>> welcome to bloomberg, i am emily chang in san francisco. global stocks extending a rally now. eight days in row that investors are holding out hope for a quick economic recovery. experts are warning of a second wave of job losses as tensions between the u.s. and china continue to escalate. trump administration suspending passengers to the u.s. by chinese airlines in retaliation for china buying -- barring u.s.

carriers from entering the country in the mist of the covid-19 pandemic. this as protests continue across the country after the death of an unarmed black man, george floyd at the hands of minneapolis police. additional officers are being charged. the original charge has been upgraded to second-degree murder for officer derek chauvin. some cities are planning to relax their curfews tonight with the president suggesting that the military be deployed. it is still sparking. . i want to bring in abigail doolittle. our markets correspondent who has been following the ups and downs, mostly ups. i still don't get it. record, assing a closing high. what are investors saying that the rest of america is not? >> it is extraordinary. psychological level, it is hard to believe that we are seeing stocks

climbed day after day. how does that happen when we have this sort of social unrest in the united states? a possible second wave of the virus. u.s. china trade tensions, it does not make sense. it tells you that traders believe the corporate profit outlook will not be too much worse than they're expecting. on the day, tech had a solid finish. although it looked like we had the nasdaq up about 8/10 of 1%. zoom put up a big quarter. the chip sector was up despite the u.s. china trade tensions. from a technical standpoint, there could be some sort of a dangerous pattern there suggesting that this may be a bear market rally, too early to say whether or not that is the case. right now, it is simply unbelievable the way that stocks are climbing.

must take a look at social media stocks. there has been so much controversy surrounding facebook decisions. facebook ending the day down, twitter and in the day way up. -- ending the day way up. we will stop promoting the president's counts as we move into the twitter account. -- twitter cap. >> snap as you just mentioned, it will not promote president trump on their main page there, similar to what they would do for other high-profile people such as governor cuomo and kim kardashian. president trump doesn't really need that. it is more about talking the talk then walking the walk. if they were going to take a hard stance, they may do something more like twitter. they might label his tweets. nonetheless, they are taking some stance. this book is not taking a stand.

they are placating some people but this is unlikely to affect the bottom line. here they are, out of the march load. up 135% since march 18. all of these stocks are up more low.40% out of the march the disconnect on the idea that they put up less bad quarters, that advertising was not as bad as expected. it will be interested to see if that trend continues. have seen someou activities surge on snap. so many of us sheltering in place. abigail doolittle, thank you so much. as abigail mentioned, mark zuckerberg facing mounting criticism after standing firm on .is decision to leave a post

employees walk out. tim o'brien is weighing in on this, saying that zuckerberg has now reached a tipping point. your lineit to hear of thinking. this is the first time that we can remember that facebook employees have so publicly called out their ceo. simmeringas been beneath the surface at facebook for the past four years. they became concerned with what role the platform played. it was the cambridge analytical scandal. some seniors have left the company. reallyckerberg has reasserted himself at the company. he shuffled his board.

he put in people that are more friendly to his leadership and point of view on the board. social come to this crisis by the pandemic. people really scrutinized facebook, the employees are scrutinizing facebook in terms of the role of the platform plays on the world. >> i don't know what to do, i know that doing nothing is not acceptable. i am not alone inside of facebook, there is not a neutral position on racism. zuckerberg is trying to say that facebook doesn't take a stand on space where a normal facebook user might take action on that speech.

