>> from the heart of where innovation, money, and power collide, in silicon valley and beyond. this is "bloomberg technology" with emily chang.

emily: i am emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." coming up, elon musk is asking for the twitter trial to be pushed back after a whistleblower's allegations about the company's security, and he is changing his complaint. will that help or hurt his case? plus, we are learning more about the early years of youtube. for 12 years, the site was a refuge from sensors and corporate overlords. it was also a sounding board for terrorists. we will explore how the site policed extreme content and undercut terror groups like isis, and how well it is moderating that content today. and of pandemic changed how we live, work, and learn. more students are accessing online learning, but fewer people are going to college. we will launch our ed taxi recess our. first, let's get a look at the

markets. stocks ending at the lowest level in the month. katie greifeld is here to walk us through the picture. katie: it is starting to look like conviction. the big benchmarks closing in on a third straight day of losses. the s&p 500 off by more than 1%. the nasdaq 100 even more. it was the chips once again that led losses that filled up the semiconductor index, down by about 1.3%, as two-year yield treasury yields rose. what that means basically is the fed is going to keep hiking. even the meme stocks sort of fell victim to what we saw on the broader equity market. if we look at bed, bath & beyond shares, they are still up over 20% over the past three days or so, but they did fall a little bit today, so we are going to keep an eye on that one. an important day for the company tomorrow, giving a strategic update. we had a few earnings stories after the bell. earnings season truly never ends. let's kick off with hp, missed

estimates, shares almost down by 4% in the after hours. hewlett-packard enterprises, they actually narrowed their full-year adjusted eps forecast but shares getting a little bit of a lift. cow strike, estimates were pretty in line with what they delivered. a boost to shares after hours after what was some pretty heavy selling at the index level on tuesday. but let's and on twitter because i get a little anxious if i go too long without talking about elon musk. you are going to dig into the details of that complaint he amended a little bit good but let's look at the discount between what the actual offer price is and what twitter shares are trading at. that spread between those two prices now about $15 or so. can't imagine elon musk is too thrilled when he things about that. emily: katie greifeld, thank you

for that update. elon musk saying that the total whistleblower's complaints about bots, yet another reason the deal should be canceled. joining us, she has an expertise in corporate government, ann meredith lipton, and kurt wagner joining us as well. what exactly happened today? kurt: a few things happen and both were things we had seen previously but they have since been amended or updated because of the whistleblower we talked about. the first is elon musk sent another letter to twitter yesterday saying i am formally walking away from the deal and here are the reasons why, and those reasons now include more information from the whistleblower which he did not have one he sent the first version of the letter in early july. the second thing he is doing is he is trying to amend his counterclaims. when twitter sued him he

essentially sued the company back with his own counterclaims and now he is trying to update those counterclaims again with more information he has from the whistleblower he did not have the first time around. essentially he's putting the whistleblower at the center of his argument as to why he should be able to walk away from this deal. emily: professor, basically as i understand at, musk has changed his argument and is giving a complete different reason for wanting to terminate this deal. is that correct, and does that help or hurt his chances in court? ann: yes, it's correct. one of the interesting things about the whistleblower is that in a roundabout way he actually agrees with twitter on the bought issue that has been the issue dominating the proceedings up until now. the whistleblower says yeah, twitter is probably right about the issue that elon musk has been litigating, but there are all these other problems with the company. ftc compliance, ip issues. so now elon musk is claiming

those are in fact his basis for walking away. in terms of helping or hurting him, the first question is whether the court will even allow him to bring in all the stuff now. paper discovery was supposed to end yesterday. musk's request to move the trial to november. the first question is whether the court will even allow that. that said, if she does, this helps him. i am not sure i can really evaluate the strength of the whistleblower's allegations, but i think they are stronger on their face than everything musk has been litigating up until now, and certainly giving him more grounds to walk away rather than fewer is better for musk. emily: that said, if elon musk signed a paper saying i am going to buy twitter no strings attached, do all these other issues potentially raised by the whistleblower actually matter? ann: yeah, they do, but they

matter in different ways, because musk has two separate arguments. one is contractual. it's twitter breached a contract and i get to walk away for that reason. the second argument is fraud. twitter intentionally misled me as to the condition of the country -- company and for that reason i get to walk away. on the contractor one, musk can only succeed if he is able to show all these allegations add up to a material adverse effect, which means long-term impact on twitter's finances. the reason that -- that's literally in the contract, that is what it says. if he can show that, he gets to walk away and it does not matter how much diligence he did or whether he relied on anything. that is just what the contract says. for fraud, if musk can show that twitter intentionally deceived him and he relied on that, then he can walk away for that

