simple. easy. awesome. click or visit a retail store today. selina: i'm selina wang in san francisco in for emily wang. coming up in the next hour, after a tumultuous year, tesla named two new board members to keep elon musk in check. will it work? plus, the future of social credit. -- credit scores. how it will shape society. and as we look back on some of the biggest stories of 2018, we will bring you highlights from those who spoke out to bring

gender diversity to tech. first to the top story, tesla announced kathleen william thompson joined its board. right at the deadline set for it to add two independent directors was ending. this is part of a series of steps to keep a volatile ceo in check after problems with his social media presence and a string of scandals. here to discuss, we are joined by crayton harrison in new york. tesla was required to add these two new directors. what exactly do we know about the process, vetting, to choose people.o particular crayton: this has been going on ever since the sec settlement. it has been intense and secretive. so we do not know who didn't make the cut. but i think the end result is you get a mixed bag. you get someone who is very similar spiritually to elon musk, a kindred spirit in larry ellison. a tech pioneer and a brash

silicon valley titan. and then you get somebody like kathleen wilson thompson who is a career corporate executive, many years at kellogg before she went to walgreens. and an hr executive who oversees thousands and thousands of employees who will bring rigor and discipline to the organization. selina: tesla's board has been criticized for having poor governance. now, larry ellison a close relationship with musk. he has been building up a personal stake in the company. does he bring the independence the board needs? crayton: that's a great question. technically, larry ellison is independent, although he does have a stake in the company. we have been talking to experts today that questioned the spirit of this pick, because he is somebody who has praised musk publicly. he is a huge fan not only of tesla but of spacex and the

whole musk empire. somebodygoing to be that will be in board meetings questioning and criticizing him when necessary? it's a legitimate question. selina: you said it earlier that he is spiritually similar to elon musk and this larger than life tech figure, but he has had his fair share of tech scandals. what exactly do you think he brings to the board? crayton: i do think despite his checkered past, remember he was an advisor at there are -- at theranos, but he has run a successful software company over the past three decades in silicon valley through a lot of changes in technology in the industry. he knows what it is like to be disrupted and to disrupt. that will be helpful at tesla. and he is inexperienced board -- he is an experienced the board member, he was on the apple board. that's the plus side of the

equation. selina: musk has been vocal about being critical of the sec and said they will rein him in and to change his twitter habits. are these changes to keep them in check? crayton: the other thing tesla announced was the process that they are doing to get three board members who will review the communications of the company periodically to make sure that they are handling them in the most appropriate way. that will be an additional step, those people will have that responsibility and will speak for those times when elon musk goes off kilter. selina: thanks for working hard over the holidays. crayton: thanks. selina: tech stocks are continuing to suffer after a bruising december, but 2019 will bring new challenges for silicon valley as lawmakers around the world voice new concerns over privacy policies and antitrust concerns. kevin cirilli joins us from washington for more. kevin, big tex has been under -- tech has been under the

microscope for many years with tech execs being hold multiple -- being called over multiple times. when will we see meaningful legislation? is 2019 the year? kevin: there are calls for it, but whether or not the bipartisanship will be able to find a crossroad remains to be seen. washington continued to take a bite out of the faang stocks earlier this year. that impacted the big three ceos from the tech companies like facebook's mark zuckerberg, as and the ceo dorsey of google. listen to what was said yesterday about the 2019 forecast. >> we think 2019 will be a year of greater regulation in particular on those two companies. google will be in a great position longer-term and we will power through. we think that facebook will have difficulties. we think facebook's best days are behind it. not just because of the privacy piece but the world is not a , better place because of

facebook. when people use it, they don't feel better. kevin: remember that democrats and republicans alike are questioning silicon valley, whether it's conservative bias or big data. expect that to continue. take a look at the headline risk for several of these companies. because if we take a look at the terminal, we are able to see that anytime these companies testified, we thought impact in the market. twitter performed 6% lower for their stock, which was also on a day when the s&p tech stocks were down 1.5%. facebook, though, getting a lot of bruising back in april. it slightly outperformed with a tech stocks did. selina: with privacy concerns, antitrust worries allegations of , bias, what is the priority for lawmakers in washington? kevin: all of those things.

