♪ >> welcome to "the best of bloomberg technology." a ride hailer gears up for what could be the biggest u.s. public debut so far this year. we will discuss the prospects with some early investors. plus u.s. state officials are in the early stages of a probe into google focused on antitrust and privacy in the largest coordinated effort to take on big tech since the 1990's.

we will hear from the attorney general of texas. wake of thethe bumpy rollout of healthcare.gov, now it is stepping up efforts to give americans better access to government services. first our top story. lyft is picking itself as a fierce challenge to bloomberg and investors are taking a look at the company ahead of its $2.1 billion debut next week. but can the startup when them over? we take a closer look. the year that so many highly anticipated tech companies plant to go public. out, them, two stand arrays race best described as focused versus frenzied, frenzied being uber. in gauging and rapid global expansion, food delivery, bike sharing, self driving cars, and flying taxis. plus, of valuation that bankers say could sort to $100 billion.

lyft, on the other hand, may best be described as focused. launched in 2009, it grew out of whichfounders start up, connected college students looking for rides. it is focused almost solely on growth in the united states. going from less than a dozen cities in 2009 to 95% of the country in 2019. claims that controls 39% of the u.s. ride-hailing market, and it is just starting to go international, launching in toronto and ottawa city in 2018. it is keeping up with its top rival by giving in on scooters yes, it isaring, and also working on self-driving car's, buying blue vision labs and beefing up staff working on economist technology to over 300 people. they have already courted a slew of major investors but as it prepares to go public it is

trying to learn more, hoping to impress by doubling the right account to one billion in less than one year. to $2.2jumped up 541% billion from just 243 million in 2016. with an estimated valuation of $25 billion. , and well lift was second out of the gate to launch, it is first in line to go public, weeks or months ahead of uber. in an increasingly volatile tech market, the hope is investors will tail lyft's ride. this week, we also caught up with an early investor and lyft board member. both partners at the early stage venture capital firm. ♪ >> on the very first pitch that they came in with, it is a pitch that i still have francine: and

i like showing it to stanford students. they talk a lot about why transportation was so critical to the fabric of the united states and they started off with canals and went to railways and showed highways and how actually the physical landscape of the country changed and the economy changed as a result. the question they posed was what is the next transportation revolution and do you want to be part of it? my answer to that was absolutely yes. there was nothing else in the market that was a transportation revolution. emily: uber already existed at this point, though, right? >> no, it did not. >> and it was a black car service at the time, it was not about ridesharing. when uber first launched, even when they launched, there was still a pocket of time where

the only competition we could find in the market was zip car. emily: what did you see? >> when you invest as crazy to early as we do -- too early as we do, you have to have an impression of where the company is going to we had the idea that the internet lets you locate something that is unused and the smartphone would let you locate something that is unused and moving, so we were just looking for network transportation. when logan and john walk into the room and describe their vision for how things could be, we are like, "those are our guys." emily: this is a company losing almost half as much money as it is making. how do you justify that to public market investors who are going to buy in now? >> i think this is really about the long game. we always return as early stage

investors to the origin story and why nine years ago, we were complete buyers and why we are still buyers of what the vision is. i think the really unique nature of this business is that this transportation revolution still has not played itself out. there is so much more to be done and so much more to go. if you think about the potential of network transportation as mike talked about it, the ability for people to not just share rides but figure out all the different ways in which they can get from point a to point b, if that a clues -- if that includes an autonomous vehicle or not, there are so many ways in which we will be adding and think about transportation that will change where people live and how they make choices about where they go. we have just scratched the surface about what is possible and that is my excitement for the future.

