Skip to main content

tv   Bloomberg Technology  Bloomberg  June 26, 2019 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
♪ emily: i am emily chang in san francisco. this is "bloomberg technology." president trump says the u.s. should sue google and facebook. this, as executives are grilled on capitol hill. plus, a legal loophole. american companies finding a workaround on the u.s. ban on huawei.
5:01 pm
apple hires a key chip designer as it pushes to make its own semiconductors. how this could be a game changer. shares of facebook and google dropping on the heels of another presidential ramp against u.s. social media companies. here is what president trump told foxbusiness. we should be suing google and facebook, and perhaps we will, ok? to talk more about the reaction, let's go to our reporter in new york. shares did react to the president's remarks. what happened? >> they did. you just saw the share prices. so not anything huge. we clearly saw before markets opened the stocks react off these headlines. he did also attack twitter. twitter rose today.
5:02 pm
this harkens back to the conversation we have been having over antitrust laws. everything we have heard over the doj investigation, ftc investigation, this is something here to stay. we are probably going to be hearing more about this, not just the democratic debates tonight and tomorrow, but also through the presidential election in the next five years or so. when you look at investigations into large companies like facebook and google, it will not be a quick process. it will take years. emily: right. they have launched investigational ready into some of these companies. first, let's talk about chip companies also rallying on this news that some of them have found a workaround on this u.s. blacklisting of huawei. what is happening? >> this is a big deal. micron reported last night.
5:03 pm
they said they have resumed shipments to huawei because their lawyers found that some components aren't necessarily included in the ban. when you think of the extent of revenue for micron that comes from huawei, 13%. 57% of revenue comes from china alone. it is not just micron that has resumed shipments. we heard from intel. up,aw micron and inteel and every stock in the index higher, so broadbase gains on the back of these hopes. emily: how does this fit into what has been happening over the last weeks as the threats of tariffs have escalated and we wait for this meeting at the g20? >> it is a wait-and-see moment. it has been a wait and see couple of weeks.
5:04 pm
investors are holding and waiting to see what comes out of the g20 meeting. are we actually going to see a delay of the next $325 billion worth of tariffs? there have been hence from the administration saying that even if they don't come to a deal, and most investors are not expecting a deal this weekend, they expect a kicking of the can down the road. where this huawei news fincen is good. -- news fits in is good. know theyou semiconductor companies won't be hit to the extent you thought on all those components. emily: thank you so much for the update. to continue our discussion on the intersection of social media and u.s. politics, i want to bring in deborah in washington. -- dan brody in washington.
5:05 pm
here is kirk wegner. the president's threats, do they have any teeth? >> the president likes to threaten a lot of people on twitter. this is not the first time he has complained about the companies being anti-conservative, or in the case of twitter, keeping him from reaching his wide twitter offense -- audience. emily: he said he might sue him? >> we know the companies are talking to the ftc and are under investigation by other regulatory bodies. i don't think it adds a totally new element, although he is president of the united states. emily: you were at this hearing house leaders grove executives from facebook, twitter, google about fake news, misinformation, conservative bias. what was your take away from the hearing today? chargess less about the
5:06 pm
of anti-conservative bias from the white house. i was hearing a lot of discontent from lawmakers about how the companies have been handling misinformation and terrorist content. on the one hand, they are worried they are not doing enough. , it seemst deepfakes like lawmakers, particularly the democrats, are worried the companies have not done enough on this and don't have policies about what they should be doing. you talk about the nancy pelosi video, which was not a deepfake, but they don't have a policy on how they treat that. there was a heated moment -- emily: there was a heated moment of congressman rose from new york on terrorist content in general. >> i'm getting to the fact you are not taking it seriously
5:07 pm
because there is no building, full-time staff, until after the christchurch shooting. that is what i am speaking to. how is anyone supposed to think you take this problem seriously if you have no one working on it full-time? this is not something technology alone can solve. this is something we are blaming the entire industry for, rightfully so. they: he was referring to global internet forum to counterterrorism, the organization these tech companies have created to fight terrorism. he is saying who even works there and is it a priority if no one works there. tell us about that moment. thee really laid into executives and basically told them their efforts did not convince him that they wanted to stop this issue. he said you don't have anybody full-time working in the brick-and-mortar building.
