♪ taylor: i'm taylor riggs in san francisco and this is bloomberg technology. coming up, a record-breaking season. the holiday. was -- the holiday period was gangbusters for online retailer amazon as the company says billions of items were ordered by customers. plus, apple, tesla, netflix, we've got gene munster with us to talk 2020 predictions.

and a 2020 launch. facebook's cryptocurrency libra is set to debut next year. we will hear how the head of libra and the facebook coo touted this big promise. but first our top story. record-breaking sales for amazon. the e-commerce giant posted its largest advance on the s&p 500 index on thursday. amazon didn't release specific sales figures, but the statement backs up broader reports that online shopping picked up this year. i want to bring in spencer and darren baker. spencer, talk to me about what we learned from amazon this holiday season. spencer: in terms of their statement, we didn't learn much. every year is another record for amazon and e-commerce. what we did see was that this was the first year, one that they rolled out their one-day shipping pledge on millions of

items, and that they handled so much of their own delivery on their own. i think a little bit of the boost is that amazon got through christmas without any disasters. everyone was wondering how they would do this year. taylor: and darren, every year is a record year. is amazon just riding the wave of e-commerce or are they doing something special? darren: a little bit of both. the department of commerce came out with the statement that said e-commerce was up 17% year-over-year. that period that we call cyber five in between thanksgiving and cyber monday was up 20% year-over-year and amazon is dominating the holiday season. they drove 15 times more purchases online than the second biggest competitor, walmart. in all aspects they are , dominating the season. taylor: i think what was interesting, and if you look at the chart inside my terminal, is

really in the last quarter, it was trading around that 200 day moving average. not doing a lot. a lot of this concern from analysts was that heavy investment in same-day shipping and one day shipping -- was yesterday the clarity analysts and investors needed that the investment is paying off? spencer: we know investment is bringing in the revenue. we don't know how quickly the revenue is going out the door. that is what we will find out in january when they report, we will find out -- we know that they had another good holiday quarter. they sold a lot of things. shoppers went to amazon for their products. we don't know how much it cost amazon to deliver those things. especially since they are doing so much on their own. that is the million dollar question now. we know amazon brought in a lot of revenue. how much did they shove out the door to pay for delivery? deren, you have been

nodding your head. what is your take on the battleground that is same-day, one-day shipping? it was only a few years ago when two-day shipping was a big deal. deren: i don't think amazon really cares whether it is driving margin long-term. they cared about that a year ago when they saw results that showed e-commerce was highly profitable. they invested in one day shipping because they know the next battleground is not holiday purchases but the things you need every day. groceries, stuff you buy at the pharmacy. those kind of products are the things that one-day shipping really satisfies. i think with walmart and other brick-and-mortar retailers investing in buy online, pick up in-store, amazon had to match that. they had to come out with something that trumped even pick up in the store by offering one-day shipping. the more products they offer that on, the more of the wallet of the consumer they are likely to get. taylor: you mentioned other retailers. we seen a divergence with target and walmart in many ways leading

amazon when it comes to the grocery business. other retailers, macy's, really struggling. where do you see amazon being a leader versus a lagger versus brick-and-mortar? deren: i think there's a couple areas. the two you pointed out are the biggest risk. where they are becoming a leader is offering other products, advertising, and basically other ways to monetize all that traffic coming to amazon. they are driving billions of dollars per quarter through their advertising business. if they can figure out how to that e-commerce experience into more of a whole foods experience, one-day delivery, then they've got a really good shot at taking a lead in the grocery space. taylor: spencer, you talked about the reduced dependence on ups, fedex, and focusing more on amazon's own delivery services. what do we know into 2020 about

how much more they are reducing their reliance on some of the shipments externally? spencer: i think we are going to see more of it. amazon basically is doing to the logistics industry what happened to retail over the past several decades. amazon wanted to have its delivery operation constantly at work, just like a factory. they want to use that capital. they want to use their delivery machine constantly. logistics traditionally has been more of a batch system. waves of things coming to a distribution center. waves of trucks leaving. those trucks not going to the same neighborhood twice. amazon is sending multiple trucks to the same neighborhood. it is breaking a lot of rules in logistics. sunday delivery was a good example. things were simply dormant on sunday for most carriers. amazon is saying people should be able to get things on sunday. we are going to see them doing more and more because they have to. the best way for them to lead is