emily: it is not uncommon for a tech company to go public and still not be making money, but lyft is saying they may never make money. why should investors buy into that? >> i don't really want to speak for lyft or their numbers too much, especially in a quiet period -- emily: oh, please do. >> a way i look at some markets, the product is so compelling and -- the way i look at some markets, the product is so compelling and the dark evaluation is so compelling, it will be satisfied. the first time you took a lyft, you knew instantly it was going to be a success. when the market will be satisfied, sometimes the best way to create value is to move very quickly. our belief is that

transportation is being reinvented and that it is a race to be a category came. in the early days, value gets created by gaining market share, by satisfying demand. that's not always the right strategy, but i think in this case, the companies that have been aggressive and moved quickly have won over the ones that did not. emily: i agree it is something that users want. it is something i want. i have used lyft several times. that said, what is the value of it? who is to say this is not the next snap where you go public and a year later, it is worth 1/3 of what it was? >> again, it's a quiet period and there's very little i can say about the company specifically and the financials specifically, but i kind of return to the notion of when you look at the original pitch, you look at the founders' manifesto and the founders' letter, there

is this incredible consistency to why they built this business. often times, mike and i are looking at a company and we are investing in businesses that we believe will be here not just 10 years from now, but 25, 50 years from now. we call these thunder lizards, legendary businesses, whatever you want to call that. we want to see companies that have this incredible length in terms of story that they have and one of the things we have seen consistently is these companies that have that characteristic have this storyline to them that is consistent from not only day one, but it goes throughout the length of the story of the business. when you compare these documents i've seen, there is this incredible story of why this

company needs to exist and why we believe that investing into these founders -- you know, nine years ago was a good idea. that story is so consistent, and that creates an authenticity that we absolutely love. >> coming up, the u.s. attorneys general are looking closely at whether google present an antitrust case. our interview with the top lawyer for texas, attorney general kim paxton. that is next. and if you like bloomberg next, check us out on the radio, listen in on the apple around sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ september, and u.s.

attorney general jeff sessions called a meeting of state attorneys general to discuss whether google and facebook were suppressing conservative views. now we know that a smaller group of those state officials have begun looking into possible antitrust or consumer protection violations. this comes at a time when presidential hopefuls like senator elizabeth warren are calling for a breakup of big tex firms. a rallying cry that is even reached across the aisle the texas senator ted cruz retraining her criticisms of facebook, saying "first time i've ever retweeted elizabeth warren, but she is right. big has way too much power to silence free speech." to discuss, i spoke with ken paxton on monday. ♪ >> we have serious concerns about both of those issues you've talked about, with antitrust, the power and the wealth of those companies, we have a history of looking at those issues in writing up companies that are too big and we also have concerns about privacy, the lack of transparency in how they collect

information and how they use the information. consumers are not being paid for this. do are also vulnerable populations that are getting their data gathered and we have no protection for them. >> so google did release a statement in response to this will, saying that privacy and security are built into all of our products and we will continue to engage constructively with state attorneys general. thinkind of action do you needs to be taken against google? >> we need to get more information. a lot of the questions are answered very generally about analytics, and there's not a lot of clarity to understand exactly what they are doing with the state and our data. i've heard that google has literally thousands and thousands of data points on every consumer that uses them and knows more about you than you do.

it's a little concerning that most consumers are not aware of this massive data that companies have, and how they are using it and selling it and obviously the consumer is not getting that money. >> i'm sure you are well aware of senator elizabeth warren's proposal to break up big tech. here's what she had to say at sxsw about a week and a half ago about her proposal. >> that opportunity to do what you do best, to come up with a great idea, to work your heart out to make it happen, to be able to compete on a level playing field, is taken away by these platform giants. so my view is break those things a muchnd we will have more competitive, robust market in america. >> you have republicans on your side of the aisle like ted cruz, agreeing with her at least in principle. do you think big tech needs to be broken up? >> i'm not sure yet what i certainly have concerns.