5:08 pm
it is not quite set up like that. some of the people working on it full-time are in-house at the companies, but nonetheless, this is the anger that companies are facing on the hill, where lawmakers are saying, look, you have all this power over the messages going out. we are about to go into an election and you have not convinced us you are no doing enough. emily: what does this say about how much about priority this? >> all these companies have people searching for stuff. they don't necessarily all work in the building together. that does not mean they are not proactively looking for this are trying to take it down. the anger and frustration is merited. but, facebook has been talking for the last 1.5 years about what it is trying to do to solve this stuff. it is not perfect, as we know,
5:09 pm
but to say they are not trying at all is an overstatement. emily: the first presidential democratic rate will be broadcast on nbc tonight, facebook, twitter, youtube. they will have to be policing all of the reaction throughout those hours. you talk to the company about what they have been doing to prepare. what do you know? >> i spoke with twitter and facebook. they will have teams dedicated to monitor the debate, making sure there are not threats or misinformation gaining traction. facebook set up this war room around the 2018 midterms. it is basically a glorified conference room where employees sit together so they can act quicker. it sounds like they will be doing something like that tonight. at least now they say we are not only expecting it, but have people on hand who can hopefully tackle misinformation as it
5:10 pm
happens. emily: a lot of folks listening closely to what elizabeth warren will have to say. she has taken a hard line on tech companies. there are billboards in san francisco about breaking up tech companies. that is what she is advocating. what is the expectation of what warren might have to say against this backdrop of everything else? >> right, the question is how many candidates will rush to align themselves with elizabeth warren. you saw a couple of candidates said i want to break them up too. i want to see how much more of that we see tonight and how many more people might take a moderate position who want to increase the scrutiny of mergers , but does not want to go all the way to break up. you have folks like joe biden, who may be does not want to bring the hammer down her at all. i want to see how they fit into those camps.
5:11 pm
when it comes to elizabeth warren, she will be the focus of the debate in lots of ways. that means we may be talking about fed policy. emily: we will certainly be watching where the battle lines are drawn when it comes to big tex. thank you both. coming up, a legal loophole. some u.s. companies think they have found a way to continue working with huawei despite being on trump's blacklist. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
♪ to a story we continue to watch. american companies think they have found a legal way around the u.s. blacklisting of huawei. are shippingtel components once again.
5:14 pm
here's with the micron ceo had to say. >> they determined we could lawfully resume shipping a subset of orders because they are not subject to restrictions. we have started shipping orders of those products to huawei in the last two weeks. companies may be able to classify some technology as foreign-made coming not made in the united states, and that would allow them to potentially get around export restrictions. we are joined by dan king and peter elstrom. did the chipmakers decide this? >> that is a good question. that was as much as anybody got yesterday. he was asked multiple times to explain the extent of it. i got to talk to him after the conference call. he was sticking to the party line, being slightly evasive. what we learned is there might
5:15 pm
be a loophole in terms of where the ip goes into the chip comes from. if less than 25% comes from the u.s. or originates from the u.s. , perhaps that gives them this ability to ship the chips. emily: peter, give us the view from asia as the u.s. has cracked down, as u.s. suppliers have been cut off from huawei, and tensions between the u.s. and china have escalated. >> it has created the sense of crisis at while way. they felt like they would be under fire and not able to get these critical components they needed. it is also software and other components. the idea that some of these chipmakers are resuming shipments to huawei will be seen as a relief from their side, and the chipmakers themselves. you so micron shares rally today. they feel like they're is an opening here, but it is not clear how this will work out and whether this opening will last. emily: we know about intel in
5:16 pm
micron, but what about broadcom. what about google and the android operating system? essentially, you have to think about it from that perspective. they are in a tough position. they want to respect the law and stay on the right side of this administration, but the flipside is china is the biggest market and they absolutely have to be there. huawei is one of their biggest customers. they are trying to balance both sides. we are trying to find out more, but no one is willingly say i am still shipping. emily: we have not gotten comment from the white house on this. >> they have not commented officially. they were clear when they came out with the blacklisting of huawei that this was aimed at punishing a company they felt was helping beijing in espionage. it was a security risk to them. it is not clear how they will react and whether they may do
