Bloomberg

The essential guide to a sector that’s now attracting one out of every four startup investment dollars.

AI-Innovators-2023-Bloomberg

The financial information giant launched BloombergGPT in March for research purposes. It has 700 million tokens, although currently only 600 billion tokens were used to train the model. BloombergGPT outperformed similar AI tools in both finance-specific and general language comprehension tasks, according to the company. With more than half of the data used to train it coming from proprietary information, BloombergGPT could offer a future template for corporate uses of AI. The company is already a leader in using natural language processing to help users of its financial data and news services find the information they need and to gain trading insights such as sentiment analysis. It also a pioneer in using AI to write headlines and corporate earnings stories.

Fortune 50 AI Innovators

America's Most Innovative Companies

Sector

Strongest Dimension

Years on list

State

Get insights into Bloomberg including business profile, stock information, news, and rankings from Fortune.

Bloomberg Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

bloomberg

Companies

Bloomberg | Fortune

Bloomberg Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings | Fortune

Glenn Gamboa

The Associated Press

‘Trust in government is at an all-time low,’: even South Bend’s award-winning AI-friendly mayor admits the truth

/2026/02/24/trust-government-all-time-low-south-bend-mayor-james-mueller-bloomberg-philanthropies-ai/

Prima Wirayani

Abhishek Vishnoi

Indonesia exchange CEO steps down as MSCI reform pressure mounts

/2026/01/30/indonesia-exchange-ceo-steps-down-as-msci-reform-pressure-mounts/

Hotels allege predatory pricing, forced exclusivity in Trip.com antitrust probe

/2026/01/21/hotels-allege-predatory-pricing-forced-exclusivity-in-trip-com-antitrust-probe/

China birth rate hits lowest since 1949 in blow to baby drive

/2026/01/19/china-birth-rate-hits-lowest-since-1949-in-blow-to-baby-drive/

Sydney Lake

Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffett agree on advice to Gen Z: Choose vibes over money in your job search

/2026/01/08/billionaires-michael-bloomberg-warren-buffett-say-be-careful-who-you-work-for-career-advice/

Adrian Wong

Baby panda frenzy is Hong Kong’s big bet to get tourists back

https://fortune.com/asia/2025/02/13/hong-kong-baby-panda-travel/?itm_source=parsely-api

Lindsey Leake

Hate needles? Lilly’s weight-loss pill could get FDA approval next year, CEO says

https://fortune.com/well/article/eli-lilly-weight-loss-pill-orforglipron-glp1-2026/?itm_source=parsely-api

Sohee Kim

China’s 60-second dramas head to the U.S. after beating box office

https://fortune.com/asia/2025/02/05/china-mini-drama-social-media-tiktok/?itm_source=parsely-api

MacKenzie Hawkins

Jenny Leonard

Biden to further limit Nvidia AI chip exports in final push

https://fortune.com/asia/2025/01/09/biden-further-limit-exports-nvidia-ai-chips-china/?itm_source=parsely-api

https://fortune.com/2026/01/08/billionaires-michael-bloomberg-warren-buffett-say-be-careful-who-you-work-for-career-advice/?itm_source=parsely-api

Media has undergone a monumental transformation over the past decade, with traditional business models disrupted, consumers migrating to new platforms and formats, and declining trust in mainstream outlets. In this new landscape, how do media companies—both legacy institutions and startups—turn a profit while also building loyal, cross-platform audiences who trust the accuracy of their output? A conversation about the future of journalism and media more broadly.