a lot of competitors are being pushed out of the marketplace and they have no choice in how they respond because there is such control by a company like google that controls the searches. --puts smaller companies they get pushed out of the marketplace. there are concerns about competitiveness and companies will be able to start up and compete. generally resist the government getting too involved in the private marketplace. what makes this time different? >> we definitely tend to be free market, we want lots of competition. but when you have companies that dominate the marketplace and become almost monopolistic, competition goes away and you have this argument that consumers could be harmed. obviously the european union's have are defined google billions of dollars and there are concerns about the competitiveness in the

opportunity to create products. ? how do you feel given your concerns about data? how do you feel about facebook specifically, and would you be interested in taking on a similar exploration of whether facebook deserves the scrutiny as well? looking aty we are companies like facebook and google. it is not just limited to those two companies. its giant companies dominating the marketplace and potentially harming consumers in causing them to be in a position where all this data is controlled by one or two companies, and the consumer doesn't have access, they don't get paid, they don't know how it is being used. >> do you think consumers should get paid for their data? >> i think that should be looked at. this is incredibly valuable information. selling that data in the consumer doesn't even know. ought to be greater

transparency so the consumer realizes what they are turning over. >> so if you are looking at google and facebook and other tech companies, is it fair to say you are also looking at amazon and apple and microsoft? >> we are just beginning. we don't necessarily have specific companies that we have targeted, but we are looking at a broader range of companies that control a lot of the marketplace, trying to determine are they involved in viewpoint discrimination? are they protecting consumer data? how do we get more transparency in the process so consumers are treated fairly? know how much these companies are protecting and who they are selling it to. we reported that this exploration of google came out of this meeting with jeff of a concern that these tech companies were depressing conservative views. were you at that meeting with the attorney general? >> i had other people in my

office. we have this happen this week in our texas senate/ the caucus put up a facebook vote about children being born alive after they are aborted, and that content was taken down by facebook and they are arguing it was engagement bait. they also took down and nether facebook page that talked about the issue. i don't know what engagement bait is, i thought that was what they wanted, but that is certainly an issue that is coming up more and more often. >> that was texas attorney general ken paxton. coming up, social media platforms like facebook rely heavily on algorithms to stop the spread of extremist content, but as we saw in the new zealand mosque shooting that doesn't always work,. we ask why, next. this is bloomberg.. ♪

♪ today >>, as we sit here, 99% of

the isis and al qaeda content we take down our ai systems flag before any human sees them. that is a success in terms of rolling out ai tools that can proactively police and enforced safety across the community. >> that is let mark zuckerberg told the senate judiciary committee back in april of last year, and this is what facebook's newsroom posted the day after the new zealand mosque shootings that killed 50 people. the first 24 hours we removed 1.5 million videos of the attack globally, of which 1.2 million were blocked at upload." so how does that video keep getting uploaded after such an attack? on monday we talked, to the professor of technology and digital business at the wharton school, the author of a new book called "a human's guide to machine learning: a look at how algorithms are shaping lives today." also joining us, our global executive editor, tom giles. >> we knew it was bad.

we knew it was bad not just on facebook but also on youtube and other platforms, in social media, on the internet. we know it is bad when this many people can see such violent, gruesome imagery, and when these companies struggle to use the tools they have at their disposal to pull it down. it's a terrible thing. that's a lot of use,and as we saw over the weekend those things are getting politicized by other parties. know that it took 17 long that is for the video to be but thend taken down, why so many hundreds of thousands of times does it still make it through the algorithm went clearly facebook doesn't want it. >> it is clear facebook does not want it, they have taken a number of steps. we have to recognize that live videos are particularly problematic for algorithms, so most of these firms have a

three-pronged approach to catch these kinds of content. they have created a large database of known offensive or extremist content so anytime a video is loaded they compare it to that. live video by definition doesn't look like a video they seen before. >> it is clearly dangerous, they have seen murders and suicides on the platform. >> it is an area they have been looking at, it has a lot of opportunity -- when people are at a music concert, they could stream what is happening. i could stream to my friends that i am on bloomberg, and that is appealing. but the catch is they have a bunch of machine learning algorithms that look at this content and predict the likelihood that the content is offensive but it is not an exact science. you have a video somebody shooting -- that could be a terror related content or it could be somebody at a shooting range. it could be somebody uploading a