5:17 pm
something to close the loophole of the law. >> last night, our colleague in .ashington did some reporting she reached out to her sources and people in the commerce department and other parts of government were not pleased to learn this continuation of shipping was going on. so we don't know what they can do about it or whether they will do something about it, but we know they are aware of this and not pleased. emily: do we know that this legal loophole for sure exists? is it legal? don't takend intel legal risks like this lately. they have had lawyers looking at it. , theyron's ceo explained initially stop shipping and their lawyers looked at specific restrictions and decided they could proceed. they are confident they are on solid legal ground, but that ground could change. emily: we are waiting for this
5:18 pm
meeting between president trump and president xi jinping at the g20. what is going on inside the companies? is there a great deal of suspense, wondering what will happen? what he said yesterday is we want a resolution to this, but a resolution that will stick around. we don't want this uncertainty, backwards and forwards, being tennis ball sunda strait game going on. balls ino know -- this trade game going on. emily: what are we doing to prepare to cover this given this could go any which way? >> bloomberg is gearing up to cover it and we will give it full attention. issuess of these trade in particular, expectations are modest as to what will come out of this. we reported the u.s. will probably hold off on imposing the next round of tariffs. we don't think there will be
5:19 pm
resolution at the meeting, but perhaps they can at least lay out a roadmap to reach some sort of resolution farther down the line. emily: we know you will be very ian. as will you com, boasting 27acebook partners for its new cryptocurrency project, but not all of them are sold. why not? we are livestreaming on twitter and follow tictoc on twitter. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
♪ week: facebook said last it had 27 partners including visa, mastercard, and uber's
5:22 pm
signed on to its new cryptocurrency project, but those partners aren't fully on board. some partners said they signed nonbinding agreements because they knew they were not obligated to use or promote the cryptocurrency and could back out if problems arose. companies are hesitant to join the project. joining us to discuss. facebook set off a firestorm, not just in the u.s., but europe with lawmakers criticizing or being skeptical of this project. who are these companies that have partnered with facebook that have said they are skeptical too? >> we got a big list of the companies involved in this, all 27. a number were excited to talk about it. others sang this statement is all we have to say -- saying the statement is all we have to say. others saying we have not signed
5:23 pm
anything saying we have to stay in this. we said we are willing to start exploring this with you and we can back out anytime. not only are regulators weary of what libra and the association might become, but it's partners are too. something i will be watching as they create this consortium, the agreement, and getting this list of partners up to 100, if anyone backs out, the times story always points out they had approach goldman, fidelity, and others, and they declined to join at that point. it will be interesting to see if they get banks involved. david marcus last week said they do hope to get banks in this consortium and expects they will. emily: the new york times approaching not just goldman and fidelity, but jp morgan, who declined to participate at the time. facebook sang the company plans to engage in a healthy dialogue
5:24 pm
and debate with our fellow founding members and to welcoming additional members over the coming months. we know this will take time and won't be easy, but together we will bring this to reality. talk about the challenges ahead not just getting lawmakers on board, but regulators as facebook is going through investigation by the ftc, potential investigation by the ftc over antitrust, and general distrust from the public. >> on that trust from the public aspect, when we were interviewing facebook, they said we have disassociation and it will be a subsidiary of facebook and not sharing information with the broader company. they said things like that with have a bigo, so they hill to climb in terms of trust from partners, you and me, and people in d.c., which we should find out more in a couple of
5:25 pm
weeks when they have the hearings on july 16 in july 17. i think that is one area where we have already seen lawmakers come out in the u.s. and across the globe voicing concerns, and this is there first chance to talk to david marcus, the architect of this, and get questions answered. i expect it will be a full day hearing and we will be covering it on bloomberg. emily: you cover financial technology. what are you hearing from your sources in this community about that announcement? what kind of waves has this made? >> a lot of people are still wait and see. a lot of partners set not a lot has changed. this is facebook announcing what they hope to do. there is no agreement so far. none of the partners have signed anything where they have to stay on for five years or send any money over. currenciesidea what
