emily: i am emily chang in san francisco. this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, tech ceos under fire. facebook, google, and twitter and the hot seat at a house hearing on misinformation. we will speak with one congresswoman, who asked very pointed questions. plus, bitcoin slips, a harsh

blow to the biggest funded tracking the currency. the $29.4 billion fund dropped double percentage points this week. shares of one tv maker falling after the company goes of it. we will speak to the ceo about his vision for a connected home in a post-adamic world. first, stocks climbing. progress in vaccine distribution. president biden giving his first white house press conference since becoming president of the united states, and setting out new goals for vaccines. pres. biden: by my 100 the day in office, we will have administered 200 million shots, two hundred million shots in 100 days. emily: there was a response to that goal. i want to billing in two people.

>> you said stocks were in the green. that's how we ended, except for tech, the pain isolated to the tech space. semiconductors in the green. big tech ended lower, underperforming. look at the boards and how it compares year to date. it's not just tech in pain today , your sink tech and pain since the start of the year, volatile, investors deciding whether they want to get in or out of that momentum trade. there is a sideways move. no major catalyst up or down. i want to mention bitcoin. coin is bouncing -- bitcoin bouncing off its 50-day moving average. that is important talking about the retail bid and how important bitcoin is in terms of the larger market moves. it is important to mention that one of the major etf's tracking bitcoin, the grayscale bitcoin

trust, underperforming its benchmark. my colleague has more on that, but it is interesting. bitcoin dropping 10% this week, but the etf dropped 20%. emily: thank you. moving on to add. both of us watching those tech hearings today. how did the stocks move in response? ed: let's start with a stock that makes no sense. gamestop up 52% thursday. fell 34% wednesday. why? your guess is as good as mine. all we know is the other stocks favored by day traders also rose . one stock up 57%. amc entertainment that has moved in symmetry with those stocks, up 21%. no reason or rhyme. you can read about it on the

bloomberg about the biggest movers. big tech hearings where the story of the day. let's flip the boards and see how we did. broadly, tech under pressure. the nasdaq 100 softer, but underperformance, particularly facebook and twitter, two ceos who took the most questioning throughout thursday's hearing and continue to do so. the ceo of google said less of google's business is focused on user-generated content, more from the search business when it comes to advertising revenue. if these companies are under pressure when it comes to content moderation, flipped the board, these of the shares of the last six months. this is twitter when it first reported, the impact to its user base. a little volatility around the election and on january 11 was twitter ban to president trump. since then, all three stocks outperform the s&p 500.

twitter and alphabet have outperformed facebook. a lot of for investors to digest today, but ultimately, if there is pressure on these companies, it is not reflected in the share price, emily. emily: all right. thank you so much. so much to talk about. they hearing continuing at this moment on capitol hill. big tech under fire. not a lot of policy changes suggested by the ceos, nor action foreshadowed by congress. instead, the ceos were target of attacks over what their platforms have contributed in terms of disinformation and troubling content. >> as the ceos of major tech companies, you should be held accountable to congress and the public, do you think, mr. zuckerberg? mr. zuckerberg: we are accountable to congress and the public. >> do you think you should be

held accountable? nestor zuckerberg: i am not sure what you mean. >> should you be held accountable to congress? zuckerberg: yes. >> the way you run your business. mr. zuckerberg question i guess, and we are. >> mr. dorsey? >> yes, accountable to the public. >> i said to congress and the public. we represent the public. do you agree? >> yes. >> thank you. >> yes, i am here today because i am accountable to congress and the public. emily: did the companies truly take responsibility for misinformation, disinformation on the platform for january 6, for all the misinformation around covid? let's break it down with naomi. did they take responsibility, what did they take response before and not take response ability for? naomi? there was a remarkably

different tone among the tech ceos. you saw jack dorsey go the furthest and say, yes, twitter was part of the problem, but the was a larger ecosystem. mark zuckerberg and the ceo of google were more reluctant to take responsibility. mark zuckerberg, in particular, said, look, i think it is responsible to build systems in place to fight misinformation, bad actors, but the individuals are the ones who responsible for happened on january 6. some lawmakers disagree with that. they say these are platforms that, extremism and misinformation, and that environment, that digital momentum propels the events on january 6. emily: right, and they repeatedly point out that they were not necessarily responsible