reason. and in that case though, his reliance is harder to establish given his very public, not doing due diligence, and all of those things. it make it harder for him to claim he relied on anything. emily: elon musk is asking the judge to move the trial from october to november. how likely is that to happen? kurt: i actually don't know the answer to that, because i am not exactly sure how prevalent this type of request is. i can say just based on common sense, it seems to make sense that they would want a little bit more tie because they have so much more information today than they did a month ago when they decided on this trial date. so i could see this happening. but i do not really know if that is a common thing to push a trial back by that far, especially once both sides had already worked quite aggressively to come to a week

that works for both of them. emily: professor, you were nodding there. are you thinking this trial is getting moved, and what else are you watching for? ann: i don't know if it is getting moved. if he gets a secondary he gets to bring in all this new stuff. she's supposed to consider justice, that is the standard. is it just to allow him to reopen discovery and bringing all these new claims. on the one hand the argument is i had no idea any of this was going on, but the alternative argument is the reason he had no idea is he chose to have no due diligence. a lot of the papers right now are under seal. twitter will have their own response. so it is hard to tell right now how much justice is done by allowing him to basically start over. emily: discovery, as we are speaking, has been ongoing. what could come to light in that process? could there be some sort of smoking gun? ann: could there? sure. it's very redacted, it is hard

to say, but he has allegations of hair-raising security inefficiencies. he has a lot of reports about internal reports to the board, or people that were ignored or covered up. and the part that is very difficult to tell from the outside, is how much this is twitter fraudulently covering up a poorly run business, which is of course what musk is claiming, versus an employee who may very well feel strongly about how the company should be run, but this is just a disagreement with an employee with a management, and management is to ultimately make those kinds of choices. emily: thank you both for helping us work through some of these very complicated and ever more complicated issues. associate dean for faculty research ann lipton, and our very own kurt wagner. appreciate it. we are also following news for potential layoffs for some of the biggest social media

platforms. snap is planning to lay off 20% of its employees following weeks of planning, according to the verge. layoffs will start wednesday. business insider reporting meta is also planning to lay off hundreds of facebook contractors in the u.s. this, as the company looks to source more jobs outside the states. coming up, we will take a deep dive into youtube's content moderation challenges over the years, and how they are not over. we will discuss. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: for years, everyone was welcome on youtube, no matter

how extreme their views. but as the social giant became one of the most visited sites on the internet, the company has consistently struggled to adjust. and some staff say they kept a double standard when it came to monitoring extremism. this is the subject of an upcoming book, inside youtube's chaotic rise to world domination. and an excerpt in this edition of bloomberg businessweek. you have been working on this book a couple of years. excited for it to finally see the light. talk to us about what you explore in this particular excerpt. when it came to how youtube moderated content in the early days, and how it changed those policies over time. mark: the article begins with a scene in june of 2017 with the seminal moment in youtube's history. if you recall, this was five years ago now, they were in the midst of this unprecedented advertiser boycott.

advertisers were pulling their money over extremist videos. there was an attack in london, a terrorist attack were reportedly one of the attackers was inspired by a cleric he watched on youtube. the company really reversed its position and came down hard on anything they said was inflammatory, trying to eliminate terrorism from youtube. they did successfully do that, as i reported, for islamic terrorism. there is a lot of government support for that particular type of radical extremism. they had a much harder time and it took several years for them to deal with white nationalism, problem that we have all seen very violent outbreaks in the past few years, like in christchurch and buffalo on the internet, in a very visceral and

scary way. if we go back from 2017 to now, youtube has solved one part of that problem. brand crisis does not happen on youtube anymore. this phenomenal growth, ad revenue has grown $20 billion. their issues now or more regulatory and they're looking at brands, looking at tiktok in the rearview mirror. so not a lot of their problems are solved about the central problem they have dealt with his they built up this phenomenal platform that a lot of the safeties and guardrails in place 12 years into its existence. emily: we are looking to hear more revelations from your book. i know it is hitting stores next week, over the next several days and weeks. something else you reported on today, a top youtube executive, the head of business, who was the first hire from hollywood 12 years ago, is leaving the