video game. it gets problematic, and live video is very hard. >> facebook and youtube know this is a problem. is there any way to put the genie back in the bottle, the monster back in its cage, now that this is a feature on the site? do you disable it? do you delay live video? >> that's a question that has come up. to you delay on broadcast television -- you don't see the terrible things that happen. the wardrobe and all functions or what have you, because there is this delay, or in. that is what it is supposed to be. when youly speaking, have millions of people at any given moment putting live video out, i don't see and maybe you can explain how you can physically delay live video, and doesn't even become live video >? >> you call it live but you delay it, and that helps to some extent, but in the end, no

algorithm will have 100% accuracy. all these revenues have human moderators and rely on users flagging offensive content. but that takes a few minutes or a few hours sometimes, so one has to in some way deal with this. the real question is not why did a video get through -- i think it is unavoidable with live content. the question for me is what are these firms doing to police the content, to be more transparent? are there independent audits done? that is something where we are seeing initial steps. >> that's a question of value. a point was made over the weekend that these platforms have been doing a lot to take down isis and terror related content, but not nearly the same efforts have been taken to eliminate white supremacy, for example. often you will hear this is free speech or this doesn't quite cross the line. what about this bigger problem

that white supremacy and hate online can feed some of these violent act? linethink it is a tough between what is free speech and what is clearly promoting hate on the platform and needs to go away. for every decision there will be somebody on the other side, but they have to take aggressive action. asy have to view themselves media companies which have to take on the responsibility of curating, they cannot hide behind we are a platform because i think users do want policing. ♪ author of "a human's guide to machine learning," and our own tom giles. europe slams google with another its, totaling $1.7 billion, third and possibly final eu penalty. what regulators are still scrutinizing with other tech giant like apple, amazon, and facebook. and "bloomberg tech" is live

streaming on twitter. check us out and follow our global breaking news network. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ welcome back to "the best of bloomberg technology." on wednesday, google was fined $1.7 billion by the european union in its latest antitrust judgment. it's the last of a trio of probes that authority wrapped up $9.3 billion in penalties for google. the search giant is making changes to how it displays ads comply with a 2017 order. the competition hinted at less risk of new funds in the future. i look at the numbers we have now and the intentions of google in the android decision, this is all to say that we don't

have a noncompliance issue as it is now. we will of course keep following is imperative that good will steps that allow for consumer choice. >> the ceo at calico shopping search engine, which operates in 22 countries and competes with google, and garrett did think join us to discuss. >> we have a third and quite a large fine but this is pretty baked in and investors are not really concerned about these fines into the cost economy. it looks like the heat in europe -- after 10 years of what google i don't think it means it will never be looked at by european competition

authorities, but there are bigger fish to fry. amazon, apple, facebook. what the last 10 years has shown is that european regulators can go after big tech companies and can extract large fines and get support without getting major pushback from consumers in europe. >> you have applauded the eu decision. what does google changing its practices in this area mean for your business? >> thank you for having me. this isould say is that something we welcome and consumers have welcomed, but it is not going to change an awful lot in the marketplace. google has been given a cease-and-desist order which says stop doing what you have been doing and they stopped doing it in 2016. but in these two-sided markets, it is tipton google's favor. wey will come out of this,

just pay the tax for taking over another market. we asked with a commissioner to go further into force google to put right the wrongs it has done to this market like it has done in shopping and an android. >> what would putting right the wrongs mean? to your point, google controlled 70% of this particular ad market from 2006 to 2016. >> what it would mean is that market share -- you have to look at this and say google has all ,he data, it has all the market people look at it and say why can't you compete? they can't compete because they and thes entrenchment only way that can happen is if google is forced to give up market share, which it looks like the commissioner is unwilling or unable to do. >> what is google's response to this? i know they have pointed to this being just a few complaints, as they say. response, they won