i think that the hearings will continue, but it does not appear to be concrete legislation as of now that would have a path to the president's desk that he get -- he would be a book to get behind. when we talk to sources on capitol hill about areas of compromise that lawmakers might get through, we talk about pharmaceuticals, infrastructure, but not so much any type of new legislation pertaining to silicon valley. selina: ok, we will be catching up with you in the new year. kevin cirilli, thank you for joining. facebook ceo mark zuckerberg says the company has fundamentally altered its dna. in a post on zuckerberg noted friday, the giant is focusing on preventing harm in all of its services. he called it his personal challenge to make sure people have control of their information. he wrote that facebook spends billions of dollars on security each year and has 30,000 people working on safety. coming up imagine having your , behavior and purchases monitored by the government, and

rating that has a major impact on your life and finances. we take a look at the emerging social credit score system in china. if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio. you can listen on the bloomberg app, bloomberg.com, and in the u.s., sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

selina: china has a radical plan to influence behavior of its 1.3 billion citizens. it wants to grade them based on aspects of their lives to reflect on how good or bad a civilian they are.

supporters say it will make for a more considerate and civilized law-abiding society. but critics say it is heavy-handed and intrusive. david it joins us to weigh in. david, this social credit system has garnered a huge amount of attention since it was announced a few years ago. it has been described as dystopian. how exactly does it work and what is the role out time line? david: the first thing to understand is that a fica score is your personal credit history. this doesn't exist in china for most consumers. a lot of the private technology companies like alibaba, tencent, and others that sit on transactional data with their digital laws and commerce platforms saw an opportunity to build a credit score or trust system from the ground up for their consumers. this encompasses far more than your personal credit history but also your purchase history level , of education, and for the consumers, you can do more with it than what a credit score would be able to allow you to.

selina: alibaba has its own credit scoring platform for buyers and sellers. and to the chinese government is trying to create their own system. i think there has been confusion between the two. so is the government going to be incorporating private sector data in this national plan? david: they but a lot of those may, plans have been overblown. the government has not done much except say they have considered doing one. a lot of these private companies are building one with their own current platforms. so you mentioned sesame credit, which is the widely used one because it has a tight integration with used mobile payment platform. if you have a high enough credit score, you can unlock a bike without a deposit if your credit score is high enough. so it is more of a business decision rather than a government decision. selina: for this national credit scoring system what are

, the metrics that determine if you are trustworthy or not? david: i think that is where a lot of the controversy is. a lot of these metrics taken into account are where you went to school, do you have a criminal record, have you repaid your student loans. a lot of these data points in the u.s. are considered as personal privacy issues. we have to understand that if you don't have a credit history, there's no other way to assess someone's trustworthiness. selina: what about how it is has played out so far? there are reports that people are being banned from air travel and others. david: acl was recently banned for making certain purchases -- a ceo was recently banned for making certain purchases because his company was bankrupt. in china, i believe they are starting to try to build this trust system not only within businesses, but with consumers.

selina: this has garnered a lot of attention. what are the dangers that this will create a society of the haves and have-nots? and does the government have any sort of recourse if they are falsely accused. david: in the u.s. credit card , penetration is around 80%. in china, it is 12%. in the u.s. we also have a lot of folks that fall outside of the purview of fica scores. 62 million americans with a little credit history 30 million , americans with no credit history. whereas in china, because you are able to build a credit score system from the ground up, it is morelly building a lot inclusive of a credit system, because everybody can have access to its based on certain behaviors. selina: you make a great point that there was no pre-existing credit scoring system in china, so they have to build it from the ground up. so how would you compare and contrast it to the system in the u.s.?

