♪ emily: i am emily chang. this is the best of bloomberg technology, where we bring you the best of our interviews. coming elections worldwide, where despite the meddling outcry, facebook and google are the big winners of the night. the most influential tech investor from russia is not overly concerned about facebook and election meddling. we hear from yuri milner.

and amazon's potential hq2 and hq3. what is behind the decision to open two new headquarters in virginia and in new york. facebook received a tip from u.s. authorities about accounts that may have been tied to russia's internet agency there the same agency accused in february of trying to interfere in the 2016 elections. facebook says it removed the accounts and content. now that the midterm elections are over, what is the next big threat? we spoke with deputy director of the brennan center democracy program, lawrence norden on wednesday. >> there are two things we should be talking about. we saw this in 2016, they are at least two local avenues where we

see interference in our elections. one is with the election infrastructure. when it comes to the mechanics of the elections, things from most people, it was pretty good yesterday. there were some notable glitches but by and large, and look like a normal election. i did not see anything yesterday in terms of the infrastructure, the voting machines, the election that there was any kind of interference. emily: there were reports of electronic voting machines breaking down across the country and long lines. we can expect that people probably went back home or to their jobs because the could not stand in the long lines. what is the extent of that and why did it happen? >> i think it happened more than it should happen. where we did see it, in most cases, we can tie it to how old the equipment is. in the states that really saw problems, georgia is an example, south carolina, philadelphia, we

heard of examples with machines sometimes flipping votes. we heard that in early voting and on election day, where he wasn't registering to vote that the voter intended. machines breaking down, those kinds of things leading to long lines. i think that comes down to our lack of investment, and in all those cases, in texas as well, you have some really old machines that needed to be replaced. i haven't seen any evidence that it was a result of foul play. but the flipside of reliability is security. if we continue to use the systems, we do leave ourselves vulnerable in 2020, particularly these machines that don't have paper backups, as undersecretary of the department of homeland security, chris crabb, said, 2020 is the big game and we need

to prepare for that. emily: let us talk about potential for foul play. we got word from facebook that they took down the accounts in the middle of election day to react what exactly happened? >> on sunday night, facebook not a warning from federal authorities that it may have some of accounts on facebook and instagram that were links to the agency related to the 2016 election interference. facebook's latest tip comes from the federal government, they take them down, then the ira, or someone claiming to be them, puts out a post taking credit for what they have done. facebook removes more. after the polls close, they come out and link these accounts more directly to the ira. they are still not definitively saying if this is coming from russia. we have found other election interference-type campaigns using accounts on facebook the last few months that are from iran and domestic actors.

so far they think this is russia but we are not sure yet. emily: lawrence, both sarah and i have been in facebook's election war room where they have a team of people working across these potential threats. the familiar refrain is that actually, the most activity they saw was from within the united states, not from outside the united dates, despite this revelation of accounts potentially connected to the ira. how dangerous is that? how much of a threat is that? >> first of all, i should say, there is additional information about the ira. the u.s. attorney fingered a conspiracy at the beginning -- just about one month ago, saying that there was a conspiracy to -- with about a $10 million a year budget to post on social media, to buy ads that were meant to interfere in our elections. that is ongoing. the concern there is what it

might signal for the future. that is, it was not nearly what it was in 2018, compared to what we saw in 2016. my concern would be that they will come back in a big way ahead of 2020, when the stakes are much bigger. again, this other area of election infrastructure, while we did not see a lot of activity in this election, that we have to be worried again that they will come back in a big way in 2020 and we need to take the necessary steps to protect from that. emily: sarah, you have a new piece out today that talks about how even before the elections, facebook and google were the ad winners. how big? sarah: political ad spending is up across the board, and i think that ties a little bit into what we have seen in terms of a voter turnout, and the excitement and energy around from both sides,

trying to figure out how the election will affect us, given the divisive political climate right now. political spending is up, it has nothing to do with -- there has been a no fallback in spending related to some of the problems you have seen. one thing i would point out, though, is the transparency efforts from the company to try to make the spending more accountable to their users, to make it clear who is paying for what ad. there have been reports that have been saying that it was very easy to falsify facebook and they need to secure that system. there were reporters who went out and bought ads in the name of mitch mcconnell, isis, in the name of mike pence -- it is very easy to say the ad is paid for by someone who it is not paid for by.