company. tell us about him and what his departure signals. mark: yeah, robert is the most senior, longest-serving senior executive at youtube. he has been there since 2010, and has been leading their content division, which has had fits and starts. at one point a few years ago youtube had original programming that were subscriber only, a competitor to netflix, amazon prime, basically entering the streaming wars. they pivoted away from that entirely, dropped that program earlier this year officially. moved into shorts, which is their competing product what tiktok. a lot of more horizontal businesses, what google was accustomed to instead of taking on hollywood. he's leaving next year. google announced his replacement, who is currently based in northern california,

not in hollywood, l.a. emily: i want to get your thoughts on trump's truth social app being blocked by the google play store. what we know from google about why, and how has the trump truth social team responded? mark: yeah, the latest wrinkle in trump versus silicon valley. google said in a statement they only allow apps that have effective content moderation policies in place. truth social responded saying that they do, and that they deserve to be out there. it seems like a google is standing strong on this. i imagine they knew it would be covered and have political ramifications for taking this stance. i think given how we first started, the irony that google is imposing companies have strict content moderation when it wasn't long ago youtube had this problem. but i guess that is what google can do when it is this gatekeeper to the most popular

software in the world as well as youtube. so it shows just the power of these companies in critical ways, and it shows how much they have evolved. i do not think google would have been in that position. emily: a story we will continue to follow. bloomberg's mark bergen, thank you. please preorder his book. it is out september 6, and it is a riveting read. coming up, ai research getting a boost. we speak with marc raibert, founder of boston dynamics, about the new institute he will lead focused on the state of ai development. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: last year, hyundai acquired a controlling stake in the robotics giant boston dynamics.

now the car manufacturer is launching the boston dynamics ai institute, a research-first organization that looks to spearhead investments in artificial intelligence and robotics, with a $400 million investment. let's talk about all that and more with the institute's executive director marc raibert, also the founder of boston dynamics. great to have you with us. so, obviously ai is one of the most powerful, promising, and potentially terrifying technologies invented in human history. what are your goals with this institute to confront that? marc: hey, emily. thanks for having me on. you know, robots have come a long way, but they still have a long way to go. compared to people, robots are still pretty stupid. and it takes a lot of work to get them to do anything you want them to do, a whole fleet of programs. so one idea of the institute is to make it easier to tell robots what you want them to do. can you imagine having a robot

that can watch you perform a repair task or an assembly task and have it understand what it is seeing and then figure out how to do it itself? that is science fiction today, but i think if we make a diligent effort and get the right people and have a sustained effort, we can make robots that do that. and generally make it -- emily: it is interesting that you say robots are still pretty stupid. we also recently interviewed a google engineer who claims that google has developed artificial intelligence that actually has feelings, that computers have feelings. are senti and. what -- are sentient. what do you think? marc: i think when people see the boston dynamics robots doing things like dancing or climbing, those physical things, they assume that they also have the intellectual capabilities of an

animal or a person, and that is just not the case. i am not saying there are not some narrow areas where ai has made progress, but if you were -- this is my home workshop -- if you were here, i could show you how to do a task. even if you did not know how to do it, in 15 minutes you would have no trouble having observed would i show you, experimenting, and figure out how to do it yourself. that is a long way from where we are now where you need very sophisticated programming in order to make robots do almost anything that they do. emily: google also bought boston dynamics back in 2013. it has been a long journey from there. sold it to softbank, softbank sold it to hyundai. what has it been like working with hyundai at this stage of the journey? marc: oh man, it's been great. their chairman is very forward-looking and he has a

team of execs who are really excited about making the future happen. you can see how great their cars are doing in the market. but i think one of their ideas as they do not want to be an old-fashioned our company. really today you need peter science and ai and other new technologies if you are going to remain competitive. and boston dynamics and the starting of this institute are a means of strengthening that element of what hyundai is. so it has really been a pleasure. emily: also in the interview that i mentioned with the engineer at google, he criticizes and questions the power that google has over all of this technology it is developing. take a listen to what he has to say. >> we need to start thinking out why google does not care about ai ethics in any meaningful way. why does it keep firing ai

ethicists any time bring up issues? emily: given your work with google, do you think google is asking the right questions about the ethics of the technology it is developing, and are all of these companies asking the right questions? because there are companies around the world including boston dynamics developing artificial intelligence. marc: you know, a company that size, any of these big tech companies, have lots of different people with lots of different opinions. and i think that to some degree the fellow we were just listening to, he was just one of many. i do not know the details about that, so i don't really want to judge. i will say that it was a pleasure working for google. we both at boston dynamics and at the institute have been paying attention to some of the ethics of these problems. i think having an open