for all of the problems in the world or the extreme is a more racism and that tech company should not necessarily be made the scapegoat. the hearing is still going on. we are expecting potentially 20 more minutes of testimony. some lawmakers have not gotten there five minutes to question the ceos. what happens next? what are you expecting congress to do after this? naomi: i think what they have been doing the last few years, which is working on various bills to hold tech companies accountable for some of these issues. a major theme of the day was whether, conversation about whether section 230, the legal shield that protects platforms for lawsuits over third-party content, whether that should be weakened to force tech companies to do a more aggressive job at getting rid of misinformation

off their platforms. lawmakers also suggest that those liabilities protections should be weakened. some lawmakers, you know, look at ways to strengthen laws around protecting children online. and, we saw in other ways tech companies, a number of lawmakers said my office will follow-up with more questions. i want more information about how you are making money off of some of the content and what you're doing to stop it. emily: well, and there was less talk about president trump, in particular, at this hearing than there has been in the past. more talk, as you said, from republicans about child exploitation, from democrats, misinformation and hate. what do you make of the differences in how all three of the companies have approach section 230, with mark zuckerberg coming out with the

most prescriptive approach, and the ceo of google saying we don't think regulations should change it all, and jack dorsey falling somewhere in the middle. naomi: yes, before the hearing, that was one of the most highly anticipated conversations. mark zuckerberg wrote and prepared a written testimony that he supports making those liability protections for big platforms conditional on those companies proving that they have systems in place to get rid of illegal content. that is him going much further than he has in supporting section 230 reform. we heard another tone from google which said, look, section 230 helps the internet to thrive. it creates a flourishing conversation online, as well as helping the economy. jack dorsey of twitter was

criticized. under questioning, we saw the google ceo site he was open to mark zuckerberg's approach to increasing transparency by the company, you know, on the systems they have in place to fight illegal content. i should know those companies are largely following that standard anyways, so it would not be hard for them to comply, given the resources they have at their disposal, but still, it is a win for critics of the legal shield and critics of the company. emily: all right. naomi, we will continue to watch reporting and listen into those hearings, which are ongoing as we speak. we will be hearing exclusively from democratic, woman robin kelly on her back and forth with all three tech ceos today and whether she is satisfied with the responses. congresswoman kelly joins us next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: -- >> do each of you acknowledge your companies have profited off harmful misinformation, conspiracy theories, and violent content on your platforms, just a yes or no? starting with mr. dorsey, yes or no? >> no. that is not our business. >> mr. zuckerberg? >> no, congresswoman, we don't profit from it. it hurts our service. >> congresswoman, certainly not our intent, and we definitely do not want such content. >> well, since you also know, can you provide to me how you managed to avoid collective revenue from advertising served on such content? emily: congresswoman robin kelly

of illinois with direct questions for the three ceos. she joins us live now in an exclusive interview. thank you for taking time away from the hearing, which is still going on metoo join us. how satisfied were you with their responses to your questions? rep. kelly: well, i am a little bit skeptical. that is why i asked him to send me a written, written information. i think like a lot of my colleagues who ask yes or no because we did not have a lot of time and wanted to get as much information as possible, but they slowly walked things or, you know, it was hard for him to say yes or no, it seems like. emily: and, you know, that is another point. there were a lot of yes or no questions. these are complicated issues. is this really the right forum to debate the future of society as moderated by the internet? rep. kelly: you know, it is

tough, and so many members are interested. i think there were 50 members, they said, so it is really, really hard, but, you know, a lot of members have had separate conversations with these entities from time to time, and as you can see, you know, we were pretty bipartisan in our approach to all three companies and how we felt about it. emily: what would you like to see congress do at this point, now that you have heard which you have heard? what should be next? rep. kelly: i think that what we are going to do, we are going to gather and look at all the bills that different members, you know, have put forth, and really try to pick what are the best things that we can do, you know, at this time. they obviously have not done a great job on regulating themselves, and so we are going to have to put something, you know, in motion was so i don't

know every single bill that each member has, but i am sure we will be discussing that as we go forward to see what we should do. emily: now, jack dorsey said in the hearing today, "i don't think we should be the arbiters of truth. i don't think congress should be either." who do you think should be the arbiter of truth? rep. kelly: i think they should take some responsibility, you know. they may not know everything, but they are making money off of, you know, tweets, google, and facebook, so i think they should take responsibility with what goes on there sites, just like we hold other people responsible or they have to retract what is said, like newspapers, you know, or, you know, somebody like you says something, you know, and that is not right, or, you know, doesn't go over well, you know, people have had to retract what they said or apologize, instead

of running rampant. emily: do you think regulation needs to change? do you think we need to change section 230? rep. kelly: yes, i think there should be some changes. i understand creativity, innovation, and those kind of things, but i also think that we have seen some of the harm, as my colleague said, i was in the gallery on my hands and knees, hoping that i was going to get out with my other colleagues. a lot of the conversation, planning, and chat went on facebook. emily: do you blame facebook and twitter for the capitol riot? do you blame president trump? do you believe is at fault? rep. kelly: it is a combination. people have to be responsible for their actions. yes, i blame president trump.