5:26 pm
or assets will be backing libra. there are a lot of decisions that have to be made at this point. step one is deal with d.c., deal with regulators and stay on their good side, and then getting that list of partners to 100 and making sure they can get these groups together to agree on things, because of a lot of the partners so far, payment companies could be threatened by libra. $10 million is a small price to have a seat at the table and doessure that if libra succeed, we are not intermediated in any way around this. emily: you will continue to cover. thank you so much for that context. coming up, hanging on the telephone. is the nsa still after your phone records? we will look at a discovery that the aclu is calling beyond redemption. that is next. if you like bloomberg news,
5:27 pm
listen to us on the bloomberg app,, and in the u.s. on sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪ . .
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
. at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.
5:30 pm
emily: this is "bloomberg technology." when it comes to the privacy of personal data, the main culprits be bigle's data seems to tech companies like facebook or google, but before that, much of the debate centered around the nsa. the secretive government agency began covertly gathering domestic phone and text data after september 11. in collection ended september 2015, but an aclu freedom of information request reveals the nsa was still collecting information that it was not authorized to in october
5:31 pm
of last year. to discuss, we have the vice president of strategy and partnerships at a security firm started by the former director of the nsa. before that, he served as senior counsel to the permanent select committee on intelligence. one of his duties was oversight of nsa surveillance. what happened here? >> as you point out, the call data record collection parameter was modified in 2015 by the usa freedom act. what happened here was that they were put in charge of giving data to the nsa under this program and they sent to much data, the wrong kind of data to the nsa in the aftermath of this legislation. what we have here is an error for sure, and over collection, made not by nsa but by the phone companies. emily: how did you do this by accident? is seeking out
5:32 pm
potential terrorist threats and the phone companies are producing records. sometimes what happens is they pull a certain set of records and those come attached with other records in their database and unintentionally, they provide this data thinking they are providing the right stuff and it turns out they provided too much. identified the information was an over collection and took steps to stop the collection and said to the phone company, "you need to change the way you produce this information. we do not need or want this data. give us the stuff we are allowed to have under the law." nsay: can we trust that the is not still doing this, that the phone companies are not still doing this, and that this cannot happen again in the near future? >> what i think is important is that this is not an intentional over collection or effort to go beyond nsa or the phone companies. it appears to have it in an unintentional error. we have seen a lot of these over the course of this program, and that ways and to the calculus of if the government continues the
5:33 pm
program. there is an ongoing debate within the trump administration on seeking an authorization program, but under the bush and obama administrations, it was seen as an effective program. emily: there are some folks saying that this data is valuable. tell us about that argument. going on ishat is that the data being collected is what is believed to be phone calls between terrorist targets and people in the united states. if that is happening, you want to see if those are people following up on terrorists. it limits the scope of content collection, which is the privacy intensive stuff. it looks at meta-data to identify who the good targets for collection data are and who
5:34 pm
should not be collected against. in a lot of ways, there's some collection data enhancement aspects. that said, there has been some debate about how valuable the program is, did we get enough people, was it just an additive to other collections, and part of it is an understanding of how intelligence collection works. intelligence collection does not always give you the obvious right answer right here. it is an amalgam of a lot of data to identify who might be doing bad things here in the united states against americans. it is one element of a much larger effort that aims to protect us against terrorist threats and other foreign intelligence threats. emily: but there is also sort of a larger effort, at least in this particular case as an example, to sort of reduce the power of u.s. surveillance. in your view, as someone who had oversight over the nsa's actions, is that a good thing? are we more or less vulnerable than we were before?