by doing it themselves and doing things other carriers are not willing to do. taylor: deren, you were writing that it is not only about amazon, but some of the downstream effects. some brands are being very successful getting their brand out on amazon. others like nike have said, we are good on our own. what brands are doing well on their own? deren: that is the really interesting story. there's a million ways to quantify amazon's dominance in the e-commerce category. the interesting question is, how are brands going to navigate this? nike made a stark decision to pull everything off of amazon. there are only a handful of brands that can do that. we looked at other brands like lego, which is a really interesting story. amazon doesn't sell private-label toy products, but they sell a lot of toys. lego generated over 2 million unique visitors and shoppers. lego.com probably isn't the

first place most parents think of going. half of the people ended up buying their product on amazon. if you are a brand like lego, you have to have a dual strategy. you need to have your own website and you need to perform well for the consumer to want the lego product. you have to do everything you can to be at the top of the amazon shelf. that is where the majority of people are looking to buy toys. taylor: outside of just retail, as you look at amazon in 2020, what would be the biggest battleground for them? spencer: beyond e-commerce, you have cloud computing. you will see more between them and microsoft and google. that is another market, cloud computing is growing tremendously, a big horse race is to keep trying to gobble and amazon has an early lead in that. they are trying to maintain that early mover advantage. taylor: we are also getting some

news that amazon's deliveroo deal at about $500 million or so is being scrutinized in the u.k. is there a real threat there or is this more antitrust chatter? spencer: i don't know that you can just dismiss it as antitrust chatter. the antitrust chatter keeps building and building. the question is, where is this needle going to get red hot and prevent amazon from doing some things it wants to do? it is hard to dismiss it as just noise given all of the attention on amazon. the other thing i would note is that the folks paying attention to amazon are getting smarter and learning more about its business. previously, i think a lot of them didn't understand it. how do you regulate something you don't understand? the greater scrutiny is definitely a threat. taylor: for all things amazon and the holiday shopping season,

thank you to deren and spencer. coming up, we go through 2020 predictions with gene munster. what he has to say about apple and tesla in the new year, that is next. and if you like bloomberg news, check us out on the radio, the lumber cap, bloomberg.com, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: apple is likely to continue outperforming its peers next year. gene munster wrote that the iphone maker could chase its 80%

rally in 2019 with another gain in 2020. to discuss this and all the other predictions, gene joins us from minneapolis. i want to take a look at a chart here inside my terminal. you know this better than anyone else. the share price which is having a massive run-up relative to the street, which actually hasn't caught up to the shares. $350 on the stock. why is 350 your fair value? gene: i think fair value is somewhere between $350 and $400. i wanted to have a target that i felt comfortable putting out there as a prediction. it also is representative of a consumer staples company. think of coca-cola or procter & gamble. those type of multiples. $400 suggests a multiple similar to facebook. typically apple hasn't gotten

that multiple because it is a hardware company. investors in the last decade have been concerned about hardware companies and sustainability. when we think about what the proper multiple is, i think this view that a hardware company is a great business, defined by what is impressive cash flow -- if you look at apple, they generate as much cash as faang combined. if we use that as the goal stick here, the cash flow should drive the multiple. i think it is a fair assessment to give apple a fair value similar to what facebook would be. that yields a $400 target. to answer your question, $350 is based on consumer staples. $400 is based on a multiple similar to facebook. taylor: i wonder, as they become less dependent on iphone sales, do you start to look at this

company more as a software, services, wearables business? what is your take on that? gene: it is not just hardware. it is hardware, software, and services. hardware is still 75% of apple's business next year. it is clearly an important segment. but i think if you look at how the hardware is performing, it is performing more like a services business. every three years, people upgrade their phones. now we are starting to introduce the wearables. the wearables segment is included in the hardware, but that is starting to take on characteristics similar to the iphone with upgrading. think about what happened with air pods. to answer your question, you need to look at this holistically and how the products operate and how they impact consumer buying trends. when we look at it through that lens, this is a hardware services and software company

that performs like a services company. my view just quickly, this justification for a higher multiple, they took a large step back last year with the dip in the iphone business. it will be down called 9% for 2019, but importantly, this should rebound and stabilize in low to mid-single digit growth. i think that will be reassuring for investors. taylor: you mentioned the cash flow that this company generates. i want to fold that into some other income statement and balance sheet analysis. , theu look at the chart outstanding net cash, the cash minus the debt, $100 billion. what is the best use of cash for this company? gene: best use is to continue to give it back to investors because i think the stock is undervalued. the company has so much resources to make big acquisitions.

