when i would show the wrong, when all 3, just don't the rules. yes, to fill out the thing because the after an engagement equals the trail, when so many find themselves will depart. we choose to look for common ground in the news

the this is been bus, the one business show you can't afford to mess. i'm rachel blevins, that our friendship or in washington coming up, bay things regulatory scrutiny as heating up. yet again, as china look to break up financials, ali pay a dominant player in the nation will discuss was the legal battle between apple and fortnight developer. epic games has taken yet another turn. as the gaming firm looks to appeal a recent ruling in court, we have legal analysis on deck to go over what dec then you is rejecting call to do away with the trade rules and the u. k. divorce steel will program that members of northern ireland government go as far as to resign over the conflict for this guy. we have a lot to cover today, so let's get started. the the

we were the program with the latest on china's new and more aggressive regulatory climate. beijing is now taking aim at ant groups. alley pay owned by jack moore, the owner of ali baba, according to reports, china appears to want to break up our pay. the hugely popular payments out to then create a separate app for the company is highly profitable. lungs business. this latest move underscore is just how seriously the chinese government is looking at how big tech companies have gain the power to shape a society. so joining us now to break this all down our boom bus, co host, ben swan and christy i. christy, let's start with you here. so all we pay is an incredibly successful platform. how does this move stand to impact the company overall? well, it's going to impact alibaba in a huge way, obviously thing as all the pay and loan business is one of the most lucrative arm

of this conglomerate. and goes kind of hand in hand with its retail shopping because they always want to extend credit to buyers so that they can shop more on your platform. so it was a perfect synergy and for that they're being punished now for being too successful . so now the chinese government and tend to force are paid to turn over its user data to a new credit scoring. entity. regulators have also asked for and financial to put it to micro loan businesses, ga, and was a into new consumer finance unit. so in this new scoring entity and, and john tourism investment group, each on 35 percent of the company with date own entities sharing the rest of 30 percent. and on top of this alley pay won't be the only entity affected by it because they have a wide reach and their loan and learning facilities touch. many other financial institutions, there is centrally the middle men between traditional banks issuing the loan and then the consumer is doing the shopping. so now other lenders who supply allie pay will also be affected, forcing them to now make lending decisions based on the instruction of these

officially sanctioned credit scoring agencies. rather than alley pay, which is kind of the point, the chinese government intended on shaking up and having more control of its tech and financial institution. so it wanted to make the biggest rebel possible. but yeah, this is no different than the u. s. trying to force take talk to spin off and sell a valuable piece of their company of their choosing. so that now you have this overreach from governments into the lives of private companies, simply because they're doing too well. and we will all remember how critical the united states government or the chinese government was of the u. s. telling them to break up tick tock for that matter. ben, as part of this new regulatory climate, chinese authorities have told 10 cent and ali baba that they must open their wall the gardens as they put it. what does this mean for competition? no means a couple of things. it certainly means less competition in terms of being able to build up your own space. so companies like 10 cent and, and alley bob are being told, look,

you can no longer block links to other websites. so if you're, you know, one of those alibaba, e commerce sites, you can't block people from being able to access 10 sit and vice versa. so that's the 1st thing that they're being told because what they're being told is you're creating a monopoly. you're building out a system that's going to force users to come within your wall garden and stay there and all the interaction has to be there. so there's already some changes taking place. for instance, we know that $0.10 we chat pay is already being used on alibaba technology that's now taking place and it's going to where our pays going to be used on $0.10 property. so the idea here is to create a better experience for the consumer, though, i do want to say one thing that you need to compare it to like tech talk. i think there is a bit of a difference here. and the reason for that is because, remember, with take talk, the united states was coming in and saying that this company must be sold when american company because it's a chinese company. what's happening here is essentially these companies are being told you are getting too big and you're diversified into too many different services. and that's bad for the consumer. i think you can actually make