he stoped to the fire for four years, and it started to heat up, especially after he lost the election, so yes, i blame him, but i also blame the people who came to washington, d.c. also, in five people lost their lives because of it, and i don't think social media helps. emily: so do you blame the platforms, facebook and twitter? what responsible do they have? rep. kelly: i'm sorry. i think that if they are aware of these types of discussions going on, i think they should inform, i don't know if it is law enforcement, you know. i know with people's privacy that it is a tough thing, but i would not say i blame 50% on them or anything like that, but we do all have to take responsibility in some way so that things like that, you know, do not happen again.

but i'm not going to say -- emily: right. one of the most important things you pointed out was how disinformation can disproportionately target minority communities, women, people of color. do you think they really understand the extent to which all of those things can have increasingly negative impact on minority communities? rep. kelly: even though they all said yes, i don't think they get it entirely, because if you look at who works for them, their boards, who is in their c-suite, it is not diverse at all, which congressman butterfield pointed out, and the congressional black caucus pointed that out, and we have pointed out, as was mentioned, the way you know things have been put on their site that definitely you know, like they broke the rules on

facebook, and where advertisements were targeted or not targeted, so they can say yes. they get it on some level but i don't think they get it like they need to get it. emily: what do you think they don't get? rep. kelly: well, they are not diverse themselves, so where are they getting, where are they hearing, who are they asking how can we make things better, or how is it impacting minority communities or women? where are they getting their information from? how are they informed? it is not people on their boards or in the c-suite, because we are not there. emily: now, congress woman kelly , some critics of the hearing today believe that even after all of this discussion that nothing will change. what do you say to that, the

skeptics out there who don't think this will make a difference? rep. kelly: right, well, there will always be skeptics, but i really believe, and i think because of what has happened especially over the last four years in particular, what happened on january 6, and just different things that members have mentioned that, you know, members who have young children or teenage children, the things they have raised about suicide and things like that. i think that can be you know, this hearing was really bipartisan, so that is a good sign, so i do think that you will see some changes. emily: so, given that you feel there are bipartisan concerns, do you think congress can make progress on this issue more than they have been able to on other issues in the past, where we have seen deadlock after deadlock, and what makes technology possibly different? rep. kelly: well, i think we witnessed today, that people are, parents, you know, they

have seen things in their community and they have gotten complaints from what it sounds like, from what people have shared, and also again, i think january 6 and how that developed. that definitely can have an effect on people. emily: all right. congresswoman kelly. thank you for joining us. i will let you get back to the hearing, because it is still going on as the ceos continue to testify in washington. we will continue to bring you all the highlights right here. coming up, fidelity throwing its weight behind bitcoin, filing to launch its own etf. details next. as we go to break, another look at the price of bitcoin, below $52,000. we continue to follow crypto, coming up next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: a new report that

robinhood is building technology that allows customers to buy into ipo's, including its own, according to reuters. robinhood confidentially filed for its ipo, earlier reported, and the company has considered selling shares directly to its users. so far, robinhood has not commented on the latest report. fidelity has applied to list a bitcoin-exchange traded fund that would track the cryptocurrency, pricing based on u.s. exchanges. several other bitcoin etf proposals in the u.s. have failed to win approval from the sec appeared we will see if fidelity can change that trend. for more, the technology hearings out of washington, we are looking at the implications the spread of misinformation has and what it means for democracy, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

want to save hundreds on your wireless bill? with xfinity mobile, you can. how about saving hundreds on the new samsung galaxy s21 ultra 5g? you can do that too. all on the most reliable network? sure thing! and with fast, nationwide 5g included - at no extra cost? we've got you covered. so join the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction... ...and learn how much you can save at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings. (announcer) back pain hurts. you can spend thousands and still not get relief. now there's aerotrainer by golo. you can stretch and strengthen your core, relieve back pain, and tone your entire body. (man) and you're stretching your lower back on there. there is no better feeling.