why should politicians be given special treatment on facebook itself? >> i would argue that they should not. to add to the list of examples remember, toided, zuckerberg's credit, when the coronavirus pandemic began, he recognized it as a threat very early and he actually requested facebook employees to police the site for false or misleading information about how to combat the coronavirus. he set up a coronavirus information center on facebook itself. for is clearly a choice veracity and high-quality information. i don't think any subject or person on facebook should be immune from that, including the president of the united states. i think the fine line mark zuckerberg is trying to walk

here is not really about free speech. he has thought it through. he said he believes all speech should have a place on the platform. that is a classic free speech dissent. as the supreme court has said, you cannot go into a movie theater and falsely scream there is a fire. we limit some forms of speech. identifying this as a free speech movement when dangerousally about and violent this information death respire onto a moment of great social unrest. in the hands of the president at this moment but in the future, it could be in the hands of someone else. i think zuckerberg wants to keep the debate about speech because he does not want to get regulated as a news provider. he would prefer that regulators

see facebook as a technology platform and not a news provider. then he would have to engage with all the responsibility through regulatory regimes that come with being a responsible news provider. havecebook does regulations worry about with the antitrust. twitter is a much smaller company but now that twitter has taken a stand, there are bound to be more controversial stands that twitter and facebook will have to take at the president keeps up his behavior, calling americans hoodlums and thieves and losers and low lives, calling in the military, what you think -- what battle do you think this sets up going into a very controversial election when facebook has already been asleep at for falling the wheel during the last election? that goinge said

into the 2020 election, they don't plan to vet political advertising for veracity. that is a problem. i don't think this comes from a principal place of free speech protection. i think this is essentially mark not wanting expenses to go up and to have to hire people and to go through all of the processes to monitor content. he could solve this very easily by simply labeling content as false or misleading but he is not even going that far. think there was a recent study conducted internally by facebook, commissioned by senior executives to look at whether or not the site and way that users interact on the site is really grounded in polarization and division. and their own internal study reached a conclusion that indeed

there is not only a lot of it things forne of the facebook's being. it is a place that people gravitate toward because they .an cited out facebook killed that study. a senior executive said that measures that counteract that behavior was too paternalistic. i think that is essentially facebook giving it up -- giving up its responsibility to be a good member of society and put the commonweal ahead of the bottom line in this case. emily: all right, timothy o'brien. ip should you calling and sharing your thoughts with us. coming up, $14 trillion in reparations for black americans. that is with the founder of black entertainment television is calling for.

we will talk to him next at this critical moment in u.s. history. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: bob johnson is the america's first black billionaire. when he sold bet to viacom in 2001. now he is calling for the payment of $14 trillion in reparations to african-americans. tojoins us now, so great have your voice here on the show. we will get there but first i want to get your thoughts on the state of things. we have the death of an unarmed black man, george floyd at the hand -- hands of police.

our own president saying he will use force to contain looting. what are your thoughts on the state of america right now? bob: the state of america goes up and down depending on pressure events that happen in american lives. it tends to show itself in terms of a reaction from the black community. it is built not only around the events, in this case, the tragic death of george floyd but built around frustration, a little bitterness and anger at some of the factors that separate them from the american dream in this country. of mix ofet that kind events, attitude and problems, you have what we have here in minneapolis and around the country. i think the same thing happened in detroit when you had the

detroit riots. we are living into nations, black-and-white, separate and unequal. from yearsething ago. you go to ferguson or mike brown was killed, these things happen not just because there have been other tragic deaths but because there is a brewing frustration among african-americans that they are not living the full extent of the american dream. for $14 trillion in reparations to the black community. walk us through your thought process on that number and what that would solve. bob: let me deal with the thought process on the number. from african american slavery through jim crow is him

and the denial of certain equal rights, it has been -- it has led to a chasm of economic inequality. that inequality came about because wealth transfers took place from african-american slaves to white owners of farms and otherwise. onn they use that money additional law throughout the country. you have another transfer whenever and americans were denied equal education opportunities. rumor we had separate and equal education? education being a path to wealth. you add another wealth transfer when you take into account the homeownership development in the u.s.. who haveo are at home a mortgage can deduct to their

interest payments on the mortgage. against their taxes. people who have to rent because they don't have the money to pay for a home and don't get the mortgage, they pay rent but their taxes are based on their income. african-americans are subsidizing white homeowners. you move forward to today, the network of a median white american family is $170,000. median worth of a african american family is $17,000. you have a wealth gap. is a way to close the huge wealth gap between african-americans and white americans. trillionillion -- $14 is an analysis that says if you can bring equal homeownership,