a pretty strong argument. not that i'm totally in support of this, but a strong argument for when tech companies get too big and have too much going on. and they're involved in too many different industries. it's actually bad for the consumer consumer, it hurts choice. it also hurts the consumer to have the ability to diversify what they're doing because so many of these programs work closely together rather than allowing you to be able to pick and choose which services you want from which entity. and certainly we've seen a lot of that amid this regulatory crack down about just increasing competition not stifling the consumers choice if you will, rout christy. an advisor from the people's bank of china says that beijing should continue to crack down on these tech companies in order to facilitate grow. what the logic behind that statement and will it actually work? i mean, i think the logic behind that statement is kind of faulty, actually because growth and regulation, they don't go hand in hand. the wild, wild west didn't grow and develop because there was regulation,

it blew up because it was free because what beijing thing they are doing is that they're regulating. they can thereby prevent irrational growth and speculation that would make the market hot and at risk of a crash or a meltdown. so there's a growing income disparity in china that's causing a big headache for the government right now. and the dissatisfaction from the masses that comes from it. so the goal of the party is to promote fair competition and to promote a common prosperity and like what been said to allow the consumer to get some of their choices and power back. so china has the bad history of having very violent, boomed and bust in their economic cycles, given the chinese propensity for speculation and risk taking. so the government is trying to taper that cycle to kind of smooth out and prevent things like over speculation that would be to these. but and then of course, the other half of that is that big tech has gotten too powerful and jack mom made the mistake last year when he thought that he was more powerful than the chinese government. that was

a big wake up call for both sides because suddenly the government realized that they have to take back some power before it's too late. tech is the future and both sides recognize that. so the government wanted to have a hand in controlling the important pieces of tech infrastructure, such as ali pay in the financial space. so control is coming down in the guise of regulation to protect the masses. now i know we've talked a lot about this unprecedented movement that we're seeing from the chinese government. and another part of that comes to the content that we see and been we know that chinese content platforms, including rico and 10 cent video, have agreed to enforce more self discipline, to help maintain a clear cyberspace environment. and much of those actually surround celebrities and pop culture. so what exactly is the government demanding these companies do when it comes to fan culture? yes, this is parts kind of interesting because we keep talking about consumers, right? it's all about the consumer and giving the consumers choice. this part of the story is actually the opposite of that. it's not limiting what consumers see the

civically expand site. so what the chinese government is saying is look, that these different entities, these tech entities have a responsibility to promote positive values and to stifle or bring down kind of fan followings that seem to be unhealthy or growing too much or are in authentic. but not because they're not going to get in terms of it being a fake culture, but that people are believing things that are fake about celebrities and pop culture. and so one of the ideas here is that these companies have to be able to limit or control the amount of access that people have to this information, promote those who, who support the right kind of that how you as artists. and then the most interesting part of this is to actually control like band groups that follow online and follow certain artists, celebrities, and to control what's happening in those groups. so it's kind of an interesting kind of goes back to bring the story you read. i think it was a couple of weeks ago about the chinese limiting how many hours

a day of video games can be played. right. it's about controlling the way that a lot of these young people are thinking in order to for them to have the values of the chinese government believes they should have to be fascinating to see how this impacts this generation. and if we do see any big changes in the years to come, boom bus bends on. and christy, i thank you both for your time and insight and fortnight developer epic games on sunday filed an appeal to a ruling and its anti trust case against apple over in app payments on friday. judge yvonne gonzalez rogers issued a split decision on the k thing the i phone maker needed to either rules which force users to pay for app and purchase it through the companies app store, but allowed the tech charge to continue with practice of charging commissions of 15 to 30 percent for those purchases. the judge said the overall structure of the app store was legal, including the commission and epic had not proven. apple has

