. energy stocks leading gains. cnooc jumping the most since december 2016, so the energy segment rising 2%. consumer shares in tech stocks weighing on the benchmark. $50ent shares have lost

billion in value in just under 30 days, but investors are betting it will pull through. the average 12 month price target on tencent remains of the highest in a year despite lower profitability. that is a check of markets in asia. ♪ is "bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. mark zuckerberg is time on capitol hill is over. a new bill has already been introduced to protect consumer rights. the consent act would require the ftc to create new online privacy protections for users of sites like facebook and google. to discuss the last two 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 growth over the last two days. 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 agreed to testify, subject 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 on two areas. one, it seemed the senate has a knowledge gap. many of the senators have not really used facebook or twitter , and it was apparent after they ask their first question. zuckerberg parried back. they were really unable to press him or get into depth. second, it's not zuckerberg's job to just clean up a mess. it is congress's job to regulate, to pass laws. , to have strong protections. 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 that we ought to do. right you ought to have a 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, who is trying to get information about you. you should have the ability to do that with all of your data. you should be able to inquire of facebook, twitter, google, cambridge analytica, to give you a report of your data. second, you should be able to update your data. third, you should be able to move your data, delete your data. europe has a comprehensive set of these rights. i think the european regulation goes too far, but we should take some of those principles and have a robust framework here in the united states. emily: that said, we are 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. and 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, and they need to assume responsibility. first, they fell short in disclosure. all the reports i read suggest , and they knew about this breach in 2015. notify the users. they didn't notify the ftc. they didn't notify the press. had they done that, a lot of harm's may have been avoided. secondly, they clearly did not have sufficient oversight. to be paid in rubles and have notians buying ads and knowing about that or not setting off alarm bells is deeply concerning. third, they allowed false propaganda to spread and go

viral on their social media site 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 s 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 which means they could never agree to the terms of service? rep. khanna: this is exactly why we need an internet bill of rights. for example, if you use firefox, the browser, facebook would never be able to do that because firefox contains your data. whereas if you use the safari browser, you could, 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 or coders, but they need to understand what these platforms do. we then need to have laws moving more towards firefox for users where users have the right to know what is happening with her data and had the data contained so facebook can't do these searches. it is why, for example, you can go on the internet, surf the internet and want to buy ties, and suddenly on facebook, even though you have never liked ties, you start seeing ads for marketing them to you. why is that? it is because facebook often has information that advertiser shared with them. i do think an internet bill of

rights would stop that from happening. emily: you said we cannot leave 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 to 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 at this point to make sure that doesn't happen again? rep. khanna: i do believe they are acting with good intent. but think about this, emily, they have grown from a platform of a few hundred thousand people to 2 billion people in 12 to 14 years. it's really an extraordinary platform and it's an extraordinary platform. and i don't think we can just rely on facebook's word. congress needs to do two things. first, we need to significantly fund the national science foundation m.i.t., carnegie mellon institutions so

, we can do the research in machine learning, in a.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. investments. secondly, we need to have a right -- individuals having the right to secure data and making sure there are ad disclosures. one senator has a bill along those lines so that facebook is required by law to comply, and that will put added incentive on their engineers to really 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 2018, before november. rep. khanna: you are right. unfortunately, given the speed with which congress moves, i am not optimistic that these walls are going to be passed before that. 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 erode public trust. these are platforms that are largely widely admired. i still think as i travel around the country that 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. so i think it is in facebook's self-interest and a lot of tech 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. emily: in the battle for e-commerce supremacy in india, walmart might be about to leave amazon in its wake.

india's leading e-commerce company is said to be leaning towards selling to walmart. both companies are bidding for a controlling stake at a $20 billion valuation. . that is $8 billion more than flipkart's 2017 valuation. it would give walmart a major stake in 1.3 billion people. coming up, sprint and t-mobile in talks for a possible merger again. we will bring you all the details. and take a look at this chart. this shows the net worth of facebook ceo mark zuckerberg, type greatly to facebook stock price. it has taken a hit following the cambridge analytica scandal, but you can see an uptick the last few days. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: a major partnership in the streaming landscape. spotify and hulu announced solidifying their partnership by offering a bundle of both of their services to consumers for $12.99 a month. for that price, you get spotify premium and hulu on demand. the 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 just five months after efforts to combine collapsed. at the time the issue is how was how control of the combined company would be shared. caroline, this has come up over and over again.