equal in education, wealth, semis and investment, that it comes to a quality would get paid out in cash to over 40 million african-americans and it would equal approximately $14 trillion. there is no reason to argue about why african-americans wealth transfer was made,, it was under segregation and under racism. what is the problem? i did the math on the bases. let's say you paid over 30 pers, it is about 11,000 african-american sold in the united states. i say to my white friends, what is wrong with doing what people did in germany after world war ii and the nazi harbor? they paid reparations to jewish people.

the armenians were constantly reparations. we paid reparations to japanese-americans who were interned because of the war with japan and the attack on pearl harbor. reparations is not new. to me, to white america, why not instead of paying welfare, child support? support. stamps of paying food and section a low income housing, that is money coming out of the taxpayer, no doubt. of averagehe hands americans and let us implement our own destiny using wealth much like every white american did in this country. ofrankly don't see the issue pain reparations.

-- paying reparations. you also get white americans saying i am sorry for what we did to you. emotional change and shift when americans begin to see a capitalistic nation as equal. >> in the meantime, as we have been speaking, president obama was speaking at a virtual town hall about bases him and he said the pandemic has exposed health-care vulnerability, inequality and also that these events are as profound as any he has seen in his lifetime. i do want to get your thoughts on what is happening on social media because so much of commentary is pouring out on social media. you have twitter taking a stand against the president's remarks, facebook letting them stand. which company is making the right call here?

the key issue that americans should understand, those two platforms are so dominant and so ubiquitous. they have the potential to change humanity and feelings and ideology. with that goes some responsibility. responsibility, if that is measured by where you sit, you can get the kind of flow of information that is based on the platform. control the i take the position that if they keep going the way they are going, the government may declare them a common carrier or a public interest property much the way they do broadcasting companies who use the public airwaves. if you're going to look at one person and say what you're only am iwrong, not

saying what you're saying is wrong, i have the fact checkers backing me up. if they pick where they think is right and they hire the fact checkers to back you up. i think both twitter and facebook need to take a long, hard look at what they created and the monster they created in terms of business may come back to bite them, in terms of just ideology about what is in the best interest of the american people. i want to get your thoughts on what is happening in the entertainment industry, blackout tuesday, the #was trending on social media. you have artists donate into the cause and they are calling on music labels to do the same because they say the industry has profited so much off of the backs of black artists. how do you think the music and

the entertainment industry in particular can make a change? are taking the point i have been making all along. african-americans have contributed mightily to this excess of this country. obviously, labor. obviously, going to war when you did not have the right at home, fighting against nazi-ism. have paidericans their price to americans. notice time for americans to pay the price for african-americans. i know so many artists who basically perform and wrote great music and copyrighted it through all of that contracts and control that was put on them by the record company. this is not new. blackout tuesday or we have to do something about the entertainment world, the entertainment world has the same

kind of behavior in many ways that other businesses in america do. redlining is a bank problem, much like stealing music is a music problem. education ise full a problem. nine people equal justice under law is a problem. the question we keep going around is how you absolve it. i am frankly tired of hearing politicians, in some cases, black-and-white engaging in platitudes about we must come together and make sure everybody has justice. we are america, we are better than this. to me, that is a can to on aanging the deck chairs racial titanic. this will only be solved whenever can americans and when americans see each other's as equals financially, opportunity wise and both creation.

it will never be solved if african-americans are always .ehind when americans if you look at it that way, african-americans can say we will never be as wealthy or well off or have the opportunities. what do we do? resign ourselves to being inferior? if you do that, when americans will say is the reason that we treat you like this is because you decided you were inferior. my thing is change that attitude, give african-americans what the capitalistic economy has given to everyone in this country. much of what white america has financialse of a huge wealth transfer from black workers. it is still happening in many places.