because they have the best business, the best algorithms to provide these kinds of ads and products to the people who pay for them. when they were in control of 70% of the market, but also gives them the power to grab more and more of it, and it is difficult to see how that would be changing. at this point google and its investors are pretty confident that they will not be kicked out , they are, the fines willing to pay them and they will continue doing business. >> so if google has owned 70% of this ad market, with these changes, how does that market share change? >> i don't think it changes much at all. i think they will continue to control it -- nothing has really changed in their behavior since 2016 when they remove these

exclusivity clauses. you have to look at the broader context and say this is a company that has lost its moral compass. this is the third time it has been found guilty of anticompetition. this very big fine today along with the other big fines -- but from google's perspective it is just a tax takeover. >> richard stable, ceo at cal coup. meanwhile, google is betting big on gaming. the tech giant unveiled its new game streaming at the developers conference in san francisco this week. it will let players access high-end games through the web without buying expensive consoles or personal computers. it is already being nicknamed the netflix of gaming. it also introduced its own game controller for console like gaming on a computer or smartphone. i spoke with google vice president bill harrison tuesday after the announcement. >> we see it as the new generation of game platforms,

combining the world of watching games and playing games into one seamless experience. this is being purpose built for the 21st century, powered by the amazing technology that only google can bring. >> but can only google bring certain kinds of content >>" will this have exclusive content? >> yes. we announced today the formation of google's first party games development studio, and we are working with developers to create games exclusively for that all around the world. we have art he shipped hundreds of development tools to leading studios and they are hard at work creating games for the platform. >> will you also be licensing content? gaming content is a lot more expensive than typical streaming video content. we partner with game publishers and game developers big and small. you saw in our presentation today some of the leading lights of the games industry from ubisoft bringing their amazing

experiences to our platform. but also it's about bringing youtube creators into the mix, where a youtube creator who has millions of subscribers can bring their fans into the game and allow game developers to connect with more and more people seamlessly across all the screens in their life. >> in this -- if this is successful, it could mean a huge shift in the gaming market. how will you make sure the experience is consistent across devices, given the differences in bandwidth when it comes to everyone's internet experience? well, that's the magic of google technology that runs it are data centers and allows us to utilize our investment in kodak's and streaming technologies both, at the hardware software, in service level, which allows us to take the original vision and stream it to the user or gamers home

and allows us to stream up to withk 50 frames per second all the latest, greatest visual and audio capabilities and technologies, but without the need for a dedicated box, console, or pc. >> coming up, from google to the white house. we talked to the u.s. digital service administrator about how his career in tech helped repair him for his time in washington. in later, checking out on instagram. shoppers will be able to buy what they like right from the app. could it be the next big revenue driver for facebook? this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ washington, at of nonpartisan tech group has a working to bring government services to americans online. u.s. digital service known as usps has helped speed of veteran disability claims and break technical barriers for immigrants looking for green cards. we caught up with the in started by

asking about the long and bumpy history of government technology invices like healthcare.gov the importance of clean rollouts going forward. >> i think it is crucial. you don't always see in government people bringing user centered design. it is thinking about the veteran, the doctor, the student and how to put them at the center of the issue. if you write the specifications for a few years and don't actually talk to users you don't end up with a good consumer experience. >> you worked at google for many years were things move at light speed. why move to government, where things historically move very slow? >> a couple reasons. first, it is the mission and the impact. the meaningfulness of the ability -- to see the impact you can have is really deeply gratifying. the other thing -- technology you can cherry pick, you can choose one particular market. the government needs to serve everybody.

whenever you talk to somebody over thanksgiving dinner table, they are able to see, this is the impact. >> has it been a culture shock for you? >> [laughter] yes. like a to joke that it's bridge between the world technology and government, and they don't always speak well together. if you can learn a little bit of how to speak the language. >> he worked under the obama administration and now the trump administration -- you don't set policy but you execute. what has it been like working for different presidents? >> what is really gratifying is the fact that we care about implementing systems that millions of people use and we have had support in both administrations. it is not a partisan issue to say technology in some cases is broken and whether it's a veteran getting her benefits or a student trying to figure out whether to go to a college, for them to get the information and for that service to work well. we have gotten great support and we are gratified to make this progress.