discussion about what the pros and cons are of automation and robotics is a good thing to do. we plan to have a group working on that. i am not embarrassed about my own opinions about these things, so we are going to try and have an open discussion. emily: all right. marc raibert, boston dynamics, head of the new boston dynamics ai institute. marc, good to have you with us. coming up, how has tech changed the world of education in 2.5 years since the pandemic? our ed tech series starts next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: welcome back to "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang in san francisco. it is the third back-to-school season since the pandemic bennett how we if,, work and

learn--since the pandemic upended how we live, work, and learn. the number of students applying to u.s. colleges is in decline. enrollment is 20% less than it was in 2016. president biden's student loan relief is one example of the government's response to high tuition costs and growing guide. companies are facing college shortages, creating more demand for affordable education. the scoping companies --that is helping companies that puts students with credentials forward. here to discuss the future of education technology, jeff, thank you so much for joining us. a lot unpack here. tell us about the trends you are seeing and what that signals about changes in higher education and learning in the

last two and half years. >> yes, the world has been changing rapidly, emily, and what we have seen is pre-pandemic, a lot of emphasis on learning digital skills. people realize there are good jobs with good compensation. a a lot of emphasis on data science skills, technology skills, business skills. during the pandemic we saw wholesale change in the way that people learn mostly online, and also the weather people are now working, largely remotely. what we are seeing right now in coursera is an increased interest in working adults sing -- and it is a tight labor market -- if i learn new skills, i will get a job that pays better and has more flexible bloody and i can work remotely. we have a lot of interesting people learning skills and switching jobs. emily: you are seeing in dropping requirements for hiring. i know we have been asking this question for years, but people

keep saying that the traditional four-year college degree is dead. what do you say to that? jeff: oh, it's not dead. i think there will be much more accessible. there will be more affordable, it will be more job relevance. we are helping universities change the way they provide college degrees. but the other thing is they won't be the exclusive pathways to good paying jobs. increasingly there are great job opportunities in i.t. project management, social media marketing that don't require a college degree. they do require skills, but you don't need a college degree to lend many of these jobs, increasingly so. you won't need a college degree to get your first good paying job, but college degrees will help people continue to advance in their careers. that is our opinion. emily: what are you doing out colleges ensure potential students that -- assure

potential students that it is worth it? jeff: the big thing, it's interesting, during the pandemic, we saw a lot of private equity and venture capital go into ed-tech. lots of ed-tech companies went public and raised money. it was a lot more alternatives now to getting a college degree. college is not the only path to a job. universities are starting to say i need to create more flexibility and affordability and more career job relevance in my curriculum. what we're doing to help is we work with over 200 of the top universities and 100 industry partners like google and meta and ibm, and we help universities offer industry micro credentials -- these are professional certificates for these entry-level jobs -- to students. we are integrating industry credentials into the college curriculum. when you get your college degree, you also get a certificate from google or ibm or windows -- microsoft or

somebody else. emily: meantime, you've got this huge controversy about how the biden administration is responding to the student loan crisis. some people think it is great, some people think it is not the way that the administration should handle this. what do you think? jeff: i think it certainly reflects a huge and globally unique problem that the u.s. has had come over a trillion dollars in student debt. how did we end up with a trillion dollars? what is his students were able to borrow money to buy a fairly expensive college experience that did not lend them a job that made them enough income to pay it back. your question about how do universities need to change to create a better proposition for students, make degrees more affordable, make them more tailored to working adults who cannot quit their jobs and move to a campus, and also make them more job-relevant. a lot of what we're doing is creating collaboration between

industry and universities to help reinvent the college degree so they are not so expensive, and when people get a college degree, they have a higher chance of landing a job when you graduate. emily: what are the trends you are seeing that you think we are not talking about enough? trends that we might find surprising? jeff: i think everybody knows after covid that people are now starting to a lot more online learning, all over the world. we had 47 million learners on coursera at the beginning of 2020. 30 million more came during 2020, during the pandemic. now we are at 107 million. there has been a big shift towards online learning. that is well known. there is a lot of observation and some arguments about remote work. the workers work remotely -- will workers work remotely? what people are not appreciating is the power of putting these things together. once anyone in the world has access to high-quality learning and even college degrees online,