that's probably not the best use. they've talked about this. the net cash position is right around $100 billion. their goal is to be net cash neutral. that means they need to give back. this is on top of the cap return policy they've announced. that is a challenge because when you are generating $50 billion a year, it gets hard to knock that down. they haven't given a timetable of when they are going to hit that target of net cash neutral. my sense is we are probably two or three years away. the simple answer is, the best use for apple cash is to be net cash neutral. it will reward investors by doing that. if they use the majority of their cash, that stockpile we were talking about, to buy back stock, that should generate about 7% upside. taylor: i want to flip to another stock, tesla.

bulls and bears have come to the same conclusion, that tesla is dependent on china in 2020. is tesla really set up in china appropriately for 2020? gene: i would disagree with that. i think china is important, 11% of sales today. having a china factory there is going to lower the cost of buying a tesla for chinese citizens probably by somewhere between 15% and 25% because of the way the tariffs are structured. but this is important. they are going to be manufacturing tesla's, they just started in shanghai. but that is not the whole story. the whole story around tesla, we don't have a specific price target, we think it is worth much more than the $77 billion market cap, but as we think about how the story progresses, there is undeniable truth that tesla plays into.

to reach that undeniable truth or escape velocity, the stock would suggest that we are moving in that direction but we are not there yet. to reach that, i think there are still some bumps in the road. i think china is going to be a positive factor, but ultimately the company has a much bigger ambition beyond china. essentially capitalizing on the 90 million vehicles sold every year. taylor: one of your other predictions for 2020 is the rise of the direct listing. if i don't have to raise new money, do you assume that we direct list instead of ipo? gene: yes. that is the simple answer. if you don't need to raise money and the late stage markets are flush with capital now, i think there's an opportunity for free -- for threee

direct listings in 2020. there was one or two in 2019. yes, i think the theme of direct listings is for real. i've seen talk of other methods for companies to come public. i believe this will live up to some of the hype. one important aspect right now, the way direct listings are structured is the companies cannot raise money themselves. they can sell secondary shares but they can't sell primary shares. they can't bring money into the company to help investment through the process of the direct listing. that likely will change in the next couple years. some of those rules will be relaxed. i think once those rules are changed, you are going to see a material shift to direct listings. that is probably two or three years away. taylor: gene munster, always wish we had more time. thank you for joining us. coming up, mounting pressure. what lies ahead in 2020 for

youtube? that is our conversation next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: increasingly impossible tasks for youtube. the google video giant spent 2019 with drastic changes. with each task, youtube gave people more reason to attack its freewheeling user generated business model. joining us to discuss the challenges ahead is bloomberg technology's mark bergen. mark, when you look back at 2019 for youtube did they do a , good enough job policing the content, working on data privacy, as much as both regulators and investors wanted? mark: i think the pickle they are in is that regulators and investors want different things.

regulators, you are seeing regulators putting unprecedented pressure and forcing youtube to change how it moderates its entire site with kids. starting in january, no more targeted advertisements for kids. investors are looking at google and alphabet. you want youtube to be as hands-off as possible. it is valuable in the streaming wars. youtube as an advertising business is pretty phenomenal but has a major liability if the laws change. investors want you to continue to be an open platform. taylor: talk to me about that liability. do you see a time in the coming years when youtube becomes liable for the content on their site? mark: what is happening in europe and now in the senate in the u.s., talk about changing copyright rules, that would mean that youtube would be liable for a music video or a video posted

that violates the copyright holder. that would be something that would have huge technical and legal challenges. there is a bipartisan push now to repeal parts of section 230, which is an issue for youtube as well as twitter and facebook. any user generated content. taylor: and as we look at 2020, do we think it is privacy issues or content moderation that will be a bigger issue for the company? mark: i think the biggest issue for youtube and 2020 is around kids' privacy and how they are going to solve that. they've told creators, some of the children's creators might lose a majority of their revenue. it is going to fundamentally change how youtube operates. it may change a lot of the content on youtube. going forward, creators are going to be liable, but it is certainly something that regulators are looking at more

closely. taylor: you and i talked about taking over alphabet and having more responsibilities than just google. any sense that he has a unique view on this, or will take a bigger role than before? mark: youtube, google cited it as the second fastest growth. not as big as search but it is fast-growing. they have talked about responsibility, about content moderation, and about fixing their problem around kids issues. i expect it to be a big focus in 2020. it is just an increasingly bigger part of googles growth. taylor: bloomberg's mark bergen, thank you for joining us. coming up, we will bring you the best of 2019, which includes endless facebook coverage, our interviews with the head of libra, and facebook coo, sheryl sandberg. that is next. this is bloomberg.

