Section 230 In Hot Seat and Meta's Account Verification

pay for account verification. We're running through the details as analysts called the plan a no brainer, and we'll hear from the Microsoft president Brad Smith, as the company fights to save its sixty nine billion dollar activision deal over

in Europe. Let's stick with the Supreme Court justices today, we're expressing concern about opening Internet companies to lawsuits from harmful user posts in a ruling that could transform the online world by removing that key legal underpinning section two thirty From all, let's bring in Bloomberg's Emily Bernbaum, who's tracking all of the proceedings. Emily give us the top lines of what the judges were deliberating over in court. So the case in question is called Gonzales versus Google.

They're trying to figure out if YouTube should be held liable for promoting terrorism videos. So it's the act of recommending the videos that the court is really looking at. Overall, Emily, it felt as though some holes were immediately being punched into the arguments coming from the Gonzales family. Now, this is a motive, this is about the loss of a daughter, this is about Islamic terrorism. But what did they have

an issue with the actual legal arguments here? Yeah, we heard a lot of frustration and confusion from the justices right off the bad during the almost three and three hour oral arguments today. Essentially the justice said, well, what's the line you're really drying here? Know, most things on the Internet are recommended to users through algorithms, and they say that the Gonzalez family hasn't adequately shown what they're even trying to do to Section two thirty a rule.

In terms of the arguments coming from big tech, what is its argument at the moment as it stands. We've heard in the past from Mark Zuckerberg saying ways in which perhaps it could be nuanced or updated. We've actually seen what Europe has put in place to be able to tackle, perhaps as the Democrats want to be seen tackled, some of the rassmate hate speech. But what ultimately do you think we're going to come down on a line head? Is two thirty going to be brushed aside for the

time being? At least they're definitely leaving that possibility open. The social media companies say, you know, maybe it's time for Congress to take a look at Section two thirty. But this is not a good question for the Supreme Court, which is not in the business of making laws or

creating new policies. So essentially, tomorrow there's going to be a case that revolves around similar issues whether social media companies can be held liable for eating an embedding terrorism under federal laws, and it's possible the Court will hear that case decide the answer is, know that social media companies can't, under this claim, be held liable for eating an ebedding terrorism, and then just scrap the Gonzales View

Google case altogether. Amy, it's been a busy day. We thank you so much for giving us the legalis around all of its Emane Banbaum, We thank you. Now we want to be digging a little bit more. We want to go now to the Chambers of Progress. Founder and CEO Adam COCAG. Thank you very much indeed for talking us through Adam what you've made of the argument. Now, I know in many ways the Chamber of progress, it's

aligned center left with technology, with the industry. But from your perspective, what at the moment would be wrong with trying to pick apart Section two thirty as it stands. Well, I think it's important to differentiate between what Section two thirty does, which is really provide a kind of a liability routing mechanism. It means that if I go into Facebook and I say Bob's a crook, Bob cansume me

for defamation, but he can't sue Facebook. And the reason why we have section two thirty is to ensure that Facebook can continue to operate and allow those user comments. But that's not really the heart of what was being considered. A day. Was being considered a day is when you go on to say Spotify, and a song is recommended, or you put something in your Amazon shopping cart and another product is recommended, or if you go to Google

search results and you get those recommendations. Do those recommendations algorithmically driven? Do those have two thirty protection? That's really what the court was grappling with today, and I think there was a lot of discussion about whether it's possible to separate those algorithmic recommendations from the content itself and from the value that those services provide to consumers in the first place. And the Chamber of Progress is essentially

a trade get right. I think it's worth pointing out that you represent the technology companies. I would say that's fair. But one of the things I continually hear out here in Silicon Valley at least is actually Section two thirty protects the user, and that doesn't seem to be a

point of consideration right now. I think that's absolutely right, and actually even I would rewind a step, which is I think that the fact is if two Section two thirty were reformed, the realities that the big companies, the Googles and the facebooks would probably be okay because they have armies of lawyers. They could you tie up these

cases and litigation. It's a lot of times those small services, you know, Clubhouse emerged on a scene during the pandemic, and Section two thirty is really critical for a site like that because it can start providing user generated content and how do not have to worry about liability prepet protection. That as a point that was made in court today, but I agree with you, it also protects the users.