david: certainly a lot of cause , of concern with data points, but if executed correctly, it could be a learning point for u.s. companies. for example, these underserved populations, if we can take into ficant data points that did not take into account, we can serve a much broader pool of consumers. when we started doing personal loans and student refinanced mortgages, we took into account data points that banks didn't like where you went to school, where you worked, and we can serve a population that usual banks could have served. selina: if this goes over well in china, how do you see private companies and governments learning from it? david: i definitely think that there are a lot of learning points for companies all over the world. in the u.s., there are a lot of people who don't have access to products we would deem as basic because we have no way to underwrite those people. i'm not suggesting this, but if you could take into account that someone has paid their parking

tickets, whether someone has made good purchasing decisions, and offer them products based on that i think you can build a , much more inclusive ecosystem. selina: are we seeing tech companies doing this now? facebook has a patent allowing lenders to reject your loan based on the credit worthiness of your friends. david: i do not think they have done anything with it. companies file for patents on all the time and don't do anything with it. we're certainly seeing tech companies early and late stage using nontraditional ways of underwriting and doing credit products for folks that traditional banks would not touch. so for example, a firm doing installments for purchases, allowing people to pay in installments and the interest rate is dependent on things that are not just your credit score. so i think a lot of u.s. companies are taking note of what is happening in china. selina: shifting gears given the , recent trade tensions and the huawei cfo arrest, are you

seeing that sort of appetite of u.s. startups to expand into china diminishing? david: i do not think it is diminishing but there are a lot , of obstacles in place. if you look at google google , recently put their project dragonfly on hold, and a lot of the upstream equity investors are tightening up. and that is certainly affecting us. however investing in the u.s., , we are not seeing too many affects. that being said, a lot of the regulations and scrutiny associated with that, we are being more careful with our investments to make sure that they do not run afoul of scrutiny. selina: what are your priorities for next year given the changing landscape, geopolitical tensions? david: at dcm, we invest in china, u.s., japan, and korea. we will continue to do that. we see a lot of opportunities, both on the consumer and enterprise side, and we will continue to look elsewhere in other growing areas like latin america and the middle east.

selina: thank you so much for your time, david. staying on asia, bloomberg intelligence analysts take a look at the biggest scenes -- themes dominating the markets in 2018. >> we are thinking that the outlook will be challenging, after many years of breakneck growth in the industry. it will be driven by a combination of sectors. the first one is the macroeconomy slowdown affecting some of the sectors like advertising for example. ,>> the biggest concern is growth driver. it will be very challenging. we know that prices already started trending sluggish. and it shows weakening. >> tencent is still the biggest internet company in china. loved by ally well retail investors. it's online game segment will be probably under challenges and

in but we see online games 2019, approval potentially re-stopping in china, but the regulatory sense on online games could be tough. >> softbank is one of the largest ipos in recent years. and with a that, that leaves investors interest, especially , and they willrs spend more time focusing on this sector because of the dividend yields. >> companies better positioned for 2019 are those still operating under platforms like -- for example. 58.com. these companies could be better positioned for 2019. selina: coming up, will the smartphone companies that led the way in 2018 remain on top and 2019? we will discuss that landscape, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

netflix is giving a chief content officer a 50% increase in pay and 2019. that puts them into the ranks of some of the highest paid media moguls with in base $18 million compensation. another $13.5 million in stock options. this decade as one of the most powerful figures in hollywood, presiding over a budget of as much as $8 billion to produce or acquire exclusive programming for the video streaming giant. now, the global smartphone market is expected to become more saturated in 2019 as hardware enhancements and new software features drive gains. will the stalwarts like apple and samsung hold onto customers? john butler is a senior analyst from bloomberg intelligence and joins us from new york. john, given the saturated market, hyper competitiveness,