a hardre going into commercial break. i am so grateful to have your voice on the show. thank you for sharing with us. that was the founder of black entertainment television. we will talk about companies going public. this will be a fresh wave of ipo. ♪ when you say what you're in the mood for,

the xfinity voice remote will find exactly that. happy stuff. the group's happy, i'm happy. you can even say a famous movie quote and it will know the right movie. circle of trust, greg. relax, the needles are jumping. you can learn something new any time. education. and if you're not sure what you're looking for, say... surprise me. just ask "what can i say" to find more of what you love with the xinity voice remote.

welcome back to bloomberg technology, and emily chang, talking about ipo's and warner music, shares of the country -- shares of the company jumping on the first day of trading. it is the biggest week of the year for u.s. listed ipo's. phil, especially over the last week, we have been dealing with the protests raging across the country. the markets have been going higher and higher. it turns out that today was a good day for warner music to be going public. i don't see how investors are

not rattled by what is going on outside of wall street. what is your take on this? agree, i think theres ipo really showed was a big divide in this location between the overall cap, a versus the market couple thousand public companies and the strength of this ipo. others a sense you are that, it is a bit perplexing. it seems to be a bit of a new normal between what has been going on over the last weekend and also the coronavirus. let's start with one of music. -- >> let's start with warner music. why the optimism? >> this is a company that could go out as a public listing in the current environment. they were prepared to do so. warner was basically a company

on the precipice of going public. it had all of its ducks in a row. to turn on the switch and hadtivated, they already meetings in place with bankers, they did a lot of the formalities in january and february. i think that combined with household names, they had pretty solid performance to the streaming music revenue in april. put them in a good place to be the first major ipo to come out. info: you have zoom looking to go public later this week. what is the outlook? you have this company, wall street investors. this kind of fits the bill. the info was actually

outcome of a merger in 2018 and 2019 that show some pre-strong numbers. i think they felt like now was as good a time as ever to do so. think aboutg then if they can go public, there is really a short window of time between now and october before the elections,. that would introduce more volatility in the market. emily: that was my next question. you think the next few months before the election would be the best time for companies to go public to take the plunge? how would that apply to a company like airbnb? their business has been exploited by this pandemic. we know they were planning to go public this year but we can assume that is not happening. >> it is kind of like that seen

in star wars where you have princess leia and luke skywalker in the trash compactor and the walls are closing in. you have coronavirus and a lot of uncertainty in the markets. have the election in october and november. that window 80's -- window is getting more and more narrow. there is really no chance you're going to be able to get things lined up to move forward. you're probably want to start to think about what this oaks like in 2021 and beyond. the reality is the roadshow has been compiling turned on its head as far as investors -- meeting investors go. think that you will probably wait until 2021. that is what we have seen. we have noticed a big players , they arerlight, kkr writing large, i feel like checks. i am going to have them place

holding what an ipo is going to be in the second half. we'll see if what you are saying pans out. thank you so much for joining us. coming up, just three weeks into our -- her new role as the for -- the first lawsuit against president trump, the executive order on social media. we will hear from her next, this is bloomberg. ♪

legal challenges are mounting against president trump's executive order aimed at curbing the power of social media. the center for democracy and technology was the first to file

a lawsuit against the order. so far, the only -- alexandra: this is trying to turn social medias -- and i are most worried about doing that during election year. about aery concerned wide public conversation around the power of social media, around the significance following the conversations that have on information platforms. we are very anxious about any order that is trying to coerce social media companies that are trying to take responsible action to inform users to flag content that raises those types of concerns. sayy: legal experts president trump lacks the power

to do anything about section 230. does he really have the empower -- impacto impacted it? alexandra: it is run around, a run amount -- it is a run around for section 230. that is another reason why we are so anxious about this. emily: the department of commerce, the ftc, none of them have taken any action yet and they still may not. what is the harm? what gives you this power? has a longthe cdc history of speaking for the public. we have been working for -- on issues for 25 years. because coition has such -- doctrine allows