And I think this is not well misunderstood because Section two thirty becomes almost a political football, particularly with respect Democrats and republic using it as a little bit of a tool. But if you got rid of that liability protection, I think you would give you would force platforms to choose between being say Disneyland, right, which is sort of a sanitized environment where nothing was allowed, or a wasteland

where services were disincentivized to look for that content. And that was also a point that came up in court today. I think one of the justices made the point that the panel of justices and not the sort of definitive experts on the internet, and that that comment elicited a laugh from those in attendance. You represent the tech companies. Is it the Supreme Court that should be considering this? Is it even the right place to have this conversation?

I have to say, and I think a lot of others went in today pretty nervous about why the Supreme Court would be taking this case, whether it was a sign that they were prepared to blow up Section two

thirty walking out of the arguments. Frankly, I think what I heard was a lot of acknowledgment from Justice is about the benefits of Section two thirty for the economy, for user generated content platforms, for consumers, and so I don't think that's as likely now as I, you know, as I was worried about at the beginning of the days.

There's still a possibility that they could say, well, okay, maybe certain types of content recommendations don't have as much protection, and I do think that could have downstream steaks not just for the big companies, but for small companies in

for consumers as well, certain types like well Adam Well. So, as I said, I think people, Section two thirty is not even one of the things that it's it's a pro competition law, right because it again it allows new social networks to emerge, right and not have to have the armies of lawyers like Facebook and Google do. That's

really important. But I also think that the fact that this the issue here was about algorithmic recommendations, and when you saw the Justice is grappling with was it's really hard to look at a service like Google Search and say, like Okay, it's all algorithmic recommendations. Right. One of the things there was a lot of discussion about was neutrality. There's a case where there was a statement of a

statement of applied neutrality. Even Justice Corsage, who would be someone who's somewhat critical Section too thirty said, you know, when I really think about it, no algorithm is neutral. All algorithms are trying to highlight and privilege certain types of content, maybe relevant content, maybe high quality content, And so it's really hard to say that there should be any kind of neutrality a test applied to the algorithms.

And I think it was really interesting to see the Supreme Court kind of grapple real time with a lot of these concepts. I mean, push us towards tomorrow, because then it's Twitter's time in a spotlight. And of course that is more around how broadly you can read into the Anti Terrorism Act in some way this again sadly involves death by terrorism. But Twitter's roll and not taking down some content. Is this some sort of way in which the overall Supreme Court might find an off ramp

in some way? Well, Emily talked about that a lot of people have speculated about that and I think that

is a very strong possibility. I think one of the things that's interesting about the arguments to day around this case were you kind of wondered why the Supreme Court took this case right, because you know, you even had I think again, there were a lot of people who thought, well, there were justices like Justice Thomas who were pretty critical, who basically have said in previous decisions, will bring us more to thirty cases because we kind of want to

take a fresh look at two thirty. But by the tenor of their questions, many of those conservative justices were sort of asking, why are we even here? And so I do think it was really an interesting signal of I think the Justice's interest in looking at two thirty. They spent three hours on this, As Emily said, that's really unusual. It's about twice as long as they were supposed to spend. I don't think tomorrow's case will be quite will be quite as lengthy, because it's a much

narrower statute, this anti terrorism statute. That's a question, and I think a much narrower question. Adam Kavakave's Chamber of Progress, Fonda and see I thank you so much and Caroline. As we always do, Adam raised many of the points we ask our own audiences, what should we do with section two thirty. This is what our audience in a Twitter poll had to say, actually relatively straightforward. Yes, it needs to be amended, but again one of the key

points is it's supposed to protect the user. And how ed we've heard from up before trying to put out ways in which perhaps you could amend it, but it does end up perhaps benefiting some more than others. What's interesting is how, of course Europe's put into place its own rules. They've got their own Digital Services Act that's coming out in the beginning of twenty twenty four. How fines we've been in place to not tackle hate speech