Media's Next Chapter: Building Trust and Navigating Disruption

Conferences

Good afternoon everyone. How's everybody doing here? Good Awake great. All right, here we go, um, so we have a lot of history on this stage actually somewhat of a cool thing about being a woman in business is there's a lot of firsts you can have whether you set out to have a historic career or not. Here we are. So Rashida was appointed as the first ever black woman to run a major cable news network in the United States. Um, Jomanna is the first woman CEO of a media organization here, and I got to be the first woman editor in chief of Fortune in 95 years, so incredible. So all of us have never really seen this media industry in the days of the martini lunches and the really thick magazines that sounded so glamorous. It's been nothing but change for the decades that we've been in it, and now is no different and perhaps we're facing the biggest change yet. So I'm curious though, as you look at the media org that you've run and are running from a global perspective, what do you see as the biggest challenges that we're up against and maybe Jamon, I'll start with you. Um, thank you, Alison. It's such a pleasure to be with you all here today sharing the stage with two remarkable women who are pioneers, um, um, in the media industry, very much paving the way for all of us and the younger generations to come. But I would say. You know, the way that we decided to look at it is that we're embracing challenges opportunity. Of course everyone's talking about the next big disruption, what's happening with AI and how it impact journalism in the media and monetization of our platforms, but ultimately I think fear will result in us losing um our positioning, our credibility, um, and the trust that people have very much put in us. um, we're very excited. About this next chapter, however, excitement means being prepared. Excitement only means that it could work if you have the right strategy in place. Ultimately, I also believe that we live in such a great, um, a time where everyone is digitally connected, so it makes that sort of content creation process easier. Um, we also are empowered by AI and technology that allows you to understand your audiences. Their preferences, what they want to read what they want to see, when they want to see it, but ultimately again it goes back to ensuring that you have the right strategy in place and the right upskilling and reskilling ongoing throughout the year to ensure that your journalists, your media practitioners are also capable to dealing with that challenge. And Rashita, what do you think? Is it, is it the First Amendment being challenged in the United States or is it this business crazy model that we're all trying to sort through? Yes. No, I think it's exactly, um, it's all of those things and, and, and, and I think similar to what uh Javana said in a world where there's a lot of challenge, there's a lot of fear, there's a lot of change, there's a lot of uncertainty, uh, we don't have a playbook for how to navigate this kind of change, but we do know how the business has evolved we do know how the industry has evolved if you, if you take this. Moment in time and you're in the middle of the of the the storm and you see all the change happening around you it can be disorienting but I think as you look at the industry overall and look at the evolution over decades and decades and decades you'll see we've been resilient. I mean I I know um for many of you you cannot imagine a world imagine a time where we didn't have streaming. I'm old enough to remember that. Or a world where we didn't have the internet or a world where everyone didn't even have cable and we've been able to survive and evolve in those moments and I have no doubt that in this moment of time while it feels disruptive, the people who figure it out, which many of them are women because in the US at least most news organizations, television, digital whatever are run by women including Alison, um, the women are gonna figure it out and we'll be better for it. Who better right? we solve things. So what do viewers and readers want? It seems like it's getting ever more complicated. The viewing habits are changed. I know here in Reno we have a population that is significantly young, um, like 2/3 of the population we were talking about stage are under the age of 30, um, and I know in the US. The younger audiences are consuming media completely differently than the older generations, and that's something we think about at Fortune all the time. It's how do we cater to the legacy audience that we have and also bring up the next gen who want completely different things. So how are you seeing those viewership changes generationally and, and what are you doing to make it happen? I think we live in a in a