5:35 pm
>> we are seeing also took huge threats have in the world today. we know about the efforts by china to conduct cyberattacks against u.s. companies and the like. we have seen what iran has done in the physical space with respect to oil tankers in the gulf. we know that north korea is engaged in major cyberattacks. engaged insia attacks against ukraine but had a huge effect on international companies. we know that people are getting aggressive in this space, so we are going to reduce our collection capabilities. that will make us a little more vulnerable. the trade-off between how vulnerable we are and if we get these benefits from cost savings or privacy benefits is a hard one to make and when the government is constantly looking at, but we should not just say that there are not very real threats against our nation, which there are, and it should not be obvious that we are always reducing our collection capabilities. that can have negative effects,
5:36 pm
too. emily: happy birthday. thank you for joining us the day before your birthday. we appreciate it. thank you as always for stopping by. changes at youtube, the streaming video platform, that will let users override automatic recommendations. this after youtube executives were criticized for being either unable or unwilling to act on internal warnings about extreme and misleading videos. wednesday, youtube wrote in a blog post, although we try our best to suggest video you will enjoy, we do not always get it right, so we are giving you more control for when we do not. joining us now, bloomberg's lucas shaw. a changeow dramatic this is. lucas: it's pretty significantly consider the entire principle of youtube and a lot of new media companies say that they collect data on their users to tell you what you like. they will know more about their users and some of your friends will even know because they can your full search history or your
5:37 pm
all viewing history, but this is a recognition on the part of youtube that there is a growing frustration with how these algorithms recommend videos. benign forms of that. maybe you get recommended a music video or late-night clip you do not like -- that's ok. you just choose not to >> on it, but there are examples of algorithms recommending maybe someone with political views you don't agree with or people saying something racist or homophobic or misogynistic. have thewers now ability to silence particular channels. emily: if you turn the algorithm off, does that mean potentially users would watch less youtube, if they are not getting automatically pushed new videos when a video ends? >> that would certainly be one of the fears for youtube, which is why it is hard to see them totally turning the algorithm off. it is engineered to feed you what you like. used an analogy kind of
5:38 pm
like candy. you get fed one piece of candy you really like, it is hard to stop eating it once you start. i do not think youtube will fully get rid of the algorithm. this is more of a selective way, something a lot of tech companies have embraced if there is something really offensive. spotify has a feature where you can block a particular artist that you find is either not your taste or is offensive to you in some way because after cases of womens who were abusing or a case of somebody like michael jackson who is accused of also is up molesting of children, some people just did not want to hear his music. emily: meantime, speaking of anti-semitic, u2 has found itself in another controversial , as iion in europe where understand it, they shut down one channel at the same time they were making policies about nazi speech. where europe, i think, is
5:39 pm
google and most tech companies are by a large a lot more concerned about some form of regulation. the u.s. government has shown less enthusiasm about punishing tech companies. there have been some investigations out of the ftc and we are waiting to hear the results of one on youtube, but by a large, europe is where tech companies have come under a lot more scrutiny. the case you mentioned with regard to anti-semitism to me is just another example of how youtube has really struggled with where to draw the line on what is and is not appropriate. sidebe tries to err on the of not taking things down. it believes and allowing more speech, but there are some cases where people get so riled up, sort set that they sort of go against their own guidelines and will take something down in a one-off case. emily: something we will continue to follow. so much.w, thanks
5:40 pm