emily: crytocurrencies had a high-profile investor, billionaire mike novogratz's merchant bank. bloomberg learned that the deal brought the value of the company at more than $1 billion. the company sells gear used to mine cryptocurrency and develop blockchain technology. still ahead, we have a sit down with yuri millner. why he is not concerned about facebook's existential crisis. and why he doesn't believe they're even having one. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: the most influential tech investor from russia is not overly concerned about facebook and global election-meddling yuri milner was an early investor in facebook and went on to invest in other companies like alibaba and xiaomi. we spoke to him at the "oscars of science" an awards even he

created along with mark zuckerberg and google cofounder, sergey brin. i asked him if after seven years, whether he thought the investment an exposure that the ceremony provides has really helped move science forward. >> we believe this prize can capitalize the public acceptance of science as an amazing achievement. we want to create a platform for scientists to become celebrities. similar to athletes and performers, entertainers. we all recognize, and we only need to look at social media to realize that scientists are not being celebrated. they are doing amazing things, but nobody knows about them.

that is our number one goal for this prize. the second goal is to inspire the young generation to choose science as their career and i think we are making progress there as well. emily: of the prizes being awarded tonight, what are the discoveries you are most excited about? >> i would say, maybe, i mean they are all exciting, but the one i really feel his special is the physics prize, which is being awarded to an incredible scientist from the u.k. who made a seminal discovery, special types of stars, but she was not recognized other to him of a discovery and now, the recognition is catching up with her. emily: i am curious about your thoughts on the private space

race happening now between either elon musk, jeff bezos, richard branson. i know you have always been fascinated by space. how do you see that playing out? >> we have a couple of initiatives there, too. we have a couple of initiatives to the one mentioned by elon musk and a, this one focuses on interstellar travel. they are focusing on the solar system, chemical fuels as a way of moving around the solar system, but i will not work in interstellar travel. so the initiative will funding is really trying to determine whether we have a feasible technology to move between the stars. the differences there are much bigger. emily: what is in progress? >> it is a 2-year-old initiative.

we have committed $100 million to fund research and development, this will take another five or seven years. by that time, will be able to tell you whether this is a feasible and realistic to achieve objective in the next 25 or 30 years. emily: so you are not company would elon musk and a jeff bezos necessarily? >> no, the universe is much bigger than just our solar system. emily: if you could put your bet on one of them, who would it be? >> they are all targeting -- they all have their different objectives. elon musk is mostly focused on mars, jeff bezos is focused on the near earth orbits and moving industries there, things like that. richard branson is focused on

tourism, i think. i think they're all different and the space is so big, we need more of those. emily: you started this prize with mark zuckerberg and you were an early backer of facebook. facebook is in an existential crisis right now. how optimistic are you about further growth in facebook, given its existential crisis? >> first of all i don't agree there is an existential crisis. i think it is a little bump on the road. instagram and facebook are both amazing products with more than one billion people each. you can call it an existential crisis. but i think facebook always was and is an evolving system, they have always been responding to challenges. the challenges they are facing can be solved through a combination of human attention

and artificial intelligence. so there are always bad actors who are testing different products, but i feel confident that this will be taken care of through technology. it is a technology company. emily: run by humans, who have to make the right decisions, right? so does it concern you that the privacy, the hacking, the potential election meddling, the fact that the funders of all the companies you all mentioned are gone. one of them even started a "delete facebook" movement? >> everything can be put in perspective. if you look at other companies in that position, the founders