♪

♪ this is "bloomberg technology." i'm taylor riggs in san francisco. despite losing seven partners for its cryptocurrency, facebook got the remaining 21 to sign on the dotted line in october. we spoke to david marcus. >> in the last week there was a lot of pressure mounting and i respect the fact that those businesses and leaders have a responsibility to their shareholders and employees and stakeholders. given that you don't need to be a member of the association to build on top of the libra

network these companies will , still have the ability to build on top of libra. i understand that they don't want to do the heavy lifting by our side at this moment in time and that is ok. we will move forward, we're going to add more members going quartersn the next two and we are going to work really hard together to address legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders around the world. >> a lot of the companies that did leave late last week are payments companies, financial services companies. they are theoretically familiar with the road ahead. are you worried that they know something that you are unaware of? >> no, and i want to strongly state i don't believe we are unaware of anything. i believe when your core business is in this space, and you probably receive a lot of

pressure not to press on, at some point you have to make a decision on this high risk project, it's an idea that we believe will see the light of day, but there are a lot of hurdles that we need to clear. you have to put your core business and your own business interests first, versus a project like this that is high beta. i understand that given that they are in this space, that they would receive a lot of pressure and want to prioritize their own business. >> there was a letter that a few democratic senators sent to these companies urging them not to join the association. it read in many ways like a threat. did you take it that way? >> what did it sound like to you? >> it did sound threatening. if you join, you will have a tougher road ahead.

i am curious, have you been surprised by the pushback you have received from regulators? >> i would say that there are two tracks. there is the engagement on the regulatory front where we have had very constructive conversations. there are legitimate questions. we need to bring the right answers to those questions. now we have the ability to do so. since yesterday, we finally have a governance model and an association that was fully formed. it was hard for us to speak on behalf of these prospective members before they became members. now the association can take this on and really make progress on all of these questions. for these types of letters to be circulated for a thing that is an idea or a project, and telling people they should not explore innovation at a time where, not only in this country but around the world, the core of our financial system hasn't

of often much in 50 years and consumers around the world are paying the price for it, i think we should ask ourselves whether this is the right approach if we want to lower costs and lower the barriers of access for financial services for all of the people who deserve better in the world. taylor: that was david marcus head of calibra and facebook. in 2020, americans will take to the polls to elect their president. like 2016, facebook is under extreme scrutiny about how it handles misinformation and politicians lying on its platform. coo sheryl sandberg spoke to bloomberg at the year ahead conference in november. >> this is a major test. we are building on some success. the 2018 midterms were very focused. from everything we know, they went very well. e.u. parliamentary elections.

we have had success but we know that this is a big one. this is the highest priority for the next year. caroline: you haven't been afraid of dancing with controversy. mark and yourself have spoken passionately about ensuring the discourse is there. talk about allowing them to run even if they may not be complete -- completely correct. >> this is a really complicated issue. it is hard and there are strong opinions on all sides. we are trying to be thoughtful. in the debate, there are facts that are getting lost. one of them is that there are a bunch of people who believe that things like the biden ad that everyone was upset about for only running on facebook -- that's not true. these ads are running on google and youtube across the networks. i think people think we are

doing this for the money. mark said last week that we expect this to be 0.5% of our revenue for 2020. half a percent. i think that some of the voices that are most concerned are coming from a place that they are worried president trump will use it in a way no one else can and he is massively outspending everyone else. that's not true. the dems are outspending president trump by a considerable margin. we believe that political ads are important and are part of political discourse. they are particularly important in local elections. this is important for people who are challenging incumbents. a republican from new york, the youngest female member of congress at the time, she posted in the last week and said i was able to challenge an incumbent because of facebook ads. i couldn't afford tv ads.

that's why we are being thoughtful and really trying to make sure that we allow this dialogue to continue. taylor: that was sheryl sandberg, facebook ask a chief -- facebook's chief operating officer. despite its high price volatility bitcoin makes strides , in 2019. we will hear from galaxy digital next. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: bitcoin has fallen more than 30% since it's peak in july. around the same time, a battle over bitcoin erupted on twitter. bloomberg's rishaad salamat caught up with both in taipei. >> it's been around for 10 years.