>> the president is once again taking on google, facebook, accusing them of bias. is that fair? >> it's an interesting question. in my mind, i'm just worried about -- if you have a doctor who was to submit a payment, does that system work? i think it is fun to talk about after-hours but in the same way that d.c. doesn't always understand silicon valley, silicon valley doesn't always understand d.c. and the more cross-pollination we have, the better. >> what the silicon valley need to understand? there has been so much backlash against these companies. >> there has been. i was at sxsw, and i sat down at a table in somebody pitched me on the augmented reality dance lesson. silicon valley can do a little more thinking about the social services that everybody needs. >> we saw many of the democratic presidential candidates gather, and they are taking on big tech.

we are also seeing state attorneys general in the early stages of exploring whether google presents an antitrust case. do you think google presents an antitrust case question mark >> s-1 this who serves the government i don't want to take a position but there were a lot of very earnest people working to make sure the best quality of search results showed up. for me it's a question of -- does the ftc, doj, people need to look at consumer harm in consumer good. >> how about a broader question -- senator elizabeth warren saying big tech needs to be broken up. amy klobuchar saying she wants an investigation. do you think big tech more broadly needs to be broken up? it's not, personally, a matter of breaking of so much as big companies should realize they will probably be scrutinized. i think most companies realize that and are starting to accept the fact that, no matter what, they will have to think about

their impact not just amongst their consumers in their markets but throughout the entire country. >> you handle some of the most sensitive data about american citizens -- medical records, for example. google and facebook have a lot of sensitive data about us. is it clear at this point that we can't trust them with our data? >> one thing that is kind of interesting is that if a tech company or if any company loses the trust of consumers, people will start to leave it. they have a choice and take their data out. the part that interests me on a day-to-day basis is if you think about the u.s. government, what is the trust in the u.s. government and how can we make it work? a poll just where for the first time the u.s. government was listed as if it were a company, and of the top hundred companies, it was dead last. there's a lot of ways that technology can make government work better for everyday people. >> and yet we are continuing to see areas where technology is failing -- this mass murder in new zealand, live video getting

reposted hundreds of thousands of times. what can be done about that? >> that's an interesting case. there is the notion of something you don't want to show up, like spam. notion of's also the real-time things you don't want -- this idea of something going viral and people live streaming really terrible stuff. i suspect companies haven't had the chance to adjust to that specific model. i would not be surprised if there are engineers thinking about how can they adjust so it doesn't happen easily in the future. >> meantime, we are seeing tech work with the government -- amazon, microsoft, google -- and this has caused employee protests around google's work with the pentagon. contracttually ended a to help the government interpret

aerial drone footage. is that a mistake? >> i think reasonable people can have different viewpoints. i was talking to satya nadella recently, he came to one of our staff meetings and we got to asking questions. he had a really interesting position, that microsoft is a platform, and the platform should allow all kinds of customers, in you can't anticipate all the ways someone will use the platform. it is definitely the thing that people will be grappling with for quite some time. >> coming up, if you like what you see on instagram, now you have the option to buy it. we have the details on the social networks new e-commerce strategy, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ >> after years of posting beautiful images of food, fashion, and design on instagram, users will be able to buy items they see and like directly through the app.

this week, instagram started testing a shopping features with a handful of retailers. shoppers will be able to pay with these are, mastercard, discovered and paypal,, and that paypal chief operating officer talks about the rollout along with sarah frier with us. >> so basically, in the instagram at, you will be able to check out and purchase a product, which is unlike what we have seen before. previously we would redirect you to a retailer's website or app where you could complete your purchase, but what this does for instagram is it gives them another line of revenue beyond advertising, which is going to be extremely significant of their business over the long-term. >> how significant?how much business and traffic do you think this will drive for paypal? this is building on the phenomenon we've seen for a long , having new forums in which

to meet buyers. we think this is a great new experience and instagram itself has been a great forum for sellers to meet buyers. this has been building for a long time in terms of buyers connecting with brands or ,ellers in linking to the site and we think it can help more but this is what we hear from sellers all the time, and we think this is quite an interesting new place for sellers to be more buyers. >> so it is interesting, but how big do you think it can be? >> if you look at our marketplace and partner business from ebay, our top 20 marketplaces that we work with are already $85 billion in volume last year alone, going