of those companies, they stayed for an amazingly long time, compared to other acquisitions. they stayed long enough to ensure continuity and i think those products will do very well going forward. emily: do you think facebook and twitter and other companies like that are living up to the expectations of users living in a democracy? >> democracy is an open system. it has of this amazing, incredible achievement called free speech. there will always be bad actors who are abusing the gift that has been given to them. emily: i know you try to keep your head above politics, by the geopolitical tensions, has not

made your job more difficult as a bridge between russia and the silicon valley? >> i have never been a bridge between russia and silicon valley and i never wanted to be. emily: but in a way, you have created relationships and connections. >> you know, i built a company in russia, i think this company is doing exactly what other social media has done around the world, meaning this company gave voice to thousands of millions of people. then i started investing globally in places like china, india and the u.s. we have been fortunate to find some good investments.

so i think that it is not really about building bridges, but i think it is about pursuing global agenda. that is the way i see my mission. and by the way, science is another platform which is intrinsically global. our investments are driven, and i think it is spread out around the world roughly proportionate to the significance of technology, which is being built around the world. emily: if someone would say to you, did the russians meddle in the election, do you believe they did, how do you answer that? >> i read the same magazines and newspapers you are reading so i have no special expertise. emily: that was my interview with dst global founder, yuri milner. more interviews ahead. and up next, bloomberg's new economy forum in singapore. our exclusive interview with the

ceo of mastercard and what he has to say about competing technologies in china. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: disney will sell some tv channels in europe to win eu approval for the purchase of entertainment assets. from 20th century fox it plans to sell the history channel and other channels operated by the networks joint venture with hearst. regulatory approvals are the last hurdles for the disney-fox deal. the bloomberg new economy foreign kicks off this week in singapore. the event brought global leaders engaging with the world's most significant changes and challenges. bloomberg spoke with mastercard ceo specifically about the company's strategy for computing in china and with the likes of alipay and wechat.

>> if i were able to operate in china domestically, i would be a partner of them. the real problem right now is we're not even allowed to operate domestically in china. so this is a nonviable playing field. >> except it is not outside china in the sense that alipay and wechat, i just saw them in tokyo, they are expanding to companies outside. >> mostly, people overseas in those countries, have a pretty good digital offering and they're able to offer their own version. paypal is out there, there are different kinds of players in that field. >> do you not see them as a threat to your business? >> definitely in china. but here, nobody is a threat. >> it's just paranoia? >> exactly, it is always good to be the boss.

what i see is an opportunity to work with him as constructive partners. look what we bring. we can offer billions of people, millions of merchants with banks all over the world, with 200 countries, local and regional dealers. we can do cybersecurity, and quite honestly, almost all of these players come back to. us for partnership look at the mobile network operators across the world in africa. some time ago everybody thought they were just a payment method. they came to the conclusion that actually, we bring stuff to them that they don't get. we partnered with apple, we partner with google. >> you talked in your most recent conference call about the need for vigilance and the potential impact. of macroeconomic policy shift i wonder why, given that mastercard's trajectory has been so seemingly immune to economic weakness in the nine years you

have been running the company, for example. what are you worried about? >> everything. we have had a good eight year or 10 year run. >> good? >> if you think about the economy, it has really come out of the crisis and globally, inside of the last two or three years, we had synchronized global growth. i think macroeconomic indicators like a change in liquidity or in fiscal policy, that tariff system, these could change the way people travel, that small businesses trade. if that begins to have fun, the downstream effect of that could impact us. >> do you sense that is happening already? >> not yet. the u.s. is doing really well. consumer growth is still growing. i fear -- i don't really see that yet. the issue is more about -- am i concerned, yes i am. the fact that we grow also from the secular shift augusta -- of cash to electronic, that means that people spend less but they spend more electronically, that works in our way, too.