what are the killer apps in this space? there are none. 75% of the distributed apps, what are they? rishaad: what's going on here? he was questioning your finances and you got rather fragrant with him. >> he is a hater. he's a no-coiner. that a fragrant term for someone? >> someone who doesn't have any bitcoin and has watched the price rocket in their face. rishaad: that's a bit harsh? >> i think so, but it's true. taylor: the price slid after a brief gain. >> facebook is working on creating a stable-ish coin, something to use for payment. currencies needs to be stable. otherwise why would i spend a currency if i thought it would be worth more in three months?

you need lower volatility to be a payment currency. bitcoin is legitimized by being a hard asset. supply, it'sd difficult to change the rules around bitcoin so it becomes like a digital gold. people don't own enough of it yet. i see the price going significantly higher over the next couple years. everyone buys a just a little bit of bitcoin. taylor: you say the price would go higher. do you have a call? >> i think if we can get to the old high over the next year, every bitcoiner will be happy. 20,000, 40,000ut is next and higher over time. when i think about bitcoin it probably has a $160 million market cap. has an $8.5 trillion market cap. bitcoin has a long way to go before it replaces cold. it has a very similar feature.

gold has a limited supply. you can take all of the gold that has ever been mined in the history of the world and fill it unit three olympic sized swimming pools. that is a crazy statistic. it's hard to get your mind around. we don't use gold for much, jewelry some, but most of it is in volts. -- in vaults. think of bitcoin as digital gold. taylor: that was michael novogratz. a new blockchain technology was the first to come out of jp morgan's blockchain for excellence program. there is still skepticism around the world about blockchain and cryptocurrency. to break it down further, monica clinton sat down with me. >> we are still in that phase right now where nobody is sure

what the correct way is to go from a blockchain starting at zero to become a true decentralized network. one of the ways is to get tokens into the hat of -- the hand of many people around the world. coin list is helping us with that. we are doing a sale with coin list so people all over the world can get access. taylor: how has libra changed the regulatory scrutiny? >> it has brought more energy and people that before thought cryptocurrency and blockchain was so fringe into the limelight in a way that has been great for us because people have started thinking critically about, if facebook thinks this could be real, maybe it's not just a made up, fringe technology, maybe it actually has potential. all along, we've been in the corner that we think blockchain is usable for business and for people to actually create

resilient applications and sent -- and transmit data in a secure way. you can track supply chains and track interactions between companies. we are working on a partnership with a company doing medical device tracking. facebook entering the arena has brought more regulatory scrutiny , but honestly more coverage , from regulators that are forced to take this seriously may be means we might get clarity. taylor: we only have 20 seconds or so, who is on their heels? is it china? >> i would have said before last week that china was not a big player because they are so anti-cryptocurrency. but the president of china came out last week and said that he thinks blockchain innovation is important. maybe we might see china being more open to cryptocurrency in a way they weren't before. which means the united states needs to get their ducks in a ro in terms of how they treat

cryptocurrency going forward. taylor: that was the head of research and networks. still ahead, a whistleblower speaks. one of the people at the center facebook cambridge analytica scandal spoke with me. this is bloomberg. ♪

taylor: facebook lost an october bid to appeal a ruling that says -- canrs can soothe the sue the social network over the 2018 cambridge analytica data scandal. facebook agreed to pay more than $600,000 to end the u.k. probe. who better to talk about cambridge analytica than the man who blew the whistle on the company christopher wiley.

,he's the author of a book that details the whole series of events. i spoke to both in october from new york. >> before the story emerged, i have been working with law enforcement and regulatory agencies months before the story broke. when facebook found out that the story was emerging, they knew about cambridge analytica well before any of this was published. the first thing that they do is threaten the journalist at the guardian with, in my view, a spurious libel accusation. it turned out everything was true. in my case, they banned me. off of facebook and instagram. after that point, working, day in and day out with regulatory authorities in the eu, the u.k, the united states, all over the world, one of the things i thought was the power this o obfuscate their

work. one of the things i came to understand is when you blow the whistle, you see something that is wrong, when you report that to an authority, you think there will be some guy somewhere in a federal agency building that knows what to do. one of the things i realized is there is not that guy. that guy doesn't exist. i've talked to governments, regulators, congress, parliament. people don't know how to handle this problem. for me, the real concern is that we have a completely unregulated digital landscape that companies like facebook take advantage of. even though companies like a havedge analytic dissolved and no longer exist the capabilities are still , there. one of the reasons i wrote the book was to serve as a warning.