and anyone in the world who learns these digital skills can start getting these jobs and working in these jobs, even if the jobs aren't in their cities or states or even in their countries, you have much more equal opportunity to learn and also more equal opportunity for good paying jobs. i think that may be the legacy of the pandemic is going to be way more people in the workforce will become more educated and have a much better chance of landing a good job. emily: meantime, obviously we are going through a huge market contraction, but coursera shares are down since you went public, as are many public companies in this economy. we have long had the question, will investors see the benefit of ed-tech? clearly the growth is there, based on the numbers you are giving us. what is your message to investors? jeff: the message to investors -- they already know this, but

what everybody focuses on is how big is the market opportunity the company is going after. higher education globally is a $2 trillion market. many people would say there is a lot of room for innovation in college degrees to make them more affordable and more job-relevant and more valuable, whether it is in the u.s. or the europe -- whether it is in the u.s. or europe. what we need to show for investors to be excited is a big opportunity that generates high revenue growth with predictability and then good operating leverage so that you become more profitable as you get bigger. what we have mostly been focused on at coursera is growing. in q2 we grew around 20%. some segments of the business are growing faster than that. we have been around for about 10 years. we see this as a multi-decade opportunity and we've been growing 59% year on year in 2020

and 46% in 2021. we see a lot of growth ahead and it will come down to reinventing the way people not only get educational opportunities, but also how they get better access to career opportunities as well. emily: coursera ceo jeff maggioncalda, thank you so much for joining us. fascinating to hear your thoughts on this. jeff: emily, thanks for having me. emily: ok, coming up, potential for a centralized autonomous organization.

emily: time for our crypto

report. we are looking at decentralized autonomous organizations. sonali basak, our crypto contributor, is here to explain. sonali: dao's have a lot of purposes. i'm joined by a general partner at capital. what i am interested in is dao's as pertained to venture capital. this is at a time when vc's have raised many billions of dollars for the crypto industry itself. how do you compete? >> yeah, so i think we are very much in the early innings of understanding how dao's operate. the space began in 2016 with the first theory of native dao. the experiment ended poorly and resulted in massive bills for the fork of the network.

the vision of dao5 vista start is a cryptocurrency venture fund . we make early-stage investments in companies and protocols in our sector. in the future we will convert the fund entirely into a dao. the future iteration of dao5 will operate entirely on the blockchain could sonali: what does that mean? is revelation going to be different for a dao like you or dao's for other purposes? tekin: in terms of regulation it is a constantly evolving landscape one thing that guessing of ms. him is jurisdictions like wyoming are taking a positive stance and more will follow. that is one area we continue to evolve our best understanding and best practices. the core focus is on deploying the capital responsibly and getting the best possible assets into the fund, which will find their way into this dao treasury. sonali: i'm curious about how regulators outside of these dao 's look at how they operate and

how the dao's themselves operate and any criticism they have from the industry. there has been a lot of criticism about the governance and the way it changes. to the extent that governance needs to change, what are the biggest changes that need to be made in the next year or so? tekin: yeah, great question. i think there is one case study right now taking place and a liv e debate on crypto twitter about the dissolution of tribe dao. this will form an important case study in our collective thinking on how corporate governments -- corporate governance in these decentralized environments should work. they merged with the peer-to-peer lending market and this was the biggest dao-on-dao merger we have seen the industry of the crypto space. this was a very happy marriage of the time. things started to get sticky in april of this year when certain lenders on the system were

hacked and $80 million of winter capital was lost it fast-forward to today. we are dealing with a bearish environment and there is a loss of faith in the specific dao, and the community has voted to dissolve the dao and use the treasury app to reimburse stakeholders. sonali: not all dao's are created equal. some dao's work such that some holders have a bigger say. how, then, do you fight back against the dao, if you will? tekin: yeah, i think the underlying presumption and ethos of crypto is code's law. if you create a dao that is simple majority votes, if you decide to have a bunch of vc's an concentrated token holdings, you are ultimately going to be subject to their will when it comes to blockchain governments. i think these are things that the crypto community has better understand over time. we are still very early. when you think of the history of corporate governance, public

companies have had many hundreds of years to get things right and frame our understanding of corporate governance and law around that. dao's have been around for a decade. sonali: we will keep following . thank you so much. back to you in san francisco, emily. emily: thank you, sonali. we will dig deeper into the future of ed-tech and where we stand post-pandemic from the investors' perspective. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: let's continue our coverage of education technology and explored from the world of venture capital. funding to ed-tech excluded in 2020 with $14.6 billion in

education companies globally. that momentum continuing into 2021. where is it now? let's bring in a former teacher herself for more on this was from jennifer, investing in education technology before most other vc's were investing in education technology. then everyone jumped on the bandwagon during the pandemic. where is that momentum now? >> i think the momentum is really strong still. education is undergoing a lot of change right now. the pandemic accelerated a lot of ships that began years ago, and that has awoken people to the potential of ed-tech, and it has certainly become a much more attractive space for venture capital. emily: how would you say the pandemic has been a kind of inflection point for this industry? we know that education technology was becoming more prominent, but it was happening slowly.