what can we expect to drive growth in 2019? john: we have a couple of things coming that i think will really drive sales in 2019. one of them is coming from samsung which, hopefully earlier -- early in the year is going to produce a smart phone with a foldable screen. think about a device that can open up like a book and present you with a screen that is twice the size of say your standard smartphone today. that's number one. i also think number two is that we will see the initial introduction and advent of 5g smartphones. it should be an interesting year. selina: you mentioned the full oldable smartphones 5g phones, , and upgraded augmented reality features. which innovation will be game changing next year? john: the one that will quietly change the game will be augmented reality. for those that don't know what

it is, is the overlay of digital images onto an image of the real world. so, you essentially look at reality through your smart phone camera, but can then begin to pull in digital icons into the field. you know it has broad utility. ,it really does. and it is beginning to creep into our lives ever so slowly. amazon is using it as a selling tool. if you're looking at a couch, for example, you can import an image of the couch onto your smart phone screen that is looking out into your living room, so you can test drive the couch and see how it looks in the living room. one small example of really where we are headed with augmented reality. selina: john, your research for bloomberg intelligence shows the premium smartphone market has been outperforming the mid and low tier market. what is driving that? john: number one, you have had a

big change in formfactor with he the iphone. x it's a whole , different phone for apple. it's a much better device with facial recognition, but they have been able to really get a larger screen onto less real estate than the older devices. i think those two things have really struck a cord. apple has done well. and frankly all of the chinese , vendors, whether it is hauwei or others, they are coming out with higher end phones that are really good devices. everyone is upping their game, and consumers are responding by paying up for the phones. selina: that's a good trend for apple, but what do you make of the recent announcement that they are no longer reporting unit sales and the escalating trade war with china that may impact unit sales in china. ? john: i was shocked to hear it. i think it's a huge mistake from

a stock management standpoint. iphone really drives the whole revenue equation at apple and understanding how units and pricing are trending is a big part of the story. so them pulling back saying, we will no longer report those metrics tells me that we are in for frankly some softer sales ahead with the iphone would be my guess. selina: thanks to john butler with bloomberg intelligence. coming up, tech's gender cap from uber to -- "bloomberg technology" is livestreaming on twitter. check us out @technology, and be sure to follow our global news network, @tictoc, on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

selina: this is "bloomberg technology." i'm selina wang in san francisco. for the past 18 years, linda -- melinda gates has led philanthropic ventures. now she has quietly entered the venture capital world and she is focusing her investments on women and minorities. emily chang sat down with her on bloomberg studio 1.0. melinda: we do not have enough women ceos who are getting

enough funding, so less than 2% go to women and less that 1% ago -- go to women of color. in this space, i thought, what is the best way to use capital to move things for women? that's when i started to say any i need to move money into venture capital spaces, and do it smartly. the first goal is to make money. but i wanted to go behind funds like aspect ventures by jennifer , who is looking at these opportunities and have a thesis around, my gosh, there are some a opportunities there if we go towards funding some of these women's businesses. emily: you mentioned that you care about returns. you are doing this not as a handout. some lps have said that all we care about our returns. they may not be the best people, but they have the best returns. what you have to say to those

people? melinda: i would say you need to , look at what trends are coming and how you will address them. within them are 85% of consumer dollars spent. women control 70% of financial decisions in the house, so if you are not investing in products going toward females or women led companies, you're missing an opportunity. because you just don't see it. i would say the same thing about underrepresented minorities. because after about 2044, this country, how we think of minorities today, adding up all those groups, they will be the majority. you are leaving money on the table. good luck 10 years from now. emily: how much of an impact can lps have and should help ease they have in galvanizing change? melinda: i think that we definitely need lps to make those investments. they not only need to make the investments, but they need the network. women do not have that level of

the funders. same thing for underrepresentated people of color. they do not have a seat at the table. or people do not understand their products. so it is willing to take a risk a few times. emily: i interviewed the cofounder of twitter for my book and i asked do you think online harassment and trolling can be a would be such a problem today if women had been present at the beginning of the company. he said i don't think it would , be such a problem. we weren't thinking about how our product could be used to send rape or death threats. we were thinking about amazing things that could be done with twitter. how different do you think the world or internet might be if women had been present when some of these early platforms were created? melinda: i think if there was a woman there at the table, and it would take several who had a real voice and real power they , would say, have we thought about this? have we thought about the rape scenario? if you look at the number of women who faced violence, even in the u.s., it is huge. it's hard to me that there are