a monopoly in mobile gaming on the app store. writing success is not illegal. epic will also be forced to pay millions and damages for circumventing the rules at the heart of the case. now, it may seem odd that all of these issues arise from a free to play video game, but consider this. apple says it's app store ecosystem. facilitated $643000000000.00 in billings, and sales during 2020 alone. so what does this mean for the future of app stores as these practices phase increase scrutiny worldwide? we'll discuss, let's bring in our inspector of law at new york university where the focus in anti trust law. thank you so much for being with it, professor. prop park. can you break down this ruling here? was there even a clear winner? yes, thank you. there were 2 parts of the case, one was what we call an antitrust case, and that was really the, the case an apple one,

all of that there was also ok. this was in california and there was also a case under the california unfair competition law. and epic one, a significant part of that case. however, the big winner is apple. and the big loser, i think, or consumers hurt by firms that have significant market power. but under a law they're not called monopolies. that's an interesting way to look at it that we see that they have so much power, but yet that word monopoly is a really defining term here. so how important is this point about apple not having a monopoly over mobile gaming on the app store? it's very important, it's important both to apple and to big tech in general, and it fits in a way with that. can you see the another court dismissed months ago,

federal trade commission against facebook saying the federal trade commission hadn't pleaded enough facts from which the court could determine. it was a monopoly. and if the firm is not a monopoly, it's just not subject to control for the actions that it does to exploit the people on the platform. so i would say this is just another winning for big tech, being able to escape this law that looks like it should have a lot of teeth, but it doesn't. it's called the law against monopolization earn. what are we thinking? the epic is actually hoping to accomplish with this appeal. do they have any standing here? what happens next? yeah, well, they certainly have stanley because this was held against epic on the anti trust case. and they're hoping to get reversal by the court of appeals. they're hoping that the court would say that the judge got her principles of law wrong. and that

indeed, apple was a monopoly, had monopoly power over the apps on apple. and should be held responsible for limiting the competition. because with no competition on the payment systems in apple, back is apple, the right to charge virtually would ever at once, that it could get paid back for on the payment systems for firms like developers, like for like, epic. yeah, that really is a big concern and we know that this is one of those cases where epic is kind of doing maybe what a lot of other companies want to do, but they're kind of setting the standard here. so what does all of this mean for the future of app stores for companies like apple and like google, does it have an immediate impact, or are things going to be tied up in the chords for the foreseeable future? right, so for the united states, you can separate united states from the rest of the world in terms of the companies

policies. things would be tied up in the courts for a long time. but in other countries, like south korea just passed a lot to say that developers can choose their payment systems on the platform with other countries also have piled in and said these big companies have too much power and that they ought to be held accountable for their abuses, and i know that you just heard that very interesting piece. china also is concerned about the power of big tech and even breaking up parts of it. so i think facebook will appeal might not when on a pale we'll see. but i think it's putting down it's marker and hoping that it's articulation of this point of view will be heard. maybe there will be changes in our law legislatively on that with what i was going to bring up and act because

you're absolutely correct. i think it's south korea that you and india have all taken issue with apple and their apps or purchases for multiple reasons. i know in the u, spotify at the center of this, but, you know, legislators such as sender, amy clover char, who had the senate judiciary committee, anti trust, special or subcommittee. she says that they do need to pass legislation and this isn't going anywhere. i mean, what is the legislation? what do does it just say you can't force people to make those payments? is that what the game is here? so if this is actually a problem, it's a question of, if there are abuses big tech, how do you control them? whether it's better to write law that can be interpreted by the court with a lot of nuanced case by case, or whether it's better to have legislation. and when you have legislation, it's more cut and dry. it's usually over broad and under broad, very hard to get at the very specifics. so my, my rather my druthers would have been that the law as decided by the courts

with more flexible and recognizing power where it is. and they could go into the details of how it's exercised and what is justified. i think since that's probably not going to happen, that we need legislation, but the legislation will be over broad. well, and it definitely seems that no matter what happens whether it's done through legislators or in the courts, apple is going to fight it no matter what eleanor fox at the new york's university school of law. thank you so much. thank the time now for a quick break. so when we come back pro wrecks it members in northern ireland government are threatening to resign. if you doesn't agree to massive changes in the trade rules from the u. k. divorce deal, we'll discuss next. and as we go to break the numbers at the close me

the ah ah, me the news rather driven by dreamer shaped by those with me in the me think we dare to ask me.