>> we have had a bond bull market for years, but we have not had a secular bond fair market, with rising long-term interest rates for three decades. what do you think will happen if in fact we are entering a bond bear market. how will that affect the economy? and spending patterns by your customers? >> i actually think what will happen if you get into this situation of long-term interest

rising, you get a yield curve that looks healthy. banks actually get more of profitability out of that yield curve. banks are the first end of this arrow quiver which goes into it getting people from cash to electronic. banks can take on the risk of managing that consumer and managing the merchant. so in a funny way i think the more profitable the banking system is, it helps create tailwind in the electronic payments trail. the other side of that is the issue of consumer confidence. will that get affected? it depends. it impacts their mortgage rate and reduces their ability to buy a home or pay a debt. that is the problem. on the other hand, if it makes them feel at we have a booming economy, then we would get a constructive consumer -- [indiscernible] emily: that was mastercard ceo, ajay banga at the bloomberg economic forum in singapore. still ahead, searching for not one, but two headquarters for amazon. not everyone is excited about it. we talk about the impact on housing prices and traffic. what the newly-democratic u.s. house means for tech policy. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang. this was one for the record books. while it wasn't a landslide, it is a victory and could mean changes in policy to big tech. house democrats are likely to push for a robust data privacy law and could reinstate obama era net neutrality rules when they take control of the chamber next year. wednesday we spoke with ryan with seleka and sam brody from washington. >> i'm looking to privacy primarily. net neutrality has obviously been a hot ticket item in the past but privacy is where republicans have signaled they

are willing to make a deal. they have extended their lead in the senate and donald trump was still a republican the last time i checked and this morning he said he might be willing to work with democrats to regulate tech companies, but to me i heard privacy and that is what i'm seeing. the question is how are the parties going to fight it out? how are the different chambers going to fight it out on how privacy enforcement is done? that is what i'm watching. then maybe we could turn to broadband infrastructure, net neutrality, antitrust. emily: i want to take a closer look at what he had to say about social media companies. long, heated press conference earlier today. take a listen to what he had to say. >> believe it or not, i'm one that really likes free speech, a lot of people don't understand that. i'm a big believer -- when you start regulating, a lot of bad things can happen. but i would certainly talk to the democrats if they want to do that and i think they do want to

do that. emily: the president, some of his associates, like his 2020 campaign manager, have come down hard on facebook and twitter and google for bias. the president also singled out amazon. read between the lines. what is the president saying? >> i think when it comes to tech, the area of social media is the one that will be most in focus, a rare point of bipartisan agreement on it comes to regulating any kind of industry and republicans and democrats will probably come at this from different issues pertaining to harassment, election interference, misinformation. you will probably be able to find some sort of consensus, who knows what it will look like or how easy it will be to institute.

a lot of these companies have already been grappling with these issues -- how do they get this content off their platforms, protect data. it remains to be seen when any of this will take effect or what the regulation will look like, what they will be required to do that they aren't already trying to do -- but this is really one area where you have both democrats and republicans working together. emily: as you reported, some of these tech companies are very active when it comes to lobbying, millions and millions of dollars invested. what has facebook and google -- what kind of money have they been pushing for. >> absolutely. that is something they have really ramped up in the last year, just a few years ago they were doing less than a quarter of what they are doing now. one of the things they are watching closely is antitrust scrutiny.

it is important to say that we don't know of any antitrust case out there but it is something that scares them and it is something they want to hold up. it's not one of those things they are just willing to monitor from afar and i have seen a lot of development on antitrust scrutiny. i have seen a lot of net neutrality and i expect to see a lot on the trade groups that have come out with privacy principles. i think a big part of that discussion going forward -- not least of all because they are looking at europe and california and are seeing that the policy landscape is already set. the question is can they make inroads to get something a little more congenial? emily: amazon's very public, year-long search for a second headquarters could be coming to an end. bloomberg has learned that they are close to agreements that would set up hq to end 3. one will be near arlington in northern virginia, the other long island in the new york