(announcer) do planks for maximum core and total body conditioning. (woman) aerotrainer makes me want to work out. look at me. it works, 100%. (announcer) find out more at aerotrainer.com. that's aerotrainer.com. emily: welcome back to bloomberg technology. tech hearings wrapping up in washington, d.c. at this moment. the last lawmaker representative questioning mark zuckerberg and jack dorsey. ed ludlow has been following it. give us the takeaways here after five and a half hours of questioning. ed: what we got was a broad spectrum of opinion on how content posted to social media platforms should be moderated and who should be responsible.

the ceos took questions. zuckerberg took most of the heat. section 230 of the communications decency act should be performed but be conditional on big tech companies already having systems to moderate content. all three of the content -- of the companies already do. google said don't change section 230 because it might have unintended consequences. if you moderate content to much, you can suppress freedom of expression. i to eat, you tweet relatively regularly. somewhere in the middle, jack dorsey who said a one size fits all regulation does not make sense. these companies are all different sizes. if you are an investor, it is difficult to know how closely you follow the low by blows. this chart might answer some of that. there was drama throughout the day. the top panel is the share

price. the bottom panel, the line flat and steady is volume. there was no spike in volume. no knee-jerk reaction to what was said as investors take in what was said around who was responsible for the january 6 capitol hill insurrection. even prior to that, issues around a covid-19 vaccine and false information. if we look at share price over recent weeks and months, there has been volatility. the question is what happens going forward? will there be regulation? will there be a third-party regulator? on balance, there was no conclusion other than lawmakers appeared to say tech companies have had their opportunity to sort themselves out themselves and they have not said it was a -- have not. it was a fascinating day. emily: thanks so much for that round up. the hearing just adjourned. here is some of help tech responded.

the questions from congress. >> we did our part to secure the integrity of the election. and then on january 6, president trump gave a speech rejecting the results and calling on people to fight. i believe the former president should be responsible for his words and the people who broke the law should be responsible for their actions. our responsibility is to make sure we build effective systems . >> yes or no? >> we always feel a deep sense of responsibility but we have worked hard. this election was one of our most substantive efforts. >> is that a yes or no? >> it is a complex question. >> we will move on. mr. dorsey. >> yes, but you off the -- he also have to take into consideration a broader ecosystem. emily: there was a lot of that. lawmakers trying to get yes or no answers to complicated

questions. the ceos of facebook, google and twitter were in the hot seat. will there be new regulation? will the tech companies better self regulate or will nothing change at all? i am joined by the author of the age of surveillance capitalism who has done extensive research on the impact of big tech on society and democracy. thank you so much for joining us. what is your reaction to the answers the ceos had for lawmakers today? >> thanks so much for having me. today was in my view a great day. it had very little to do with what the ceos had to say. this was not a day about the ceos. this was a day about our people in congress and especially the folks on these two subcommittees and how much they have learned

and how deeply they have dug and in their self education, they have inoculated themselves from the perennial and inevitable gas lighting of the tech executives, which is their form of rhetoric, their form of language. they have to misdirect, they have to omit key pieces of any given reality in order to even be able to save face and of course to keep directing the public away from the really big bad things that they do. the congress folks were not having any of it. they were clear. they took this dialogue to a whole new level. and i regard this day as historic. emily: i would echo that they

certainly were much better educated -- much better educated on the history of these companies. you gave a lecture this morning where you talked about the impact of social media saying social media is a rigged game where the house always wins and no democracy can survive this game. in the context of facebook, twitter and google, what do you mean by that? shoshana: what our representatives were saying today and this is the first time we have heard it, square on this way. they were saying -- and this is -- many of the democrats would also many of the republicans -- -- many of the republicans, this is about the business model. they now understand this information is not a thing in itself. it is an effect. it is an effect of how the

economic imperatives and their operational mechanisms work in surveillance capitalism. what i was referring to this morning is right on point for this shared here is a story -- on point for this. here is a story. they secretly take loads of data from our lives. they call it their private property. they use it for monetization. they analyze it. they sell it. they use it for targeting. how does that happen? the only way they can really succeed in this game overly great targeting, really great production, all of the things they are after is they have to have a lot of our data, a lot of our data. facebook operates their manufacturing hub, their ai,

trillions of data points being analyzed. that is the scale we are talking about. they constantly have to extract. the way they achieved that is by maximizing engagement. the more they can get us engaged, the more data they can take from us, the better their algorithms, the better their targeting, the better their profits. that is how it works. what i was saying this morning was this is a rigged game. this is not about free speech. this is not about some free and fair competition of free ideas. this is about facebook and the other companies. their algorithms are designed to maximize engagement to maximize extraction. in order to do that, it turns out the most corrupt, most

inflammatory, the craziest content, that is what drives extraction and that is what their algorithms keep amplifying and disseminating over and over again until this social discourse that we have is swamped by corrupt, toxic information and all the good stuff instead of being in the middle where it would be in a normal social process is over on the margins, is over on the french. the good stuff is pushed out to the fringe where the crazy stuff is supposed to be. we have the reverse. this is a dialogical -- a diabolical process that is tearing apart the fabric of society and this is a rigged game. democracy cannot win this game on the terms of these companies. democracy has to change the game.