and the like quickly enough. It's so interesting the way in which basically regulators trying to grapple with this question anady lawmakers. Yeah, and I don't hear many alternatives being proposed. Will continue to track one now coming up hurdles facing the sixty nine billion dollars Microsoft Activision Blizzard deal. We'll bring you the details and our interview with Microsoft president Brad Smith. That's next. This is bloom Bow. I think

there's a clear path forward towards regulatory approval. The two agreements that we announced today I think really provide two guardrails, if you will. One shows how we can come to terms to make call of Duty available on other platforms. Today it was Nintendo. In the future, it can be Sony. On the other side, the agreement we've done with video really shows how we can address the concerns relating to

cloud gaming. Microsoft president Brad Smith there on the path to approval for the almighty sixty nine billion dollar deal with Activision Blizzard joining US and all the intricaces is Dina bs and just talk to us, Tina, you're reporting in a moment. There is, of course Brad Smith over in Europe trying to convince as to why this deal should go through, really trying to take on the UK. It's warriors about call of duty mainly. But do you

think ultimately he's going to be able to persuade. I was going to say, you're talking the path to approval, it might also be the path to a block. That concern about call of duty was flagged by all three of the major regulators that are holding up the steal. At this point, the UK European Union and USFTC. And

you know. One of the questions for Microsoft then, which Brad Smith answered rather definitively, is well, okay, if you could buy Activision Blizzard and only under condition that you divest Call of Duty or you divest the Activision portion which owns Call of Duty, would you do it? And we got a pretty definitive answer for mister Smith. He said, you know, it's quote isn't quote feasible or realistic to think that one game or one slice of this company

can be carved out. So he seemed to be ruling out something that was proposed, particularly by the UK regulator, which was a structural remedy. He focused instead on behavioral remedies. That's what Microsoft wants. The difference there is there would be promises by Microsoft that to change certain behavior or not do certain things in order to address concerns, rather than a divestiture of some part of the acquired company. Did know there were what Brad Smith called guard rails.

He talks about the deals within Nvidia and with Nintendo. What do we learn about those deals on Tuesday? Sure, so you'll remember the Nvidia deal was actually announced on the eve of Microsoft going to meet with the FTC in an attempt, I would imagine to convince the FTC that Microsoft did not want to make Call of Duty exclusive and to assuage those concerns. It did not work.

The deal is officially signed now, and another deal which was announces to give you a bunch of games too, Invidios g Force cloud gaming service, which is another one of the concerns that all of these regulators have raised, whether this deal would allow Microsoft to dominate gaming subscriptions and cloud gaming. So Smith's point was that those deals kind of give you an indication of what Microsoft is

thinking around behavioral guard rails. He also took game again at Sony rather theatrically pulling out what he said was the exact contract that Microsoft had offered Sony to give it ten years of access to Call of Duty, which which Sony has not been willing to sign Dinna. All of this, of course, is sort of some sounds of optimism that came from Brad Smith, but ultimately it feels as though the red line is in place. They will not be buying this unless they can have Call of Duty.

That's right, that is, that is basically what Smith said they do not believe that it is feasible logical there's any way for them to buy you know, Activision Blizzard and then sell off to Best call of Duty. And so Microsoft will have to look to convince regulators that it can you agree to again these behavioral remedies, these guardrails that Smith talked about, rather than a divestiture. Now.