world that has been dominated by the scroll um and that's what we're very quickly having to adapt to um attention spans have also become shorter, uh but ultimately that doesn't mean that the content that you create or the journalism that you produce has to be any less important and it doesn't mean that it loses. And it's editorial integrity. um, however, we do have to adapt to changing audience, uh, or, or consumer trends and behaviors and where they want to get that content. We believe that, you know, with the printing press, um, that was a major big disruption and then with social another disruption of course prior to that internet, no, I don't. But I do remember the days of the internet and that dial um and that changed everything for us um and then of course with social media and media companies or organizations saying how are we now going to compete with that platform, how are we going to compete with the likes of X and Snapchat and Instagram and now TikTok but what what we've realized is that if you embrace it and if you make it part of your core strategy, you no longer have to compete for with it. You are embracing it and becoming a part of it, um, I think ultimately. In the Middle East specifically, you have a population, the majority of it is under the age of 30. Therefore, a very young demographic that lives on the internet. They're digital natives. They want content that they can consume via their screens. They no longer want to watch something on demand or want to watch something that is pre-scheduled for them. You need to cater to them on the platforms that they use in the formats that they are now familiar to. I think we lived in a world 5 years ago where you. Content strategy was a one size fits all, um, where you did not repur you simply repurpose content that you were creating for TV or for social across the board that no longer works um you very much need to create native content for these specific platforms that your audiences want to engage with and you have the immediate analytics to tell you whether that's working or not and I think um as an example of that is the power shift and so we've seen the power shift from the content creators from the distributors. To the consumers and so your example, um, about young people consuming content on a lot of different platforms is now driving all of the strategies that news organizations across the world you know we heard leaders from TikTok up on this stage we heard leaders from Microsoft on this stage talking about how they're adapting their distribution tactics, uh, to address that and I think as content creators, as news organizations, as media organizations we have to make that adjustment or we or we're not gonna survive. And what about the crisis of trust that we're facing as an industry, um, you know, it seems like nobody, everybody has the alternative facts. Everybody's getting their information from they don't even know where they're seeing it on their fees, but they don't know the original source of it, if it's been vetted, if it's been checked, and. You would think that's an opportunity for us as journalists and media orgs and yet mainstream mainstream media is really being challenged about how we produce what we produce and how we know what we know so I'm wondering how you all think about this crisis of trust, what that opportunity is for journalists like us and also um what how we can be better at fixing that. You know, I think well it's both a crisis it's an opportunity and so I think because you're seeing a bunch of different um dynamics converge at once it's why it's been such a challenge. There is just the, the fact that there's so many different news or new sources out there that are not vetted. Some people don't even know you have to vet the source. Some people think, well, uh, it made it to TikTok but it must be real like there or there must be a kernel of truth to it. So there's the, the, the increase of. Of content coming in that's not necessarily sourced there is the concerted effort by some entities to convince the public not to trust us like there that is a business model for some entities in in some places and then there's also just the hard work that we have to do as content creators like news organizations have to continue to ensure that they're the content that they're putting out meets all of that criteria. I think we're seeing it at such a um a pace right now because all of those things are happening at once. My thought there and and this is how I, um, guided my newsrooms was we have to just do the work and it's every single day it's every single story it's every headline, it's every script it's every platform every single time and I think sometimes allowing the distraction of the narrative and the messaging get in the can get in the way of the work that you're