that is what the representatives today pledge to do. they are mobilized to change this game with law and regulation. emily: what do you think should happen now? is it a matter of regulation? if so, what kind of regulation? what can force the companies? that is what is happening, to change. shoshana: there were a couple of interesting things that speak to your question. one of course was the congresswoman from california who did something really important today. a lot of people are focused on content moderation. it may be hard to grasp but content moderation is where the companies want us to focus. this is a downstream issue. it is in effect.

it is not a cause. the companies do not want us to contest the fact that they are illegitimately extracting all of these data from our lives in the first place. they would rather have us dither around about the contract of what do we do with the data? is it accessible and are they going to pay as anything for it and is it portable? what should be allowed in, what should have to stay out. as long as we focus downstream, we don't look upstream to where the real issues are. the congresswoman said -- he started out by saying content -- she started out by saying content moderation is a symptom and not a cause. what we need to do is an surveillance -- is ban surveillance advertising. what this means is you cannot have targeted advertising unless

you first have all of these surveillance operations that are extracting the data from us in the first place that allows them to develop these really fine-tuned targeting mechanisms that learn how to shape our behavior and our attitudes and get us to do things we would not ordinarily do. for the first time, she is on record going upstream and that is a critical breakthrough. emily: we could talk about this for hours. we have got to go because we have the chairman of the subcommittee waiting. thank you so much for joining us and sharing your views. harvard business school emeritus shoshana zuboff. coming up, an exclusive interview with mike dall, chair of today's tech hearing. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: just minutes ago, the ceos of facebook, twitter and google wrapping up testimonies on online this information and more. we are welcoming the chair of the house energy and commerce committees subcommittee who

opened today's proceedings. congressman mike doyle of pennsylvania. thank you so much for joining us. you tried to pin them down at the start of the hearing. what is your take on their responses today? rep. doyle: if i were those three ceos, i think all of them experienced something they had not experienced in some of their previous appearances before our committee and that was a united democratic and republican committee that has just reached a point where we are convinced that all our attempts to get them to self regulate have failed, all of the promises and reforms they promised to implement did not happen and i think the public is starting to understand that when a company does not make a product, you are the product.

more specifically, your data is the product. these companies are monetizing people's data without their knowledge and permission. the way that happens is they have to get eyeballs on their screens. have to get people engaged. they do it in a way that is devious. people used to think of faces -- of facebook and i talked about the two faces of these platforms. facebook is the family and friend neighborhoods. right next to it is a neighborhood were white nationalist rallies take place everyday. youtube, people think you share quirky videos. down the street, you have anti-xers and qanon supporters and flat earth or sharing videos. the thing that anchors -- that anchors people is it is one thing if users chose to go to those sites organically. everything is scripted on the

social media platforms. facebook recognizes antisocial tendencies in one user and invites them to visit the white nationalist. youtube sees another user that is interested in covid-19 and autostart anti-vaccine video. there are 12 super-spreader's on these internet platforms that are responsible for almost 70% of all the misinformation on vaccines. we all know that january 6 insurrection originated on facebook. so if they cannot police themselves, it is way past time for congress to take steps to do that and i think you heard a lot of that today. emily: do you think republicans and democrats will actually be aligned on the issue of big tech as a result of today's proceedings and what does that mean in terms of achieving some sort of consensus on whether it

is changing legislation or new legislation or some kind of regulation going forward? rep. doyle: i think congress is ready to regulate. i think both sides are interested in seeing what opposable's can build consensus. i think it can take a variety of looks. some of it may involve reforms to section 230. some people want to abolish section 230. another idea being promoted is the ftc and the fcc don't have the expertise, the manpower or their rules to police these internet platforms. when facebook. fined $5 billion, their stock lineup. these finds don't mean anything to these companies. we feel we need a new federal agency that exclusively regulates these internet platforms that is staffed with exports -- with experts that