authority like ours to fight for these values. technically, we also anticipate that under the ceo, we would have to spend significant resources pushing back on orders as otherby the ftc agencies try to evaluate whether companies are compliant with the executive order. all of that puts us in a position that we need to be able to respond to. emily: section 230 was written in 1996 before google existed and when mark zuckerberg was still a child. do you think it can remain untouched? do you expect congress to step in? alexandra: there is a conversation happening around section 230. we think that conversation is optimo spendsnt, a lot of time working with companies, pushing back, saying how do we get better

transparency? we acknowledge that fight. section 230 ist tremendously important in terms of supporting freedom of speech. it plays an enormous role in allowing platforms to host an moderate contact without fear of lawsuits. that really matters. when you start to think about how people would react if they would -- they were responsible for every post that went on there. we think about libel, alleged coercion and violence by police officers. we are very worried about this cycling affects if information platforms don't have that type of protection. acknowledgetime, we that there is a big conversation about how that moderation should happen. we want that debate take place. what we don't want is the president coming in. we want to take responsible action to respond to misinformation online. emily: what is the actual

status? alexandra: just filed yesterday. we have a little bit of time, about 30 days for the government to respond. we will be watching that. emily: have you heard from any other companies, specifically facebook about whether they will throw their weight behind this? alexandra: we got a retweet from the ceo of twitter. that was a nice acknowledgment by them but we were fully independently. the cdc is funded by a wide range of nonprofits. we make all of our decisions for litigation by ourselves. this is speaking up on behalf of the public, trying to weigh in and stopping this type of coercion action on such important questions. twitter has taken a pretty dramatic action in flagging one of president trump's tweets. this book has taken the opposite position, saying they don't want to be the arbiter of truth.

who is right? i will say that content moderation -- what we want is a range of companies with platforms to be able to make individual, nuanced decisions based on their own policies and what they think are the right judgment calls. i will not say what my personal view is. what i do want is for companies to be able to listen to what the public is saying, weigh those factors, make nuanced judgment some of that flex ability without the executive branch coming after them in the precise way they are doing. emily: you mentioned we are in an election year and twitter is in a position, they have taken a stand, it will probably have to take some were difficult stands leading up to the election. could that become problematic in and of itself and that it has almost drawn more attention to this tweet. you have people out there saying

this is censorship and not something a private company should be doing. isone of the things to note there is taking stuff down and then there is back-checking it. twitter actually wasn't even taking down that statement by the president. they were just saying here are the facts on how mail-in ballot voting works. you may want to read more about this. that type of behavior -- alexandra: that type of behavior, we have to think about the role of fact checking. they have the protection under the first amendment to make moderation and fact checking decisions like that. i agree it is complicated knowing how they should do it and serving as moral arbiter. one thing we think is really

important is making sure that any company making these decisions has accountability and that decision-making is transparent. the factors they way should give people conversation about what is being taken down and why. then the public and understand what decisions are being made. a lot of the companies have away to go on that. try to work on that and make sure that is a really important piece of this very comp get a puzzle. job three took this weeks ago. you have been a lawyer for many years becoming a strong to the administration after three weeks on the job. can we inspect to see more tough actions like this from you? how does this forecast what is to come? alexandra: this was an issue we thought we had to engage in. we do not file a lot of lawsuits. we have done it for a long time. we fought for free speech for a long time.

litigation is not our usual tactic but on a matter of such national importance, just look at what is happening in the world around us this week. the first amendment and the freedom to speak up without fear of government coercion is more important than ever. for me, that judgment spoke for itself. we need to speak up and make sure we take a stand against the executive order. that was the center for technology's alexandra reveve. this includes wondered that. the staten island warehouse in focuson is -- has been a of safety combines after employees mounted walkouts. josh has been covering the story. it happened here?