41% year on year. that's a very large segment of our business and growing quite rapidly. our aspirations are that we want to connect our 30 million plus sellers to all the best places. it's one of the important trends in commerce -- a decade ago there was one or a couple places the seller could go to sell online, and now there's this explosion of new forums and we want to help connect sellers to all those places where they can be buyers. we think instagram is quite important, and we are quite excited about instagram check excited to are quite be powering some of those capabilities, particularly buyer transactions to help enable those experiences. >> facebook is going through a lot of changes. we just talked about changes to ad targeting.

mark zuckerberg has said they will shift toward more private communications, there are questions about how that will impact the business. how much revenue do you think this will drive, instagram commerce will drive, for the facebook company? >> it is hard to say because it is so early, but what i think is important to keep in mind is that facebook's legacy business, the advertising that runs in the newsfeed, is not going to grow much more from here. it is already so saturated in all these big advertising markets. the company has really been investing in figuring out what their next business models are, and e-commerce is something that is mentioned on the earnings call as a very big priority for them for the future, alongside things happening in messaging, which may be harder to monetize. i think this is one of the few bright spots they have that as may be more proven that some of the other things they are trying, like cryptocurrency and encrypted messaging.

>> let's talk about the less bright spots. facebook, instagram, both getting plagued by kate, misinformation. you look at many instagram comments, it's a problem. does that concern you about being associated with that? >> we partner with facebook across multiple forums for some time. we have a growing partnership and one of the things we enable is a fraud tool, enabling the marketplace and partner operators to make sure they are getting buyers, legitimate buyers, and getting sellers that are legitimate sellers. we provide a and seller protection in those different forms, separate from how we engage here, across the way we engage consumers. we help them shop without

sharing sensitive financial information. a number ofere is things that are being addressed across these places. i think you already see a number of sellers really engaging with wires there, so it is already great form and this only makes it better. we are excited to partner on this, not only providing tools sales.lp with >> one question for you. you think that consumers will have any hesitancy about sharing their credit card number with facebook through this kind of transaction, or will paypal prevent that from having to happen? the paypalen you use button broadly, it is helping you to go purchase without any friction. that said, there are plenty of users that want to provide a car directly and we are enabling those transactions as well.

users can make those determinations where they feel comfortable, but it is one of the things we provide. it takes friction out of the process, but we will give the user that choice. >> you are taking friction out of the process, but to sarah's point, in light of all the privacy concerns around facebook, do you think users will want to share information with instagram today? you see a lot of users really wanting to connect with the brand already, so certainly making it a place where users feel comfortable doing that is important, and it is something we are working together on. it is something that paypal certainly helps with directly. you see a lot of users already engaging. something that may work even better for those

users and more seamlessly. >> we mentioned in nike, what other retailers are taking it off? >> i think it is going to be a very small group for now, of what i am most excited about is the future. all these people that have created their businesses on instagram based off their following will be able to build the marketplace, and that is going to be uncharted territory. >> so you will be able to buy kylie jenner's lipstick on instagram. >> one day we will be. these businesses that have been else up via instagram will have a more direct way to sell, and maybe we'll be able to see more into how it works. >> the paypal chief operating officer and our own sarah frier. that does it for this edition of "the best of bloomberg technology."we will bring you all the latest in tech throughout the week.you can join us throughout the week

. we are live streaming on twitter, and be sure to follow our global breaking news network. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees. announcer: the following paid presentation is for the ninja foodi. featuring an all-star cast of celebrity chefs. justin warner, elizabeth carmel, and our house, adam. this is all brought to you by ninja. what you are about to experience has never been done before. we must warn you, the results are extremely delicious.