understands how the algorithms work and agency -- an agency that would have teeth in it to regulate these internet platforms. that is one idea gaining some momentum. others seem to be around various changes to section 230. there are members on both sides of the aisle that are ready to sit down and talk about what can be put forward in the same is happening in the senate. emily: did anyone of these companies stand out to you as the worst offender or did anyone of the ceos not live up to your expectations in terms of the way they responded to your questions? rep. doyle: you know, these ceos are all coached by their attorneys or whomever to not answer questions directly or to

run the clock out. they know members have five minutes to answer questions. when you try to get them to give yes and no answers, it is very difficult for them to say the words yes or no. they want to filibuster. we don't filibuster in the house. if anyone was watching the proceedings today, a number of us were not allowing them to do that. mr. zuckerberg has been in front of the committee several times. we have written to him for follow-up. to many questions we had. they don't get back to you or they make you go to the courts to get certain information. they basically never give direct answers to questions. he is particularly evasive when it comes to that. they all were trained to do the same thing. i was surprised one of the questions i asked early on is whether any of the internet

platforms felt they bore some responsibility for what happened for january 6. jack dorsey said to some extent, yes. i was surprised he actually -- obviously they all did. facebook, they gathered 350,000 people in 12 hours on the stop the steal and the fbi has documents a lot of that planning was planned on facebook sites with people. they all had some degree of culpability in it, but only one of them would say that. emily: congressman doyle, what do you want to see next? rep. doyle: we are going to see legislation. we made it clear to them today we are prepared to legislate. we are the committee of jurisdiction on this matter. next is going to be some meetings among members in both parties on the subcommittees initially and then we are going

to bring in other members. we have some other members who may not be on the committee but have some interest in this issue. we are going to talk about a package, whether it is one big comprehensive package or whether it is a series of packages or whether it is the creation of the new agency. those discussions will probably determine which route we are going to take. the chair of our full committee made it clear we are going to legislate and we are going to do it this year. emily: president trump was mentioned fewer times than i expected him to be and i wonder with president trump out of office, does that create more room for republicans and democrats to reach consensus on this? why do you think that is? he didn't come up as much as many of us thought he would. rep. doyle: you will never hear me complaining he did not come up. i don't know. to me, that is one more symptom

of the problem. we shouldn't confuse -- there are some accusations these platforms are trying to stifle conservative viewpoints. i don't believe that is true i don't believe that is what anyone wants to do. what we want to stop his disinformation and misinformation. if the former president wants to talk about his opinion on a certain issue, that should be allowed. what he cannot do is say i won the election in a landslide and if you want your country back, you're going to have to fight for it. there is no truth in that statement. emily: congressman doyle, he has been suspended from twitter permanently but facebook indefinitely. that decision is going to an oversight board. do you think you should be banned from facebook permanently ? rep. doyle: i am very biased on that situation. i think he has been a divisive

voice in the country and the less people hear from him the better it is for the country. i think we should not let people use those forms to lie and spread information, which causes bad things to happen. his voice on twitter caused an insurrection to take place on january 6. super-spreader's it of the anti-movement are causing people not to get the vaccine and some will die as a result of that. those should be banned from sites like that because they are doing harm to people in our democracy. emily: we have got about a minute left. we are in the middle of a pandemic. vaccine misinformation was talked about a lot. what do you think the biggest threats are right now posed by facebook, by twitter, by google when it comes to covid? rep. doyle: the thing is, they have the technology and power to

take down these 12 super-spreader's tomorrow. that is what has many of us angry. it is not that they cannot do it. they for some reason choose not to do it. as a result, people get information online -- i think it was a congressman who was saying his mother or grandmother read online that if you got the vaccine, a chip goes into your arm when they give you the vaccine and the government tracks you. people read stuff like that and they are afraid to get the vaccine. there was one of these super-spreader's hank aaron died from getting the vaccine. targeting african-americans who already to some degree are skeptical about vaccines due to some historical events. this is causing a lot of people not to get the vaccine and we know what happens if certain people are not vaccinated. it is a real problem and they

can fix it if they want to. emily: congressman mike doyle of pennsylvania, chair of the house energy and commerce committee. thank you so much for joining us. an ipo we are watching today. we will have more on that on bloomberg television. this is bloomberg. ♪

it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the last two hours? ...delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute. get started today.

haidi: a very good morning and welcome to daybreak australia. we are counting down to asia's major market open. shery: good evening from bloomberg's world headquarters in new york. haidi: these are your top stories this hour. joe biden says china will not become the most powerful country in the world on his watch at his first news conference since taking office. the president promises to outspend beijing on

infrastructure.