borough of queens. amazon is scheduled to make an announcement by the end of the year. we went through the larger implications for each chosen city with a fellow at the brookings institution's metropolitan policy program in washington, d.c., along with our senior executive, brad stone, who wrote the book on amazon "the everything store." >> amazon was wary of re-creating the same problems it had with seattle, a 5000 workers, the biggest employer in the city, overwhelming transit -- and if you are going to hire 50,000 people in another city it will probably bring up the same problems. they need areas of technical talent -- dc and new yorker the biggest cities for engineers -- and they probably decided they could go smaller and get the tax benefits and resources of talent but avoid the problems.

emily: andrew cuomo said he would change his name to amazon. these aren't already well-established metropolitan areas. what does amazon coming in and hiring amazon workers -- how does that change the city? >> these are two of the regions that could handle it better than most other candidates. they have a lot of talent already, there's a good possibility amazon will hire a lot of local people and bring some in from seattle. what we are concerned with is not just original impact but local impact -- where amazon chooses to open its site will have big impact on housing markets locally. emily: how would it impact the housing market? >> both new york and washington,

d.c. are tight housing markets but within those regions, long island city and those are the more growth friendly neighborhoods, both located outside the central business district with softer markets. they are also pretty growth friendly, they allow tall buildings. it's a different animal than if they went into brooklyn or neighborhood like georgetown. these are neighborhoods used to accommodating tall buildings. they don't have a lot of residential neighbors who are likely to push back. emily: brad, how do you imagine this will change the company, amazon? >> not a lot, it's already pretty decent with lots of decisions that work independently. working across the country, it's already a company where decision-making is decentralized. emily: talk about the longer-term implications. obviously it will take time for them to move in and hire workers and build up to that projected

number in each place if they are the chosen cities. what other longer-term implications will you be watching? >> certainly we will be looking to see how the regions adapted -- absorbed more workers, in particular, is the demand for housing going to be near the campus? in seattle a lot of the workers are within walking distance and these are neighborhoods that can absorb some people but probably they will need to build more and regions need to think about making zoning more flexible. they will also have pretty serious deferred maintenance. the new york city subway and washington's metro system have had leadership problems and need long-term investment. the upside potential is that amazon could put pressure on local policymakers and force them to investments better for existing is mrs.. emily: coming up, scooter sharing company line taps a ceo. we catch up with him next. plus, foxconn broke ground for the first time in the u.s. in

september. now it's in desperate need of a workforce. why the company could be turning to china's labor force, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in september, wisconsin became the home to the first u.s. foxconn factory. now less than two months later, they are struggling to staff the facility. "the wall street journal" is reporting they are considering bringing in personnel from china as it struggles to find engineers in the tight labor market. foxconn has denied this. unemployment in wisconsin reached a record low, hitting 3.9% this month, the lowest and 49 years. alibaba co-founder jack ma didn't hold back on his opinion

of the current trade spat. speaking in shanghai, he called the china-u.s. trade war "the most stupid thing in this world." this week, lime announced a new chief operating officer. he had been a member of the board of directors and was pivotal to investment in line. he takes on this new role and will continue to be a partner. he joined us to discuss on thursday. >> i think what we are witnessing as a society is something that i would call the great unbundling. for 100 years, the model of all cities has been, you own a car and you do everything. short trips, long trips, if you own a car you do everything with it. but the rise of mobile phones and smart phones really demonstrated something -- you can get a vehicle at the click

of a button in a moments notice. what we are witnessing is the unbundling of the car. you are now going to be able to get the right vehicle at the right time and micro mobility, these trips of three miles or less, are key components of that. emily: what does that mean for line? i know they don't just do scooters, but what's the vision for how it fits in? >> what's very clear right now is that there is huge interest in the micro mobility segment. just look at the growth. the company and its short history has done 20 million trips, and we are adding five markets per week. people are using them until they are basically in the ground. the reason is that it gets you where you want to go much faster in a short range. what they are often doing is combining it with some other