doing but when you're consistently delivering again this is a moment in time when you look at the totality of the of the business and the and the the public service. that we've all committed to doing it's not gonna change that work it's not gonna change the need it's not gonna change the mission. You just have to be consistent. I do believe that this is one thing that you cannot compromise. This is one thing that you cannot say let's just simply leverage AI or let's, you know, it's on X, so let's report it. I think newsroom 101 is two sources. Do you have two sources, then yes, confirm it. You can go ahead with that with that piece of news, um, but I also, I also do sense that. A lot of social media users or generally your consumer and your population are now reverting to traditional sources of media to confirm that news, especially with this the widespread of misinformation and especially during um breaking news or or live events um everyone's going back to those mainstream traditional platforms. Uh, but ultimately I think you know what these new technologies and these new tools and social media, what it allows us to do is to become more efficient and quicker, but it doesn't mean that it compromises our editorial integrity and I do feel it's an opportunity for media organizations to reemphasize their important role on informing the wider public on the issues at hand. Yeah, I think so much of it is about continuing to educate about how great journalism happens and that it's not just made up or we're not making up sources. Um, one thing we've started including in our articles is like if we do we have a whole anonymous sourcing policy and we also need to say why we're allowing someone to be anonymous. Also, by the way, that fortune knows the identity of the person because that's not even clear sometimes. It's like if you say an anonymous source, a reader might think it's anonymous to fortune. We're like, no, no, no, we really know who we're talking about. We know and we do a lot of work to verify, which is, by the way, ever hard in the world of deep fakes and and videos can be manufactured and everything, so it's a wild time, um. What do you think about the business model of the future for journalism, and do you think that journalism alone can be a business model or does it need to be propped up by something else? Like if you look at Bloomberg, they are a terminal business that funds great journalism. Um, the New York Times, most people spend time looking about cooking and, and, uh, games, which are great things, but they're not the core, you know, news journalism. So do you need something to subsidize it or can it be, do we think the consumer will come back to paying? I don't think you can separate the business and the journalism part of of the organization, you know, you mentioned New York Times and and while they have a lot of different verticals, you also have the athletic which is profitable and it's a content business. So I think it's less about having something to prop up the journalism and more about finding ways to diversify the monetization of the content whether it's through subscription, whether it's it's through a. Advertising whether it's through a diversity of distribution I think the business model of tomorrow is not gonna be as dependent on any one thing you're gonna have the flexibility to bring new streams of revenue in using your content as your core. The core and in your value proposition is the IP of your brand and your business, and I think again that those who do it well know how to diversify that know how to monetize that. And know how to, I would also say be nimble and keep up with the changing times and follow the consumers where they are, where they're consuming content today and and we've talked about this today, um, it's all changing so quickly maybe a different place um where they're consuming tomorrow and I think those news organizations that can be nimble and finding ways not only to move to the new platforms but to monetize on those new platforms are the ones that will survive. I think what we're doing, especially at SRMG is that and then we're not reinventing the wheel here, but we're creating new sources of revenue, but ultimately the foundation is that content creation process that you have and that's why your audiences or your clients or advertisers are going to continue coming to you, but you do need to evolve and you do need to be nimble and agile enough to allow for a diversification of monetization across your platforms. We cannot again have. That one size fits all model and simply rely on archaic ways or traditional business models, um, we have, you know, at SRMG we've now created an events company that is very much an extension of our brands and why we've done it is that we simply did not want to to enter enter the