women at the table who have power, that she would not bring these issues up. emily: do you think the me too movement could backfire? melinda: i think there are places where they have already backfired. we have to be careful. if men in the women's group decide to separate in terms of when they have meetings or men will not take a meeting a loan with a woman because they are afraid of been accused of something, that is not good. we have to have a real dialogue about what could create change. and what i see with the me too movement is that we are still at a point of reckoning. there is still more to come out. you're seeing industry by industry. that's reckoning has to happen and then i think we will start to get the ok "what do we do , about?" it?" we are still in the reckoning of recognizing phase and solutions. emily: so you think there will be more stories?

melinda: undoubtedly. you are seeing it. it is playing out industry by industry. when i see something like times up, i'm incredibly optimistic. whether you are farm or other industry, you have a place to go to get help. not just that you can happen to a close friend, but you can go to legal help. to have some recourse. that will make a difference. emily: how do you root out bad behavior in a way that is not draconian? melinda: i do not think there's one solution that could fit all. i think we put a lot on the sole woman to make change. it's too much. it needs to be part of management and part of the board-level conversation. and then it has to be measured all throughout the company, how are we actually doing on these factors? either i think that is the only way that you can get change -- and i think that is the only way that you will get change. selina: that was melinda gates, cochair of the bill and melinda gates foundation. uber has been trying to rebuild its reputation after a tumultuous year led to the ousting of several key

executives. a new ceo has taken over. emily sat down with uber's regional manager to discuss what has changed. >> i have been lucky and i have had a remarkable experience at uber. since the day i came on board, i have been working for an incurable woman that is leading the east coast. we had an order that was 50 have a 50 men and women, that was really -- 50-50 of men and women, that was really supportive of different backgrounds and styles. it was a place i felt like i to be honest id felt it was a place i could come to work every day and fight for what is right. i think the disturbing thing we have all realized over the course of our past year is not everyone in our organization can say the same thing. and so it has been invigorating

in a way to say that this is our mission. and i have been deeply involved in ensuring that our culture and norms and business practices going forward are ones we can all be proud of. and i think the exciting thing is that we have teams in the company who have shown that we can grow and scale in a way that we feel proud of, and now, it's up to us to ensure that every single team across the company can say the same thing. i'm really excited about the progress we have seen to date. emily: you were obviously hired by travis and there has been a big change over, so i am curious how your work and mandate has changed under a new ceo and if you have seen an actual change in the culture as a result of his leadership? >> there has been a distinct change in our company, in the mandate from the top, and in the direction we are going, even strategically.

i think we have acknowledged that we need to articulate and hold our teams accountable to doing the right thing every time, even if it is something that is going to cost us a bit more, especially in the short term. emily: where is the balance of power between growth and profitability. talk to us about where the pendulum is and what you have been told about company priorities. >> we need both growth and profitability. any company does. especially if it is optimizing for the long-term. we need to ensure that we are continuing to invest in long-term growth, but ensuring we are doing so in a sustainable way. i think the challenge of any business leader is to hold those two things in top of mind at the same time helping navigate , through those trade-offs so we are consistently putting the long-term interests of the

company first and ensuring we are setting ourselves up for long-term sustainable success. emily: the competitive landscape has also changed. there's some data to show that lyft gained riders as uber was going through this cultural transition. what do you think you have on the competition, and are you at all concerned about the threat of lyft? >> look, i think riders and drivers always have a choice about using uber or not. they can use another ridesharing platform or choose to walk or some other alternative. at the end of the day, what we find it exciting is the opportunity for people to be able to leave their keys at that second buy car, or never buy the first car to begin with and consider using options that are more