then accelerated rapidly. where are we now? jennifer: in k12 we saw a penetration of one to one devices in our skills, meaning a computing device was used by every child in our education. this just ushered in a whole set of new software companies and educational curriculums and possibilities with remote tutoring that has really exploded this space. a global opportunity has gotten much larger since the pandemic. emily: that said, the teacher shortage has gotten worse. how bad is it, and why isn't it getting better? jennifer: it's really bad depending on where you live. the teaching shortage was in

place a decade ago, really. people were sounding the alarm because enrollment was significantly down. it has been down the last five or six years. we knew that fewer people were going into teaching as a career. cast-forward -- fast-forward to the pandemic, and the great migration and the great resignation. it has only exacerbated the teaching shortage. it's really bad in states like florida, california, arizona, utah. schools are really turning to extreme measures to fill their classrooms. emily: what are those extreme measures? jennifer: they are loosening requirements on teacher credentials. in florida, for example, they are bringing on veterans that necessarily don't have to have bachelor's degrees to come into the classroom and teach. they are upping the pay, which

is long overdue. they are increasing signing bonuses. they are recruiting teachers on social media, on billboards. in some states they are going to four days a week schooling to attract teachers -- for example, in missouri, about 25% of school district are going to a four-day workweek. emily: what concerns you most about this? obviously, teachers should be paid more, i think we can agree on that. but what concerns you about these other measures that schools are taking to fill the spots? jennifer: yeah, you know, i think right now the focus has been just filling the classrooms with teachers. i think that every child deserves a quality teacher in the classroom. without quantity, we don't have quality. it is consuming that fewer people are going into teaching. i was a teacher for seven years. i found it a really

rewarding career, but also really hard. we need to rethink how we pay teachers, what are their working conditions like, what are the expectations for them, how do we respect them as a society, and really elevate the profession so that we have a lot more people going into the field. emily: how would you describe the state of the ed-tech investing industry and where you are placing your bets given the evolving trends? jennifer: we have been investing in the space for more than 10 years. our team has been together more than 15. when we first started investing in this space, there wasn't a lot of generalist vc's that were interested. there were very few ed-tech funds. today there are more vc's interested in ed-tech because they see the potential of the large market size. it's exciting to see that more

investors are interested in the space. i saw that jason horowitz has an american dynamism practice which is investing in core american infrastructure like health care and education. these signals are very important to the space, and it is good to see more capital go into it. emily: you are also watching higher education and corporate learning. what is happening there that we are not talking about enough? jennifer: he and corporate learning although we are in a downturn market, the job market is still very tight. businesses, corporations are looking to upskill their own workers. we are investing in companies that are supporting businesses to provide career progressions for their employees. that is a really exciting space. in higher ed, there is a lot of legacy software that is running the back end of colleges today. we are investing in innovation

in that space. emily: there is a huge debate happening right now about whether president biden responded to the student loan -- student debt crisis the right way. what do you think? how will how the administration responds impact higher education for years to come? jennifer: i think the student debt forgiveness program biden passed, i personally am very excited about it. it will provide a lot of relief for those most at risk and those most financially insecure. it targets the one third of borrower's who has debt but no college degrees. there is an inequity piece that is really important that has not been talked about that much and that is black graduates owe on average $25,000 more than white college graduates and black families are twice as likely to be pell grant recipients and their white counterparts. debt forgiveness is going to provide a lot of much needed

relief for many people. that said, the rising costs of higher ed are just untenable for most americans. and if they continue to rise, something needs to be done about lowering the cost of higher ed for sure. there is still going to be a trillion dollars of student debt out there and it is still a major issue. emily: something we will continue to watch. jennifer carolan, reach capital general partner and cofounder, great to have you back with us. that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology." i'm emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

haidi: good morning and welcome

to "daybreak australia"