events business which is highly lucrative and has high profit margins, but we wanted to leverage the strength of our brand equity. Um we have 30+ titles under the umbrella of the group. A lot of these types. Or have um loyal audiences and loyal readers but then why don't we create events such as um this event that we're sitting here right now so that you can turn that monologue into a dialogue, hence creating more opportunities for engagement, hence creating more opportunities for advertisement and subscriptions or simply a diversification of those uh revenue. We've also created FRMG Labs which is our in-house creative arm, allowing us to better cater to our advertisers and our clients. And provide them with that premium storytelling very much uh leveraging are the data that we gather via the number of people that are visiting our platforms and our websites. Therefore, now you're able to curate and tailor more that will result in higher monetization and higher profit margins and I think Rashida will agree with me, you know, it depends on the platform and it depends on the topic and it depends on um the business that you're running. There are ultimately more um. With lifestyle, it's a much higher profit margin than it is for example with news and that's why platforms such as the New York Times would have to go into a new product and that's exactly what we're all adopting. Those who fail to adopt are the ones who are not gonna be able to monetize. So I want to open it up for a question from the audience if there are any, if there are, raise your hand, otherwise I have a pile of more. Any questions? OK, um, good, and I get a hug all the time, um, so when you're looking ahead, what are the biggest trends that you're gonna be leaning into? I think along the way there have been a lot of distractions. Actually one of the things that's benefited Fortune the most is I think, um, we were so slow to digitalize, um, there was not even a website for Fortune until 2014 that we missed the whole run up on the attention economy where. Everything was about clicks and and kind of pulling people in um and not about the quality and so that is fundamentally helped us moving forward to get away from the the the mass scale approach of attention um so missing that trend was great um what are the trends here that you think are just buzz and what are the things that you think you're gonna lean into in the next few years of your media careers? I think we're very much leaning into AI. Um, I truly do believe that it's not just the future, it's currently the present. Um, I must say that when I joined the group of over 4 years ago now, um. SRMG has always been a pioneer and SRMG has always been a market disruptor. Uh, we've always had the first websites, the first, um, female only magazine, the first we've had so many firsts, yet when I joined, I did feel that we were way behind when it came to digital transformation and we've embarked on a, um, very detailed comprehensive digital transformation strategy at the time I think. didn't really understand what that transformation entailed. It's not simply about boosting uh viewership on your website. It's not simply about being more interconnected. It's about creating formats that are done in a digital first to cater to your digital audience, and that's what laid the foundations and the groundwork of the groundwork for where we are today of embracing and adopting AI. However, I do. I mean, I sit in meetings now and we're discussing the next big tool in AI and how we're gonna use this versus that, but that is relevant to us today. It could not be relevant not just a year from now, a week from now, um, but, uh, again embracing technology and digital transformation is something that we're most excited about and I think it's a trend that we need to lead and not be as scared of. I'm watching um I would say the race to next who will be the first major news organization to do something revolutionary with AI? Who will be the first to figure out a new monetization model? Who will be what, what entities will be next to converge their efforts and become a bigger, stronger version of themselves? I think, you know, we're in this, this disruptive period and and we'd like to throw that word around. Disruptive, right, but we're in a period where the business itself will look nothing like this in a few years. It will look nothing like this in a year even. And so one of the things I'm watching and it's been really interesting and I think really helpful to watch it from 30,000 ft is what we're we're all on the precipice of change what happens next? Who goes first and who drives it? Well, thank you ladies so much for your insights. Um, I'm looking forward to figuring out the future of media with you, um, and who better to do it with. So thank you very much.