Smith was optimistic in an interview that he did with Bloomberg Television earlier about the chances of that and in particular the chances of convincing the USFTC, which has been mary start upon it thus far to this dealon as soon. In APTC administrative report, Smith said that, you know, he thought if Microsoft could work things out with Brussels, could work things out with London, they would be okay in watching a DC as well. Bloomberg's Deiner Bass, thank you

so much time now for talking tech. Let's check out what's going on over in China. E commerce leader JD dot Com closed down eleven percent of the US market close after a media report said it was planning a subsidy campaign to compete against its rival PDD Holdings in the amount of ten billion one that's about one point

five billion dollars elsewhere. Maytue is expanding into Hong Kong in hiring up to ten thousand people in China's mainland that according to the Singtow Daily Sighting sources, the Chinese shopping platforms trying to beat back competition from new entrance like bike Dance in the one hundred and five billion dollar Chinese food arena. And finally, two key members of China's most influential scientific body have outlined the country's plan

to circumvent US chip sanctions for the first time. The scientists say China should have mass a portfolio of patents that govern the next generation of chip making, from novel materials to new techniques, which could propel China's chip ambitions while giving the country clout to push back against those US sanctions designed to hamstring is semi conductor sector. Now the switch from China to crypto and talk about coin based shares now hiring after hours kind of bouncing around.

We have been lower when its latest earnings hit here with more Bloomberg nali bassectionally, what jumped out of you from those numbers for coin based took the market a while to decide what it liked. Yeah, One thing that's really interesting here is you had revenue overall coming above estimates, but you had transaction revenues coming below estimates. There has often been the king in the room when it came to coin base trading volumes and fees that they got

behind it. But now you do have coin Base looking to how it's diversifying that subscription and services revenue in particular is coming in hot, and you have the CFO of coin Base speaking of Bloomberg separately, we have a live blog on the terminal that is still accounting for a lot of what she said, and with a company is saying that really shows you that subscription and services revenue that includes by the way, staking ed is starting to come back to a place that can diversify it

enough to get it away from the volatility that you were typically worried about with coin Base. Let's see if the market sticks to that narrative. Staking a story that you've been tracking closely where users basically book a yield on coin deposits. What did coin Base have to say about staking in particular? A couple of things are really

important here. They say that their business is not like, for example, the crack and business that recently settled with the S and C without admitting or denying wrongdoing here. But when you look at coin Base, and we recently talked to their chief legal officer about this, they say that they're different. I think more important than that, what is material is that the CFO told Bloomberg that in their ten Q they're not planning on disclosing a new

regulatory matter to this effect. And separately, that chief legal officer, in a podcast with The Scoop with Frank Chaparo, had said separately that they did not receive a wells notice tied to the staking service. So those are some things that are all clear for coin Base for now. They still have a regulatory overhang. We had spoken to an analyst on Bloomberg Television earlier that was more concerned about

the moat when it came to Coinbase. But again, when you look at the institutional business, their ability to diversify, that is a story that they're leaning on here. Again shares super Bowl little aftermarket ed, but so far in the green right. Bloomberg Snai Basset that earning school kicking off in around five minutes. We'll keep track of those headlines. Thank you so much, welcome back to being my Technology. I'm Cauline Hand and Neil and I met Ludlow in

San Francisco. I'll just stay with Metachez. This is really interesting news over the weekend. The company's talking about a subscription tier of verification allah Twitter following in the footsteps, and you know, it's interesting. Shares actually markedly higher at the open on Tuesday, on a day where megacaptech, big tech, social media appears all significantly lower. We kind of fell away carow towards the end of the session, down half

percentage point. But broadly analyst reception to this plan, which came out over the long weekend here in the US, was positive, even though you know, okay, we're down half percentage point. One note in particular caught my eye, particularly because we have such a brilliant guess coming up next. And that's what Bank of America had to say about this, and they say it's intriguing, clearly following on from what Twitter has done with Twitter Blue. But it's this last

line the point that really I'm seizing on Caroline. Audience size could be limited by the number of creators and influencers on Meta's platforms. You and I've been talking for weeks now about how important the creator and the influencer is on platforms like Instagram, YouTube talk becoming kind of a powerhouse in that respect, and the analyst nervousness is actually on the core Facebook product, for example, it might

not be there. Yeah, I wonder how we square that circle of hooking in more content creators, getting them to pay up it going straight to the bottom line, But ultimately how much does this max out at? Let's ask a veteran of the startup world, Lauren Schneffer ran Creator Partnerships for Facebook for more than four years, currently host Creator Upload podcast. So my immediate reaction when I saw this was, Oh, I wonder how all the influences and creators who already have a blue check mark are going