it never happens. what could make this time any different? caroline: well, that is the key question, and whether or not because he basically in agreement of price point. why did it fall apart in 2017? the issue was one of control. but this time the markets got excited all over again. this time we saw yet another pop. sprint's sharein price alone. that's a $4 billion increase in market capitalization. we saw t-mobile also got a pop of some $3 billion. so there is hope clearly, which and that is what is getting the market excited. they are hoping they can scale through this. combining the number three and number four player would help leapfrog it past at&t. it would have about 100 million users, still just behind verizon's 116 million users. you would get scale, the ability to be able to reduce their

overall cost synergies. and spectrum, they have an area of growth for 5g that would work by combining the two. the issue is of course regulation. this is what jeffries is talking about, the analyst over there once again highlighting regulation hurdles. it is bigger than the at&t time warner deal. so spectrum would have to be sold. emily: so obviously the owners of t-mobile, deutsche telekom, 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. pop beingother 40% asked by some analysts. premium is the only thing that really would allow the owner deutsche telekom to give over one of its main revenue-winning assets. this would either come added the

at a big cost for the main controller of sprint, or they would have to decide that he would cede control. in 2017, they could not strike either a high enough price or an agreement to give control to deutsche telekom, which owns is the biggest player in germany, which owns t-mobile. so we would have to see either some kind of give on either price or control. many analysts are saying you're likely to see control ceded. by softbank. why? because of the debt pile they have got. this shows you the debt distribution on softbank. check this out. check out that number, particularly at the bottom. $125 billion is how much they have in debt. this could bring masayoshi son a little bit more eagerly to the discussion table. emily: thank you so much. stay with me, we are going to

talk about what else, but facebook. next, european regulators were watching mark zuckerberg's testimony on capitol hill. we will talk about what faces the social media giant in europe. testimony there as well. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: cambridge analytica has announced its acting ceo has has steppedylor, down and return to his former job at the company, chief did officer. taylor was named acting ceo mark 20th when the board suspended person from the firm. this was after he was filmed saying controversial things. the privacy scandal has been at the center of criticism of facebook and has featured prominently in the two days of testimony this week by facebook ceo mark zuckerberg before congressional committees.

speaking of facebook, many reactions to zuckerberg's testimony over the last 48 hours, including those in the eu. europeans do not seem to be convinced. the german justice minister critical of the ceo. she took to twitter citing his pledge he would accept responsibility for his company's failures, saying apparently this has not been that important until now. joining me now in the studio is bloomberg's gadfly, alex. what is the reaction in europe over these last two days of testimony and over these last couple of weeks where they have taken a stronger line of on privacy? alex: in europe there is a far greater concern with privacy, particularly in germany, mostly for historic reasons. that has driven a new set of regulations. in europe, more broadly looking at facebook, there has always been a certain question mark about why does silicon valley

companies need so much data. the question is, are they shutting the farmed or well after the horse has bolted? that is, too little too late? emily: interestingly, zuckerberg has said he thinks that europe's are somethingules an should be applied around the world, and facebook will apply it around the world whether or not u.s. decides to do something similar. also interesting, that mark zuckerberg was one of the 87 million, so his data was potentially misused by cambridge analytica. what should we make of this leadership shuffle over there? give us some more context. caroline: i think we have got to remember that cambridge analytica still feels that it has done no wrong. we keep on hearing from the company throughout these two days of testimony. they have been claiming once again that we did not break any laws, is what they have taken to

twitter saying. they say they did not use this 87 million data treasure trove in the 2016 presidential election. they did not use it in an eu referendum. and this is why i think we are seeing still so much shuffling at the top of cambridge analytica. x had know alexander ni been caught on camera by a u.k. news organization, channel four news, 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. as we know, the chief data 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 home of cambridge analytica. emily: speaking of confusion, zuckerberg said something interesting today, that they are looking more deeply at cambridge university and whether there is something bad going on more broadly. what did he mean by that?

caroline:, shock, 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. and he is saying, yeah, questioning whether they are going to investigate researchers at cambridge university. was atr alexander kogan cambridge university when he was doing these particular apps, inventing them, getting data from their users. the users. notably, there was firm rhetoric coming from cambridge university in response. they said they were rather surprised that mark zuckerberg had an overal not known overallt 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 and whether they require further action from facebook. in response, cambridge university said, look, we have made them aware. not only did we write them a letter on the 21st of march

desiring them to provide evidence. they also said we have been publishing findings of our data and our research since 2013. you should know about this. emily: last question, we know the facebook cto will be testifying in the u.k. in a few weeks. we have 30 seconds left. 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. they had four minutes, five minutes each. that is very little. it meant it was hard to post follow-up questions. in the u.k. that will not be the case. there are fewer people in the select committee bit more time. , a 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. caroline hyde, alex webb, thank you both. that does it for this edition of

"bloomberg technology" in new york. a reminder, we are live streaming on twitter. check us out at 5:00 p.m. new york. that's all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not represent bloomberg, its affiliates, or employees. >> the following is a paid presentation for lifelock, a leader in protection. what happens if a the skills your identity? it happens to millions of americans. we asked people to share their stories. >> someone had opened up for the cards in my name. i didn't know if it was going to affect me being able to get an apartment. >> somebody hacked into my email