Meredith Whittaker, President, Signal In conversation with: Roy Bahat, Bloomberg Beta

Brainstorm Tech 2023: Pushing for Privacy

So tracking users as they make their way across the web and uses of personal data that are not always clear ethical. These are some of the issues that have eroded everyday people's trust in tech Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Twitter, companies smaller and larger have all faced their share of scrutiny from regulators and users over how well they protect data and how they use what they collect. So today, we are thrilled to host MEREDITH Whitaker who has long criticized Big Tech for its occasional maybe not its occasional axis and lack of visibility from within the industry. In terms of protecting that data. MEREDITH worked for Google for over a day, holding its top managers to account and even organizing some of the Google Walkouts, powerful protests that demanded more transparency, accountability and respect for user privacy. MEREDITH currently serves as the president of Signal, an open source encrypted messaging app that offers strong protection of users privacy and data. It's also a favorite of journalists. So when you have scoops, you call it some signal, she's also the co founder of AI now Institute, a research institute dedicated to exploring the social implications of AI and advocating for ethical development and deployment. MEREDITH will be interviewed by the head of Bloomberg Beta Roy Bahat. And it's worth taking a second to say that Roy has been an invaluable advisor to our brainstorm tech program. He has served as co chair and so we really truly appreciate his input and expertise. And so here we are for an interview. Please welcome MEREDITH Whitaker and Roy Bahat. Thank you. All right. So signal, just curious how many people here in the audience have used signal within the last week, let's say, OK, great. Me too. Um Used by tens of millions of people. I know you don't do numbers many, many million, 100 million downloads on Android. It used by the most elite government officials to keep secrets. Criminals. Look, we don't collect user data so you don't know. OK, funded by a founder of whatsapp and, and, and donations. But originally, so why should somebody use signal? Well, people should use signal because they want two parties in their conversation, the person they're talking to and themselves, they don't want three. Well, and so, but hold on. That's the same thing WhatsApp says, right? I see signs on the billboard saying you want your conversation secure and to end encrypted. It is the same thing. WhatsApp says, WhatsApp uses the signal protocol to encrypt and protect the contents of your messages. So what you're saying, what whatsapp doesn't do is protect the metadata. So information about who you are, who you're talking to your group, text your contact lists and other, you know, extremely important information. I think there's a quote from James Clapper that said metadata gets you 80% of the waste and knowing what you need to know. So we need to recognize it's a whole package. We're also not owned by meta, which I think is a pretty important detail. Who are you owned by? We are a nonprofit. There's a Signal Foundation is solely dedicated to stewarding the Signal LLC which develops the app and I am effectively president of both. But under the, and one of the things that struck me about it was how many employees, roughly three or four dozen, something like that. A little over 40 right? And so that's a pretty small number of people to run something used by as many people as it's used. It's a very elite team, but we are punching way above our weight, right? We're not a tech company, we're a small organization with one, you know, clear focus. And so you worked at Google for a long time, you know, you work closely with Meta when you see the enormous numbers of people that work for these companies. Are they making mistakes, do they just have too many people? No, I mean, it's incredibly difficult to develop high availability software that works the way that people expect it to work, right? But we're also not, we're not a media broadcast company, we're not, you know, we don't have a policy team all over the world. We're really focused on, you know, developing, deploying and maintaining truly private communications apps in a world that is, you know, has never been more surveilled. Right. Right. So I'm going to ask about that in a second and let's talk about some of the privacy policy, one more question about the organization, which is when you were at Google, you were one of the organizers of the Google Walkout. And so you had, I think the perspective of an employee in that and now you're the boss. Yeah. How does that change your perspective on things if your, if your employees were unionized or organized, how would you feel? How is it different being the boss? I, you know, I would say go for it and do it smart. Don't be silly about this. This is very serious. We're, you know, geopolitically critical core infrastructure, you know, we're not messing around, but that's really not my business. It great. OK. So let's talk about some of the policies and privacy in particular because you've been on a world tour talking about privacy. I'm going to articulate a naive view that you can disabuse me of the naive view is we're fine on privacy. The, you know, eu at GDP and California has a privacy law and even meta has an end to end encrypted app. So we're going to be OK, but literally no one says that. Right. I don't know. A lot of consumers say it because they seem not to care, they'll click through a user agreement. They care about their friends knowing if they were texting somebody, they shouldn't be knowing. But do they care about a big tech company knowing? It's not as clear, this is not a matter of individual choice. So I think what has happened over the, you know, handful of decades in which the surveillance business model has interpolated our core infrastructure to the point that we're surveilled to an extent, we don't have a sense of is that that choice has been made for us. You know, we can't get a job without having an account on different platforms. It is a flag in certain sort of algorithmic profiling software. If you don't have a social media account that's considered suspicious, right? You can't go to work and do your job oftentimes without being surveilled. So we're talking about sort of socially significant infrastructure that if you wanted to opt out truly, if you cared enough to do something, you're living in a cabin in the woods with no contact with people. Right? So again, we're talking about a collective issue and I think people care