to feel about this. But what do you think the reaction is from the creator community. Well as I understand that they're not going to lose it and they don't have to pay for it a thirty habits, so I think that they're fine with it right now. But I think in general, the thing that what people aren't really focusing on as much is the what you're going to get for that subscription. Other than the Blue check Park,

which is customer service. And I can tell you that this is a huge issue even if you're a managed partner at Facebook or Instagram. Just the level of sort of transparency and how you get things fixed is incredibly difficult. And I think this is a huge opportunity because you're

getting some customer service and a live chat. There's never been that opportunity before, so for creators and otherwise, I actually think this is a huge opportunity at not a huge price point, and I think it's a welcome change. I think people have been looking for a way to get answers and this is a way in. And also, what does the fluid chuck mark even mean anymore? Right? Like, it's sort of devoid of all meaning. Certainly, when I was there, the criteria for getting one was ever evolving.

As you know, when I got there, you had to be on very specific kind of databases like an IMDb or a Wikipedia, and there were no YouTubers on Wikipedia at the time, so we had to expand that. So it's ever evolving. And honestly, I feel like, again it's sort of lost all meanings. So I feel like this now gives me something very tangible for that, and I, for one like it. I'm really happy for it, and

I think it will be a welcome change. So it gives something to the creative What about the content consumer, because in some ways the blue check mark for them was meant to be authenticity clearly and perhaps with a customer care and with this level of disigence, you'll definitely get that, but also sort of a mark of creative excellence in some way. Do you think that that is any is that vaguely lost? We have different ranks of

who gets it and what about companies as well. I don't think that it has meant I think it has meant all everything and nothing for so long. I think if you look at the people, and this was even when I was there and I haven't been there for several years. The people some people that got it and did it. There was no rhyme or reason for it. You have people with like huge followings that couldn't get verified,

and then those without big followings could. It just didn't really make any sense so for me, and then of course all the platforms kind of did their version of it and it meant something slash nothing for them. So I don't know I think this gives me some real meaning. And I think that generally speaking across social we should be focused on verified profiles, you know, and I think everybody's talking about bots, Well, how do you get rid of that. This is a way to get rid of that,

you know, you verify our identity. And I also want to speak to like for a while now, you know, Facebook, if you get hacked or something, they're asking for a government issued ID, and a lot of folks have been very wary to give Facebook that, you know, information for obvious reasons. But for some reason, when you put sort of a little bit of friction and a paywall in front of it and then then require a government idea, I think that people are going to be more willing

to work with Facebook as a platform. And it just engenders more trust because you feel like, Okay, well i'm paying for something, I'm going to get something for this. I'm gonna get my blue check mark, I'm gonna get my customer service, etc. So I don't know, I think this is a welcome change and also a huge pivot.

When I was at Facebook, I can distinctly remember Mark Zuckerberg sort of laughing at the idea that Facebook would ever charge for anything, because this was before the time when we all sort of realized that we were being we were paying in our data. Right, this is pre Cabridge Analytic, So we've all been paying for a long time, to be honest, and now it's just like it's not that much less than twenty bucks a month and I get all these services. I'm I'm not mad at it. Lauren.

Let's jump in the into timing. You were a Facebook as it was then known twenty fourteen to twenty nineteen. Why is this happening now? This is just a response from meta to direct competition from the likes of Twitter and TikTok, etc. I mean, I think there's there's several reasons, right, Like I think they've been dealing. They think there's there's the bot issue that they're trying to and they're trying to focus on, you know, verifying identity and they're figuring

out a way to do that. And I think this is really a response to and almost acknowledging the fact that we have been paying for these services with our personal data, so now this is another way to do it. And this is also something they've been trying to solve for a long time in terms of propping up some sort of customer service. So I think there's a lot of things going on and the reasons behind this. And I will also say that I don't see this as