i think we're going to say something remarkable. going to see the economy take off the g d p and it's about to explode higher. and that all rates about to go fully bit going, hyper pointed ation and that's going to filter up to some bigger countries. it's going to go global, and we're all living to something that is absolutely remarkable. i have often said transparency for the powerful receipt for the last bit cares about privacy. what people care about is power. julian sons is become a symbol of the battles of brevity. information is power. that's what's going on and a huge struggle with governments and corporations who want to keep information secret and others who democratic rights should be pushed forward. and people have a right to know whether they're going to do watch such help to shift the

conversation around transparency. see what that battle has done to him. i feel like julian's life might be coming to an end. we are in a conflict situation with the largest and most powerful employer in such a situation. it's remarkable. it's about the welcome back. an ongoing push to change the post bracket. trade rules for northern ireland was shot down by the e. you over the weekend with the vice president of the european commission, blaming the consequences of breck that for why he says the current protocols must remain in place unless a compromise is made by the spirit of compromise needs to be a mutual. one is our responsibility is also a shared one. i will not means my works. the protocol is not the problem.

on the contrary, it is the only solution to be have at negotiations the protocol is that you could government is suggesting, would mean instability, uncertainty, and unpredictability. in or denial. northern ireland is the only country in the united kingdom to share a land border with the european union, making its subject to special customs and border controls for goods traveling from great britain across the irish sea. while the current rules are part of last year's divorce steel, there has been a growing movement to drop the protocol altogether. in fact, the democratic unionist party, which makes up the largest pro british party in northern ireland, has threatened to withdraw from their regions, power sharing government in a matter of weeks and last major changes are made. but will they do though, and will any changes be made before it's too late? well, joining us now, this is hillary ford, which president of straw mark, i'll see, hillary, it's great to have you on the show today. now it seems like this is

a case where every player is really standing firm, right. so is there any actual hope for some sort of compromise? well, one would hope so they're actually debating that in the house of lords they were right into the evening. and lord david frost has been urged by the house of lords to do basically what they want to do is actually to trigger article 16 and article 16 is actually a protective measure there actually for both sides. and what it is intended to do is to give both fides an opportunity to trigger this. and what it would do is to give them a sort of like an opportunity to read today, if you can believe that renegotiate for any unintended outcome. so they could go back to the table. that's actually what the u. k. are great britain would like, but it's not what, despite what he just said, it's not want the european union once, but a way to go around this difficult protocol. and to regular point there that she made about the democratic union as party in northern ireland and their threat to

pull out of the government if basically isn't changed, how much sway do they really have here? and do you believe they'll go that far? well, yes, actually, because if you think about it, well let's just go back a little bit. they would that to hold the government together. the predecessor to boss johnson's government causes theresa mays, government. and the d. u. p was quite critical that point because they were there to hold the government together. however, boys johnson, one with an 80 c majority. so the d u p isn't as critical. so as they did withdraw, they don't have no brand. they don't have the same weight that they did before, and they may well do so they don't have the weight that they did. i think the sad thing is, is that this is the sort of the fear of all the union as parties and all the island union as parties, which is there. we see it being sort of thrown under the boss by brett's it. and that's what this looks like, but there isn't anybody in the british government that wants this to happen in northern ireland. everybody wants peace, everybody wants to ability and everybody wants continuity of trade. the only people that don't seem to want the continuity of trade is the you and then making