even if this company no longer exists, what happens if china becomes the next cambridge analytica? there are no rules. we are trusting our democratic process to a private company and i question whether that's a good idea. taylor: you mentioned you are in conversation with lawmakers and regulators, i wonder if you think that the current regulations and lawmakers are doing a good enough job handling the problem. >> one of the things i realized was the power of lobbyists, particularly the lobbyists who define the narrative. one of the first questions i would always get at congress is can the law ever keep up with technology? i would say, we regulate nuclear power plants, airplanes, medicine safety standards. there is all kind of technology that we regulate in the name of consumer safety. just because something is on the internet doesn't mean we can't create rules that require companies to consider whether

the product that they are putting into the public will be safe for people to use. the united states is one of the only, i think the only oecd company that doesn't have a national level privacy law. when you look at the language and the way that a lot of silicon valley companies talk about themselves, there are terms and conditions, and opt-in, and all this stuff. yet if you look at the people who work for the company, they are called an engineer or an architect. they build ecosystems or environments. these are things that people are going into, architecture. when you look at how we regulate physical architecture or engineering, where if you are an architect and you build a building without fire exits, you say, it's okay, they optetd into the building. they walked in and there's a book of terms and conditions and if it burns down, that was their

choice, people wouldn't stand for that. i think one of the things that i hope people, and particularly lawmakers, if they read the book, one of the takeaways is we need to understand what is social media? they are platforms and they need safety standards. taylor: that was christopher wiley, who blew the lid off the cambridge analytica scandal. another whistleblower, brittany , we caught up with her in october in new york. >> since becoming a whistleblower, i have sought to explain to people how important their data is. it's the most valuable asset on planet earth. more valuable than oil and gas. on a daily basis, things are being taken from you by companies all around the world that are making a multitrillion dollar industry off of your most private information. that sounds a little gloom and doom when people think they

can't get privacy back, but people have agency. there is a lot they can do on a day-to-day basis to protect themselves. legislators and regulators are finally listening. there are fantastic laws that have been introduced to u.s. congress and across different states that not only protects us ahead of the next election but could make sure that we live a more ethical digital life. >> we have seen california passing a few laws, wyoming. gdpr is something that facebook itself has pointed toward in europe. where do you think the legislation is leading the way? i think with gdpr, the most important part of it is your data is your property, you have the right to know who is collecting data and what are they using it for? if they want to continue to use it, you need to opt in to that. i'm excited that the state of california has implemented a

version of gdpr. that will come into effect in january. governor gavin newsom in the state of california has introduced something called the data dividend law. not only do companies need to tell you what they hold on you but how much money they are making off of your data and to give you a cut of that. there is national legislation by senator ed markey that says we have to often as a nation. in as a nation. it's the opposite in europe, you are pre-opted out and you have to consent. senator mark warner has an entire package of legislation that demands everything from transparency and consent to how your data is collected, to banning negative use cases of your data and using negative that puts hatred and vitriol at the top of your newsfeed. caroline: we are also seeing the companies themselves react.

facebook announcing they are having more third-party fact checking. they are employing more people, what they are spending on security. we see google moving forward with youtube kids. what about the steps being taken by the companies themselves? do they go far enough? >> i think that the investment that facebook is making into stopping foreign intervention is incredibly important and needed. unfortunately we didn't have those protections in 2016. what facebook is not recognizing is that the greatest threat to democracy is domestic. politicians being able to say whatever they want and political advertising. have the same community standards that you and i have to abide by. it's not only a massive threat but will continue the problems that we saw in 2016 where everything from incitement to violence, racial hatred, sexism, and voter suppression tactics were used by the trump campaign

and the trump super pac and aided by facebook. >> some facebook employees have written a letter about this. do you think that might force some change? do you expect that to have to change in the company? >> i expect that demanding change is the only way we will get anywhere, whether it's with facebook employees are regular -- employees or regular citizens. i tell people everyday to call your legislator. i meet with people every day and they say they have never heard from a constituent that they digital data rights or protections. if we ask in droves, they are legally required to do something about it. taylor: that was brittany kaiser, the former cambridge analytica director. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." we are livestreaming on twitter. be sure to follow our global

news network on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪ here, it all starts with a simple...

hello! hi! how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! wifi up there? uhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your local xfinity store today. >> the following is a paid

program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees. >> the following is a sponsored program that is furnished by shriners hospitals for children. >> wake up everybody. i go to night before oklahoma for my filming session. i love seeing my boy caleb. i can't live without my shoes.