a huge cashcout for Facebook, like I don't. I don't imagine this is some huge certainly not for quite a while. So I don't think that that's the reason behind it. I think that they know that this is they are trying to get back in the good g races of folks, and I think that this is a way of them being able to provide tangible services and people can see an actual benefit from it, and they will feel there's

a real exchange. And not to mention the fact that creators, who I consider small businesses and you know, sort of brick and mortar small businesses can suffer real sort of devastation with their businesses if their Facebook gets hacked or their Instagram gets hacked. And this is a way I mean, I still get I haven't in a facebooks in story digteen. I still get friends of friends, you know, dming me

when they get hacked, and it's devastating. And so this is a way to really figure out a way around that, and I think that they know it's time. It's too big. They need real, sort of provided services for folks to help with these situations. On your point on the sort of sales boost, bloom Bag Intelligent Analysts put out a note earlier saying that it could add two to three billion dollars annually in sales. But actually, in the grand scheme of things, as you say, that's not a great deal.

Focus on the creative. I mean, it's sorry if I don't you try. We saw this segment though, Lauren talking about how YouTube has the creators, TikTok has the creators historically, metter is not how do they get them on board? Well, I Facebook is like, so I work at a company. I'm the host of a podcast, but I also I'm a VP of corporate development at a company called Jelly Smack, and one of the primary things that we do is take creators from YouTube and then we move them over

to Facebook and other platforms. There's actually a huge creator community on Facebook. It's just a little bit under the radar and it's frankly just not as cool as other platforms, but there's real creators making real money on that platform today. So I think it wants to be known to your point more is like a place where creators kind of

start their careers. It's not that yet, So I think this is one way to potentially help creators get in and understand why they should, you know, because they'll be able to get sort of services from Facebook. But I don't know that this is going to be. I think it's more going to be if you're already on Facebook. I don't know this is going to be a way for that. Creators are going to sort of flock to the platform as a result of this, because it's verification

is going to be in something very different. Now it's just going to be verifying your identity. But I think it's going to be I don't know. I think it's going to be adopted widely. Here's to customer services. Larene, thank you, I hear Jenny Smack, VP of Corporate Development, and of course the co host and creator upload podcast Great Insight, We thank you so much. Mean while coming up, well how is general to AI impacting on very own future?

And open a eyes roll and kicking off the hype that's next and Edgie got some more shares to watch out for. Yeah, just a quick check on pala Alto Networks up more than seven percent in after hours, strong beat on revenue in extended trading, really driving those shares. I think what we're looking at there is actually the performance during Tuesday's session, but take my word for it, we're up more than seven percent in after hours and strong bookings as well. Continue to track that as the

cause ongoing. This is Bloomberg. Open a Eye does are a ton of credit for taking what happened with transformers and large language models and taking it out of the research labs of these big tech companies. They're really at the front lines of bringing these technology to lots of application developers and users. So to give up a credit. When they release chat GPT, they were very careful to put in place safeguards to prevent certain types of toxic

or harmful content or dangerous content from being shared. The timing and the press that's received about open AI, I think is actually great and it actually highlights the opportunity that's out there. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next six to twelve months we have models that are actually capable of truthfulness. I think every company is going to be an AI company, and everything we do at work and how we live is going to be transformed by AI. AI is probably the most important next generation

technology of this decade. A lot of optimism, a little grands speak there from our recent guests talking about the impact of open AI on the quick rise of generative AI in just the recent months, and about the very impact of artificial intelligence on our lives moving forward. And that's just one of the topics on which a new Bloomberg original series makes a deep dive. It's the Future with Hannah Fry looking at breakthroughs across themes such as

AI but also crypto, climate, chemistry, ethics. Who name it in premieres tomorrow, I'm very pleased to say. Therefore, the Bloomberger Eternals host in University College London, Professor Hannah Fry joins us now for more And Hannah, I mean deep knowledge of mathematics, someone who's passion for learning and for teaching. But you've also been keeping a keen eye on some of the extraordinary hurrah around artificial intelligence, which you know you're a fellow brit deep mind. That was a lot

of that being baked over there in the UK. What do you make of the hype and the reality. I think in a lot of ways. I mean, these large language models have been around for quite some time, and I think that this current generation that we have now are a step forward. But I wouldn't say that there's this seismic shift in quite the way that they appear

to be in public perception. The big difference, of course, is that now the it has access to them in a way that they didn't before, So I think it's really that the public is kind of catching up with where things stand. But I think that with that the impressiveness of this new generation, I think that there is also maybe a sort of false impression that these algorithms are capable of doing things that they're perhaps not quite demonstrating.