coming up, president trump and chinese president xi jinping will attempt to resolve trade tensions at the g20 summit this week. how the meeting could affect apple next. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
emily: facebook ceo mark zuckerberg is currently speaking at the aspen ideas festival in colorado. we've been monitoring the conversation. he has been talking about election interference in social media while the company has spent billions of dollars on election security, security in general. he also talked about how facebook can only do so much, he believes, and how it is up to government to make a difference with election law. take a bit of a listen to the conversation. as a privateg: company, we don't have the tools to make the russian government
5:43 pm
stop. we can defend as best we can, but our government is the one that has the tools to apply pressure to russia, not us. emily: a familiar refrain there. facebook has said in the past they simply cannot keep up with all bad actors. we will continue to listen in. he also touched on the nancy "deepfake" video saying they made an execution mistake there. meantime, apple shares traded higher after steven mnuchin gave a positive outlook on a u.s.-china trade deal. in an interview with cnbc, mnuchin said he was confident president trump and xi jinping could make progress in trade talks at the upcoming g-20 summit. he said "we are about 90% there and i think there is a path to completeness." meantime, president trump warned
5:44 pm
of more tariffs if a deal does not come out of the summit. discuss with us, danrities managing director ives and bloomberg's sarah mcgregor, who covers trade. where does this leave apple? >> apple is really the poster child for the u.s.-china relationship. they are not just impacted on the demand side but on the supply side with foxconn. that is where they bet the farm for the mass amount of iphone manufacturing. in our opinion, this is really a fork in the road situation for apple, right now donovan innocent bystander, but it comes down that we get a trade deal, that is a stock that will go meaningfully higher in our opinion. emily: this is not the first time we have heard differing messages from the president and
5:45 pm
mentors of the administration, but what are we supposed to make of this? the treasury secretary's comments are of no surprise. he has sort of been the happy member of the cabinet who along with people like larry kudlow, the white house economic adviser, has always had this view that a deal can be made. mnuchin himself less year presented trump with a deal he had made with china and trump rejected that. he is the markets guy. he is from wall street and he wants to appease people. he definitely does not want to make a panic ahead of this meeting for sure. trump himself is saying he may go forward with tariffs, and that is really what matters. if this meeting does not go well, trump is ready to move forward with tariffs. of course, it could go swimmingly and they can in up with a deal. that seems like a likely scenario as well, but reaching that deal ultimately in the weeks and months ahead, even if they agree to keep talking, that is where the difficulty lies.
5:46 pm
emily: what do you imagine -- let's say apple as an example -- executives are doing right now? are they actually drawing out different scenarios whereby if the meeting does not go swimmingly they have a plan b? >> they are definitely hedging their bets. have talked about realistically, only 5% to 7% of those are, so long-term plans. right now for apple, even though they need to hedge their bets of it, that is why cook continues to be a pseudo-ambassador between the u.s. and china. they are the poster child for this trade war, and that is why it comes down to this. emily: this is happening in a matter of days. what are we expecting in the lead up?
5:47 pm
>> this came together quite quickly in terms of the teen of the world's biggest economies meeting. it has come together in a bit of a haphazard fashion. trump and xi, when they met at december, it was a similar scenario and they did manage to come up with a bit of a truce. they can talk about bits and pieces of the deal, but ultimately, if they are giving their trade negotiators a mandate to move forward and try to come up with a deal, that is sort of the best case scenario at this point. companies, that is sort of what they are watching for, just to buy a little more time. of course, then even coming up this total leaves environment of uncertainty, and businesses are working around that. we had this story about macron finding loopholes in export restrictions that have been put on sales to huawei. companies more and more a looking to try to find loopholes in the trade restrictions.