sustainable for cities at large. when we do that, we will need fewer land in our cities allocated to parking. we will have less congestion on our streets. we will have safer roads because we do not have people getting behind the wheel drunk, and we will have greater opportunities for drivers who need it. as we think about some of the lessons we've learned over the past 12 months, it is to ensure we are consistently delivering on the promise to riders and drivers so that we have a better option than anything else out there and they are consistently coming back, they have a high-quality, safe, affordable ride on the riders side. and that this is a copilot they can rely on on the driver side. i think we are making strides in that direction and we will not stop until we are really getting it right every time. selina: that was emily chang with uber's regional manager, meghan joyce. coming up, companies are attempting to disrupt higher education, claiming the cost is not necessary. could tech bring down the cost

of tuition? diversitytech has a problem and ellen pao is calling for people to be fired for real change to happen. this is bloomberg. ♪

selina: in july, harvard university's president stepped down in order to join aboard a directorshe board of at goldman sachs. emily chang interviewed her just before her departure about the fundraising and rising cost of education. >> this is such an important question and one we all struggle with because we compete based on the experience we can offer

students, the resources we can offer faculty for their research and teaching. we do not compete on cost. and so the way higher education is organized financially, there is not that sense of pressure to bring down costs. we have brought down price by funding financial aid so harvard,ntly so that in the college any student who , comes from a family that makes less than $65,000 a year has to offer no family/parental contribution to tuition, room and board. so it is very accessible in terms of what it costs the students, but in terms of what we do, that is something we need to get under control and address more fully. technology is going to help with that. what can we do online to supplement or replace certain

parts of instruction so we can leave to people the parts we absolutely need people for and streamline some of the other parts -- i think we will see some of that coming forward, but constraining cost is going to be a real challenge for all higher education. emily: there are a lot of companies trying to disrupt higher education and saying that a harvard degree will not matter by the time my children go to college. how do you respond to that? how does harvard stay the best, the gold standard? >> we have to make sure that we attract the best talent. that is why affordability is so important. i also believe that the experience -- and you have had this experience so maybe you can testify to it -- the experience of being in that community, living in that community with other students from whom you learn probably as much as you learn in any class you take -- that is the core of what a harvard education really is.

so that at its best the residential dimensions of harvard education are central to the full experience of what it can be, and that is not going to be disrupted by a simply online experience. you can learn a lot from an online experience, but what you are learning is about the subject matter of the online experience. you're not bumping into somebody in a corridor and finding that they challenge you in ways you never expected or the ways that they are different from you expand your understanding of the world. that is such an important part of what happens both inside and outside our classrooms. emily: there is a sense from the heart of silicon valley that stanford has surpassed harvard, especially when it comes to technology and becoming a feeder for the biggest and most powerful companies in the world. is that a fair assessment? >> of course not. [laughter] of course not. we are different institutions,

and i think that is a great strength of american higher education, is that there are different emphases and different opportunities that institutions like stanford and harvard can offer. i do not want to sit and have a stanford/harvard competition in front of you and say "oh, we are so good at this." we have a growing presence in technology and in fields of engineering. our students concentrating and engineering have tripled in the last few years, so that is an area we are paying more attention than we did a decade or two decades ago, but we also have such deep-seated strengths in life sciences and the humanities and the arts, and such a commitment in social sciences, and the endeavors that are not simply involved in technology. and we compete very successfully with stanford for students and for faculty, and so we are very pleased to be harvard, and we

expect to remain harvard. emily: what is harvard doing differently to train the worker for tomorrow? do you think harvard needs to do anything differently to arm workers with the skills necessary to succeed in a modern economy? changes there have been in how we approach education over the past decade to respond in part to what you are saying, which is we find our curriculum much more oriented and our students much more eager for hands-on experience in a variety of ways. engineering is obviously a discipline that has a lot of hands-on dimensions. our students are also very interested in the arts and the creativity and innovation that are part of making things, and, as you learn. we also see students much more involved in wanting to solve problems, to have an effect on