increasingly difficult. and they're the ones that want to lease bureaucratic stops . and all these bureaucratic checks, they're the ones that are actually making it more difficult. despite their profuse as we heard the beginning of the show, their profuse verbiage about compromise, they're not compromising at all. well, i was kind of the interesting part about the same and there's, yeah, but then saying no compromise. and it is that you're right, rachel? yeah, so what does the european union have been here? is hypocrisy what, what they, what they're doing? yes, again and you've asked me about this, is that punishing the u. k for breakfast? because he talks about this before. they can't have all the european countries say look is easy, and actually the british are doing while the, well, it was rather good and let's do the same thing because actually they're, they're succeeding and they're actually flourishing because the u. k. now has actually completed, i think it's $69.00 trade agreements with all the countries around the world doing rather well in the pacific region. and we could do the same thing. so they don't

want the dock doing the same thing. they don't want next. it that one swipes it with a swedish doing the same thing. so it's in the interest of the e. u. to perpetuate these, these negotiations and to make it seem so onerous and so difficult, but no other countries to remember swiss have an agreement and it could be just the scene of a swiss thing with the norwegians it could be just like with norwegians, it could be like a no way deal, but they don't want to make this easy. they don't want to let anybody else out of the club in hillary. i have about 30 seconds. we know this is really affecting small businesses. how is it affecting them? it is affecting small businesses and also affecting the big businesses. i'm the chairman of marks and spencers, which is a big business. i had said he basically just made a comment, which i will state, which is also your question about small business. he says, all this b, roxy is needless. that was his quote. he says this is unnecessary bureaucracy. small businesses have had to invest in this and they cannot afford all the red tape . and it has affected them very negatively. brent and especially when they don't

have the product that they need coming in as well. exactly. yeah, the timing has everything to do as i know i'd be interesting for. absolutely. it'll be interesting to see how long the european union remains on this sort of last and when it comes to the u. k. correct? we're going to have to leave it right there. hillary for which thank you so much for joining us to such a and finally, 13 iconic vehicles from the post apocalyptic fil mad max ferry road are set to be auctioned off later this month. some of the vehicles and a lot include the and bear with me here, the war pig, the razor cola and the do flag it referred to in the movies as the morale machine due to its ear splitting speakers featured on top of the vehicle. a description of the listing by australian auction house lloyd's read the machines that outran the end of civilization have been on earth in the greatest barn find ever recorded. busy lloyd says numerous forms of payment will be accepted in the auction, including crypto currency. none of the listings currently have a minimum bid set,

and we may never know what prices they are actually sold for as bit bitters will submit field offers with the seller, choosing the winning amount from the submissions. alright, this is absolutely fascinating. see, you finally gets the do flag and no matter how much you bid for crypto currency and what do you do with it? you just go, dr. another. you know what the question is and you know, i don't know that much about movie vehicles. i don't know if it actually runs a 100 percent. sure. if you could just drive that down the road, if it goes just in your in your driveway, i'm not really positive here the fascinating way to have bragging rights for something that will pass that way away. great, but there's a lot of beds out there that's for sure. and that's it for the time you get boom, by demand of the portable tv app available on smartphones and tablets. you google play and the apple app store by searching portable tv, portable tv can be downloaded on samsung, smart tv, and roku devices, or simply check it out at the portable dot tv. well see you next time. mm

the ah, is your media a reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safer? tycer lation for community you going the right way? where are you being that somewhere? which direction? what is truth? what is faith? in the world corrupted,

you need to defend the join us in the depths will remain in the shallows. ah ah, the pacific leg around the world expedition 5000 miles round. the clock is given the dead calm in every country close by. it like the crew. gavin's food and water. to go to check. for sure. the little boy on the little thing is got everybody locked down or almost no food. and

no. what about that? only? i'm not sure somebody. especially if you're still in the coven, you're living like the theme and of own. but in the 21st century, i the simply put, i do not wish you. i'm not simply to love it. and what you got here, when you brought a camera with us lawmakers, the right secretary, stayed on to the link and then over his handling of the pull, i've got to start a crisis. he says he inherited from former president donald trump. this way we're gonna introduce you to the parties involved in the right. i've also given a deeper insight into rushes politics. why masses beyond the lesson?

coldest rushes getting ready than.