form of public transit -- they will use the scooter until the train station and then to the final destination and reverse it heading home. emily: do you see it expanding beyond scooters? >> yes. there's a big vision we have which is getting the right electric vehicle for the right trip at the right time. we are starting this in three miles or less because that is the hole in the market today but i think there's appetite for other types of electric vehicles. emily: what of the pushback from cities and residents who have thrown them in the ocean or set on fire? >> you definitely see people on instagram doing things they shouldn't. my general view is that -- these companies have been offering scooters for less than nine months and in that time, going to 20 million rides, there's an incredible appetite.

we will figure out how effectively consumers can have habits of where you ride on the street and how you separate traffic from scooters to increase safety. there is a huge amount we are figuring out but what is exceptionally clear is that people love these devices and i have never in 25 years of being in the technology business seen anything growing faster. emily: you don't think it's the next segway -- you hear people who are skeptical. >> no. i started my first company in 1993, and i remember the stories from when people were using credit cards online for the first time -- there were all these complaints about your credit cards are going to get stolen, you were going to have a tremendous amount of fraud -- that is a problem but now

everyone does it. the same as now. there is a lot of concern about how these vehicles will be integrated -- we will figure it out. people adore this type of transit and we are going to work to keep traffic separated. emily: the criticism of the cycle, there was no where to hang a person or groceries. do you see women riding these scooters? >> i don't know the demographic split is but i think we are in a period of discovery. it's clear right now that scooters are the formfactor -- you can criticize them all you want but people come off writing them with a smile. people will ride them again and again. we're in a period of discovery. should there be a handle? how do you make sure it has suspension? in this period of discovery we

are working rapidly to figure out what the vehicle type is. emily: the focus is good -- how do you you respond? >> google has this great addage of 70, 20, 10. 70% goes to the business, 20% to new business and 20% to moonshot. now that i am going to the inside i can see how that is allocating it's time. there is tremendous breathtaking ambition of what we can do as a company in terms of providing the right electric vehicle at the push of a button. 70% to the core business, 20% to the next adjacency, 10% into the moonshot. emily: gd also invested in uber but it got awkward. google started doing self driving and there was a whole

lawsuit -- how can you be sure it won't get awkward like that, given the relationship? >> my view is that uber was a set of circumstances if you look at the 350 ventures that google has, there's only been one conflict ever that happen to be the highest profile investment we had made. the data indicates it is unlikely. emily: we have been covering the google walkout and the changes to the sexual harassment policy. i know gd is financially independent, but what has been the message to employees? >> the message has been consistent, universal respect in basic human decency with a zero-tolerance policy that has been the norm and continually enforced. i don't think there's any change.

emily: do you think that will be enough to quell the anger? >> i don't know, but i know that you cannot stop trying to improve things. i don't know if anyone thing is ever enough but in the fullness of time that is the way real change is made. emily: that was joe kraus. coming up, 23 and me may be able to tell you which medications will work best based on your genetic makeup. we will hear from the ceo on their new fda approved drug response test, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: symantec surged the most in 17 years after the report that a private equity firm inquired about an acquisition. while there's no certainty the discussions could lead to a deal, the discussions are giving investors hope as the cybersecurity software maker

struggles to overcome waning consumer interest in antivirus program. that company has been on an acquisition spree. biotech company 23 and me has dna tests that tells people about their ethnic background and genomic health risk, now adding pharmacogenetics. last week, they got fda approval for a test that can tell customers how they will respond to medications based on their genetic profile. several other tests are on the market that 23 and me is the first of its time to get fda approval for direct to consumer sales. so why are some calling a dubious science? i sat down with the ceo at the breakthrough prize awards to discuss. take a listen.