You know. For instance, I still don't think that we are in a world where any artificial intelligence anywhere has ever demonstrated a conceptual understanding of what it was creating. Hannah Big Wednesday Night Ahead. We'll get into the details of the show in just a second, but I'm looking across the six episodes, right, and it's not just simply a look at AI. You're looking at, for example, technology and AI within social inclusion. You go global or around

the world, give us some of what we can expect. Yes, I'm really supposed to come. I really wanted this whole series to be about not just technology in and of itself in isolation, but really about the impact of technology on society. So, as you say, one of the episodes is about technology for social inclusion, the idea that there are new creations that might be able to help people with disabilities to combat the way that some groups end

up being marginalized. So we go, there's a place around the corner from here in Brooklyn where they are building the most beautiful, elegant prosthetic limbs that can be controlled by your mind essentially, or a company in London that are creating these glasses that can subtitle conversations as they happen, so that people who are deaf or hard of hearing might be able to use that kind of technology. But

I think it's not just the series. It's not just about listing all the new technologies that are coming, it's really thinking about their impact. Because in that episode, I also go to talk to some disability rights campaigners and ask them about how they feel about these new silver bullets, and their response really is actually, can we just have ramps, you know, like actually we'd like brail and maybe like a carpet that leads up to the reception desk of buildings.

It's all very well good to get excited about these new kind of fangled technologies, but really we have the technology already that can really impact on people's lives, and we're what we're lacking is a sort of societal will to implement it. Well said Well, I can't wait to tune in the first one, the one hundred and fifty year life, so delving deep on longevity. Joy to have her here with us, of course. Plume Meg original hostan University College London professor Hannah Fry. We thank a. Don't

forget to catch the premiere. It's actually at ten thirty pm New York time right here. I'm bring their TV or you can just go ahead, can stream it too? Ed? Hey like tech? Hey yeah, big night, My night sorted. Let's stick with AI though, and bringing James Cliff, CEO of Durable, which is an AI website builder and service business software name. And I've been excited to have you on, James. I've been tracking what Durable's up to. But the starting

point here is everything we've just talked about. This moment in AI is huge, and I'd just like to ask you what's that experience been like for your company in recent weeks and months as interest kind of built up. Yeah, it's been incredible. In my fifteen years of building things on the internet, this is definitely the fastest growth company I've ever been been a part of. It's certainly a wave,

it's a trend. People are so excited about this technology, and just the use cases that we're seeing are just incredibly exciting. And yeah, really really stoked to see the impact of AI and society, but actually seeing real users in real life using this, it's been incredible. This is a simplistic way of looking at your technology, but basically a quick way of developing a website using AI. What are some of the tools that your company uses, some

of the underlying technologies to make that happen. Yeah, So we had our own in house website builder and then we lay it on this whole AI engine. So we're using open AI to generate the copy with our own prompt engine. We're picking images from a free stock photo archive, so really just using AI on top of our own technology layer to build this brand new user experience. James, let's get to some of the more click baity part of well, our media that we know and love that

we're part of. But there is an element going on in people's stress test generative AI, particularly of course the chat GPT part of it. What are you making of some of the coverage, what are you making about its achilles heels, some of the worries that we have, the way in which we we've seen to be setting it completely bonkers. Yeah, it's I mean, it's a new technology. It's exciting. There's always going to be a period of there's gonna be a lot more headlines coming out, for sure.