the world, so there tends to be many more internships or public service opportunities tied into curricular offerings, doing and thinking are intertwined much more closely. it used to be you thought in college and you did when you left. now those things interact with one another, and that seems to me and extraordinarily important part of readying students to take on the challenges that they are so eager to embrace. selina: that was former harvard president drew faust. much more ahead. this is bloomberg. ♪

selina: the former ceo of reddit was one of the first women to speak up about sexual harassment in the tech industry. in 2015, she became one of the first women in tech bringing a lawsuit against her former employer. she has tackled harassment on

reddit as the cofounder of project include. emily chang sat down with her to discuss. ellen: more of this backlash against change, and it is trying to fix the problems that have taken place the last several decades in tech where we have created systems that favor homogeneity. how do we change it? it requires taking down those systems and really trying to catch up, and also just transform how you do things. that is uncomfortable for people who succeeded in this system. emily: you have suggested people need to be fired in order for real change to happen. who should be fired? ellen: i think that people who do not believe women and people of color and people who are older and people who are immigrants are equal employees who are able to do the same work and have these innate biases against them should be fired. if you cannot treat your coworker equitably and fairly,

you really have no place in the world. emily: how do we know who those people are? i mean is this a matter of if , you have not gotten results or if you have not tried, or if you have made an untoward comment? like how do we identify the , people who are not doing enough? know if it ist really not doing enough. i think that there are people who are really saying terrible things about their coworkers, sharing private information about their coworkers so their coworkers get attacked by outsiders. those people should be fired. there is no place for those people who are enabling attacks on your coworkers in the workplace. you want people who believe in your culture and if they do not believe in the culture and they show that, they do not belong. they are not promoting your workplace ideals. they are not on the same page. and they are making it harder for others to do their job. emily: you were ceo of reddit for some time. you made dramatic changes that the researcher shows actually

cut down on hate on the site. and one of the questions i ask in my book is how might the internet be different if more women were involved in creating and designing these systems in the first place? do you think online harassment and trolling would be such a problem at reddit or facebook or twitter? if women had been there? ellen: i think it is unfortunate that they were mostly started by white men and run by white men for so long and most of the engineering teams were white men. nobody ever experienced this the -- it in the way that people of color or who were women or non-binary experienced it. if you don't experience it, it's hard for you to address it, and there was not anybody calling attention to these problems. you see it on other platforms, too. like nextdoor and airbnb are who are now trying to fix problems that came from a homogeneous workforce, and now they are trying to bring in changes to make sure their

platforms are more open and more inclusive and do not reflect the biases that their early employees did not experience. emily: let's talk about this facebook. what do you think can be done to fix these issues at facebook? it is a big question, but i know that you have some thoughts. ellen: i really think that if they brought people into their leadership team, onto their board, who were actually part of the executive team, who were underrepresented, people of color, that it would be transformative. if they had more diversity at the executive level, it would make a huge difference in how people understand issues because it is coming up at every major decision point versus , after-the-fact bubbling up through the organization and being quashed at various points. i don't know exactly how facebook works, obviously, but from what i have seen in having

this team at reddit where people were experiencing harassment, people who were deep in the product and were able to share their experiences, that really helped us make change. like they really understood we , should start small, focus on one issue at a time, and these are the issues and this is the order we will go in and do things very methodically. i don't know that there is somebody who understands these issues of harassment and the toxicity on their platform the same way somebody, especially like a woman of color, would understand. selina: that was emily chang with project include ceo ellen pao. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." we will return with new shows in the new year. remember, bloomberg technology is live streaming on twitter, check us out at technology and follow our global breaking news network at tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid advertisement from time life. robin: my name is robin williams. announcer: hold onto your hat. robin: for those of you on acid, this is a frisbee. announcer: the time has come for an epic event. it's mind blowing. it is jaw-dropping. most of all, it's genius. >> genius. >> genius. >> genius. announcer: time life probably presents a once-in-a-lifetime collection decades in the making. "robin williams, comic genius."