? >> it's a huge step forward. one thing people don't realize, every single one of us metabolizes medication in different ways. sometimes it will work great for you and it doesn't work for me, or in the worst-case scenario, i have an adverse event and you are fine. it is an important science to bring forward. i'd say this is step one there will be many steps around pharmacogenetics and drug interactions. we don't have any imminent plans of when we will have reports out to customers. we will have to do more work with the fda. but it's an incredible step forward and i think my hope is that when i think about my dreams in five years, every drug coming onto the market should have a pharmacogenetics component. right now you see that in cancer therapies, but you don't see it in any others. emily: what drugs are we talking about here? >> we're talking about things like plavix, which is common. depressants, some people can take a staten and they get muscle pain.

psychiatric is one of the biggest areas. there are a lot of medications that have already known association. plavix is interesting, because the state of hawaii came out and changed some of their reimbursement laws because so much of the hawaiian population does not genetically respond, so they made some statements about it. that was one of the most interesting cases for me. but there are a lot of medications -- when we look at numbers, when we have the tests, we can see 30% of customers all had a significant response. emily: what is your response to the controversy? there are some people out there who are like you, and other saying it is dubious science. >> what's interesting, it reminds me -- we are so used to the controversy now, it's just a matter of time and education. the science is so well-established. i look at people -- the advisor, the professor at stanford --

this really great data out there about drug response. not in everything, 100% not in everything, but for the most part it hasn't been widely disseminated. it is not often taught in medical school. pharmacists are pretty up to speed, but there is a disconnect. i think that's the role of what 23 and me does. sometimes we help bridge gaps. there's information out there, but it is not part of the medical world right now. we are going to help make it a reality. and we are totally sympathetic the medical world will make sure people know what to do. emily: the fda is saying you can't use it to make medical decisions. >> it's a matter of time. there will be more analytical validity work for us to do, and we will be able to make it happen. but without a doubt -- there are medications today where we can

say, if you have this specific mutation you don't want to take it because you will have an adverse event. emily: what do you think the test will look like? what do you think they will cost? >> we want to make genetic testing affordable. we want to keep you engaged. with your genome, how do we keep you engaged? in some ways, on drug testing, there's a lot of -- this is an area you want to integrate with your physician, with your pharmacist. we are thinking about additional ways we can make sure this is most useful for our customers. emily: and what about the other companies? >> that's a great question. one of the things i've been tweeting is that there's this controversy -- 23 and me is a direct to consumer company, and we do not require physicians or genetic counselors. we have gone through the fda to prove that people can understand this information, that it is accurate and safe. but there is a whole world out there that is not regulated, and that's the laboratory develops

test world. those are companies that slap on a physician on top. a lot of times people don't know there's a physician. they are able to avoid going through the regulatory process. the fda put out a warning the day after our authorization specifically saying, warning that there are a lot of other companies that have not gone through the fda. some of those claims -- some of the claims definitely cause concern. they cause concern for our scientists. 23 and me is a strong advocate. the fda has the potential for innovating, and there needs to be one system that regulates all these companies together. ? emily: that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology." we will bring you the latest throughout the week. tune in each day. and "bloomberg tech" is live

streaming on twitter. be sure to follow are breaking news network. this is bloomberg. ♪ show me movies a grinch would love.

[ barking ] nu uh, i'm picking the movie tonight. [ whimpers ] be sad, i enjoy it. show me grinchy movies. oh, goody. [ whimpers ] mmm, fine! show me movies max would like. see the grinch in theaters by saying... "get grinch tickets" into your xfinity x1 voice remote. [ laughs ] uh oh. [ laughs ] something in my throat.

>> coming up, a special edition of "bloomberg best," highlights from the new economy forum in singapore. global leaders in finance and policy discuss the most critical challenges, and solutions that will shape the world going forward. >> i see the real prospect of an economic iron curtain. >> this fundamental problem of governance. >> you cannot apply the cookie-cutter world. >> from discussions to one-on-one interviews, listen in on real conversations aimed at producing real change.