I think as you have this brand new technology and really smart people trying to break the technology, you're going to see a lot of breaking points. I think the ethics are something to really consider. But the reality of AI right now, it's it's human input, right so you have a human being that is putting a prompt in they're training the AI. I think where it gets really interesting in the future is this idea of artificial general

intelligence when the AI is thinking for itself. I think we're about one hundred years out from that, but that's the future that we really have to be thinking about. And I think a lot of smart people are are really working through the addicts. Here James Clift, which we had along there, thank you so much, Durable CEO there, We thank him. It's a memoir of grief, of adversity,

and of a drive to thrive the urgent life. My story of love, loss and Survival is written by Bozma Saint John, one of the most well known C suite executives across Silicon Valley in recent years, leading marketing at giants like Netflix, Uber, Apple. How can people live life to their fullest in the face of adversity and how can companies like the ones that you work for enable that. We're welcome to discuss a little bit more. Bozema, It's great to have some time with you. You tell stories.

You've been telling stories all your life for businesses. You've also been telling stories to help reduce bias. I think of share the mic now when it comes to Instagram and other platforms. Is it in your story they want to share? Well, First, thank you so much for having me. You know you're You're right. I've been sharing stories, telling stories,

narratives for my entire career. And I feel like right now, at this moment in time, you know, we've all been suffering some sort of loss over the last three years at the very least, right if not longer, loss of identity, loss of comfort, loss of sometimes loved ones, and we are still not able to necessarily come all the way clean about it, you know, to bring it into a public eye. We feel ashamed. We need to hide it.

We need to hide our suffering and our disquiet. And I think it's about time for us to start saying those types of things out loud. You know, we're whole human beings. We're not just ectional side. We're also the personal side. And so how do we bring both of those to really bring the whole person your story as well of loss with Peter, your husband, and of cancer. Of course, you've grieved lots of children, and you've sort

previous loved ones. I think of other executives, I mean, Chao Sama comes to light of someone who shared the story of loss and trying to bring a full self to work. Talk to us about all the companies that you've worked at, big technology companies, allowing that that you can be your full self or whatever way that is, and that sometimes a drive to survive and a drive to thrive can be a drive for happiness too, not just a general desire to get ever higher. Yes, it's

so true. You know, the companies that I've worked for and many that are in tech, you know, there's such high pressure environments. You know, you're moving so fast. You have to think ahead two steps, three steps, four steps ahead. And what happens if you are dealing with something that's very present, you know, something that is dragging you down. Grief has a way of pulling you to the past. It doesn't allow you to dream of the future. So how could you possibly think about the next thing that's

coming if you are grieving? You know, I think that we have to open space for that, And for me, it is felt that in this present time, there's been more conversation around mental health. There's been more conversation around how we can be whole human beings, but there's still a lot of oooh, what I would say about taboo, you know, around that, And I think it's time for us and knock that down really and begin to have more open dialogue so we understand the fullness of our

employees our colleagues. For certain, it will be a better working environment if we are allowed we se the need. But as maure cmo at Netflix for a time, and I wondered if you could reflect on some decisions that Netflix had made that perhaps weren't something received positively by everyone, namingly the decision to charge for password sharing and add in and ad supported tiers. You know, those were two really profound moments for Netflix is offering. How do you

assess how they handled that? Well? Look, I think storytelling is very tough. You know, there's so much that happens in corporate boardrooms to make decisions that you believe are best for all customers. You know, even though I wasn't part of the decision to make that choice, I do think that storytelling has a way of being sometimes, you know, hard to really get the whole story out if you don't have a perspective on how it actually benefits everyone.

So for me, I think there's an opportunity always to think about the benefits to challenges that people make. Base Once a business makes the decision that is good for the business and also good for the customer. We wish I had more time go follow her for more badass balls as she's known. But Bostimus said, John, we thank you so much for spending some time with us. The urgent life Honey memoir. That does it for this edition

of bloom Bag Technology. Don't forget a lot to recap from this show and much more this week, and check out our podcasts on Apple, Spotify, I Heeart, wherever you get your podcast. And there's a lot more to come from Caroline and I this week. This is Bloomberg Differ