5:48 pm
trackingrah mcgregor every beat of the drum for us. still ahead, she went from being homeless to launching her own venture capital firm. how? we will hear how arlene hamilton broke into silicon valley with a bang next. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:49 pm
5:50 pm
emily: years ago, our than hamilton was sleeping on the floor of the food court. she had no money, no degree, but she had one goal in mind -- to invest in underrepresented entrepreneurs. today she is making waves in the white male capital dominated world of venture capital. her firm has invested in over $5 million -- has invested over $5 bylion in companies owned women, people of color, or
5:51 pm
people who identify as lgbtq. i sat down with her on "studio 1.0" and asked her how she made her way from backstage use it manager to rule breaker. >> it actually kind of correlates because it was while ofas on tour that i knew carter, lady gaga's manager, braun, justin bieber's manager. that sounded interesting. let me see why these interesting people are interested in that, and i realized, oh, my goodness, i'm an entrepreneur. i'm a startup founder. these are my people. emily: how did you learn about silicon valley? how did you find this place? >> i have been watching you for about five years. you are a staple here, so much so that i associate silicon valley with your image. it was a conversation -- it was
5:52 pm
more about looking up every article possible, reading blogs, reading everything, and then i created flashcards. like mark, stewart butterfield, andreessen,- mark stewart butterfield, and leavy, they are investors, but i first had them on these cards like what they mean. i was teaching myself everything i could because i wanted to be ready to go in and pitch to investors. i wanted to know what was on the other side and it was then while in that process of "i want to start my own company" that i started seeing no one is taking me seriously. and if they are not taking the seriously and i just went through all of this, i wonder how they're taking someone who may be does not put a g at the end of their words or maybe has a slight southern accent or maybe did not go to the college they went to and is not as am.ident as i
5:53 pm
these investors, these white men, which is mostly who i was talking to, they were not bad people. they were not jerks -- for the most part. some of them were, and you know who you are -- some of them were, but most were in their own little bubble, in their own little world, and they just would not go past that. emily: you made it from texas to silicon valley, but it was not a straight line. you were sleeping on the floor of the airport. you were on food stamps. and a lott was tough, of those times. that actually goes back to why when people say i don't deserve this, i just kind of think to myself, "ok, they were not there on the floor with me at the airport watching venture by." lists walk
5:54 pm
i did not know i was going to be re the next day. every day was like this is going to be the last time i do this. it was always like and i going to get to eat today? emily: how did you get your first big break? >> a lot of little things lead up to it, but you could argue the biggest break was susan kimberlin coming along and giving me $25,000 to invest in me. she said, "i believe in you. i don't know what this is or what this will become, but i do believe you will make something of it." emily: marc andreessen, stewart levy, peopleaaron you mentioned are all investors. how do you get them? >> i think it starts by is asizing that marc human as i am and we were equal.
5:55 pm
emily: i should add that bloomberg beta is an investor. do you worry that you are just checking a box with some of these people? >> i know that i am in some cases, but it does not bother me. emily: why not? >> there are some that i don't take and will not take. i have conviction around that. i have turned down money that was associated with peter thiel, like in the same month he doubled down on his investment and deletion to trump. it was not an easy decision. emily: right, was in it, like, $250,000? >> it was a complex decision but an easy one, is how i see it. emily: you have taken on people like peter thiel, paul graham, inple who are worshiped silicon valley. that has not been easy for you, i imagine, because the response has been harsh. >> sure.
5:56 pm
emily: you have sort of an equal number of supporters and trolls. i have seen it on social media. why do that? >> because it is the truth. it's how i feel. i'm not out looking for trouble, but the same reason that they are allowed in this country to say what they say, feel what they feel and do that out loud, and in their cases, it has a massive effect on other people, i should be able to speak my mind and say that that is wrong. it is a simple as that. emily: my interview there with backstage capital founder and hamilton.artner arlen it is a fiery one. you can catch the full interview on "studio 1.0" tonight, 6:00 p.m. eastern, 9:00 p.m. pacific. you don't want to miss it. this is bloomberg. ♪
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
paul: welcome to "daybreak australia." sophie: we are counting down to asia's major market opens. paul: here are the top stories we are covering in the next hour. president trump talks of a plan of his highlyead anticipated talks with xi jinping in japan. the trade war is hurting companies operating in


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on