josh: this comes after months of walkouts, calls for information by u.s. senators, calls for investigation by state and other officials, protests. now we see this federal lawsuit in new york that makes some grave, significant claims about what the company is doing, claims that are significant. these are significant because of what they allege has been the conditions in the warehouse. that workers are told not to tell their coworkers if they are infected. emily: tell us about that. alleges thatsuit

amazon tells workers not to tell each other if they are infected, the contact tracing that amazon is doing, rather than following government guidelines. consisting of only looking at what is on surveillance video, concluding from a surveillance video who has or has not been in touch with each other. the lawsuit also alleges that oppressive and dangerous quotas and disciplines that keep amazon's productivity up by regulating minute to minute how people are spending their time are inconsistent with what people need to do to keep themselves safe. ofawsuit accuses amazon creating a facade of compliance. true, that seems so wrong. when you contract covid-19, are you supposed to tell anyone and

everyone that you have even been remotely in contact with -- what is amazon saying about this lawsuit? amazon has only said that it is reviewing the complaint. amazon said previously that they updated over 100 -- 150 processes to protect employees. they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on safety measures and that they offer additional paid time off, people are diagnosed -- for people who are diagnosed with the buyers. we will continue to follow this story of this new lawsuit, thank you so much for giving us that update. still ahead, we will dig further into development of u.s. and china relations. tensions continuing to escalate as both u.s. and china investors face some big decisions. that is coming up. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: in the last two weeks, the world has witnessed political and social crisis in the united states and hong kong as tensions between the u.s. and china continues to escalate, the very latest of the u.s. now banning flights from chinese airlines into the united states passenger flights. i want to bring in show trying, additional health investor for her thoughts on the tension. things ratcheting up here. what do you tell to investors who do not know what path this will ultimately take? >> there has been growing tension for a while.

we saw it as early as 18 months ago when the china trade war was coming in fits and starts. from an investor standpoint, we have been watching the situation for a while. and gotusly accelerated worse. i think in general, there are two issues with hong kong. one is more geopolitical. the other is more on the financial investing side. on the financial investing side, most people are looking to china as the main area for investing in asia. hong kong is part and parcel of greater asia. a lot of these new declarations don't necessarily impact hong kong or impact u.s. investors. it does however change the view of hong kong in the eyes of investors from being the previous financial epicenter for asia to now having a different

role. i think we are seeing new technologies and new areas emerge from hong kong, covid has hong kong invest a lot in public health. they have a digital platform now for all citizens. they have something even for startups and small and medium-sized enterprises. we are seeing hong kong really focus on media. i think there will be new investment opportunities for investors to look at hong kong. for me, myself, i am mainly focused on digital health. on the digital collaboration that hong kong has done to promote digital health and health and wellness toward citizens. particularly during covid. >> if i could jump in quickly, you have hong kong, many chinese companies have chosen to list on the u.s. exchanges. fccead, you have the

mulling listing companies. if the u.s. officials can't take a look at their books, how potentially devastating could this be for some of these companies? it is going to put a halt on their liquidity pathways in the short-term. be aately, it will challenge for chinese companies or hong kong companies to cope ofh but there is a history hong kong stock exchange. ultimately, investors are global investors. i am not a public equities investor. i mainly focus on early-stage technology companies. when we think about a young

startup and we invest, ultimately becomes when they are ready to go public. there are many years between our initial dollars and when they are ready to go public. companyd be building a for exchange that you think you will ultimately trade on. it is frustrating for companies that are on a path in the last six months to maybe even the next three or four months, thinking they would list on the u.s. exchange. that is not going to be a possibility. i would say -- you have covered it before, given the current pandemic environment, all ipos will be somewhat challenging. emily: we will have to leave it there. eng, thank you for sharing your perspective with us. for this edition of bloomberg technology. bloomberg daybreak australia is next.

i am emily chang, this is bloomberg. ♪

haidi: welcome to "daybreak australia." these are your top stories this hour. tension is in the air as the u.s. bars chinese carriers as relations between washington and beijing reach another low. stand a rally for the eighth d