very, very deeply, but what they don't have is agency to do anything about it in most cases, which is why you've been focused on working with governments. It sounds like, well, it's why I've been focused on making it clear to governments in this moment that it's incredibly important not to undermine, end to end encryption, which is the technology we have that can actually guarantee private communications. If you don't have another way to see, we see with some governments, I mean, France proposed or enacted a law, you tell us that would allow the government to turn on your camera remotely and they're claiming law enforcement as a reason why they need a back door. And so what is, what's the right way to think about it? Well, look like there's a long history to this. And I don't, you know, we're not going to get those in power to abandon their pursuit of information, asymmetry as a tool of power. And that's what surveillance gives them, right? Like that throughout history, we can look at like the history of the 16th century statistics that were used for population control. We can, you know, move forward, we can look at proto surveillance technology, the hollow you can't tax unless you know who they are. I mean, there are some valid and unless you know what they have, right? Like you can't define who you get to tax unless you start having borders and enumerating. Is that right? You know, it's fairly straightforward, but this is not a new impulse with networks computation. This is a long history, network computation has metastasized to an extent. I don't think we can conceptualize very clearly, but it remains true that we still need a way to communicate privately. And so which governments are you paying the closest attention by the US of what they do in the UK? While you explain why if folks have questions, we'll come around and do questions. But by the UK, usually people are not shaking in their boots at the UK S surveillance. If you've worked in tech for a while, um, they're a bit tricky and the Five Eyes Agreement makes it very difficult to sort of understand how that's going to. But the UK has a bill called the online safety bill. This is one of those like omnibus tech regulations that become a Christmas tree for everyone's special little pet tech regulatory project. It's not all bad, but it's very, very messy. And there's one provision clause 101 that would give Ofcom, who is their independent competition and Telecom regulator, the power to mandate that everyone in the UK install what they're calling approved technology that would scan your messages before they're encrypted before they're sent so effectively mass surveillance of everyone's communication. That's then, you know, we don't have the specs but the technological prototypes that have been forwarded are laughable and deeply insecure. I would signal. No, wait, wait, wait, let me, let me because I, you know, I got to complete the thought. So they're laughable and insecure and what's happening is not only is the UK proposing this power for Ofcom, that's Well, along the way, you have governments around the world who don't want to be the first to implement this type of precedent setting of surveillance, looking to the UK as a sort of templates, liberal democracy as the sort of permission set. So the precedent was set here, we in Uganda are now going to implement this to say, detect people talking about LGBT Q resources and you know, under the law that has now passed murder them because being gay is punishable by death in Uganda. This is really serious of stuff. And I do feel like the sort of futuristic haze that everyone has been in for a year or so around AI and these sort of big questions has let this sneak up on us and there's a real need for tech leaders and others who get the stakes of this technology to speak up. Like if you all have Rishi soak on your signal messages and can drop him a DM, please do because I do think it's that serious would signal be legal under that UK regime. How about the messages even be scammed? They would order us to implement it. We would not and we would there would be because there is no secret back door at signal despite what well everything in signal is open so you can see for yourself. But you know, audit after audit Infotech researcher after Infotech researcher has combed through signal and when they find, you know, a small issue. They tell us we improve it. But it is this is, this is technology used around the world that has been validated repeatedly as truly secure. So it sounds like what you see your role as and correct me if it's wrong is you're trying to stop that first domino of a socially acceptable regime, implementing some form of surveillance that you find unacceptable. I wear many hats as one of us. OK. Yeah, one of those hats. And so let's talk about who you've made common cause with because if I think about companies have been accused of surveillance as a business model, you hear meta, I mean meta is the core of the others. OK? And yet you've made common cause with them. No, no, no, no, no, no. What's common cause? What do you mean by common cause? We have a issue convergence. There's two circles, the diagram is not two circles, there's a little narrow sliver in the middle where we do agree. What is that? Sliver? Whatsapp uses the signal protocol to encrypt the contents of messages. Meta is moving to apply the signal calls to messenger messages in Facebook. This protects people and their privacy. We have a case right now in Nebraska where a mother has been now convicted of a felony that will, you know, she'll serve at least two years in prison for helping her daughter access criminalized reproductive care right after dogs pass, she's not going to prison. And why did that happen? How did that happen? What evidence established her guilt. That was Facebook turning over meta, the DMS between the mother and daughter, neither meta wants that nor signal is that I don't care what Meta wants. I know what is right and what is right is we don't let one massive corporation with very little oversight determine the surveillance society we live in, in collapse with governments, right? We're talking, you know what happens when a librarian in Florida hands a book that is banned to a child, right? Are we scanning those messages? Like this is very close at hand and it's not a gang like so I don't know if this is a common cause or not. I don't know if this is a trick question. What I'm talking about is this is the right thing to do. And if we have to, you know, if perilous times call into being strange coalitions so be it. Yeah. No, it's not a trick question. Yeah. Well that here, OK. I don't even know what the fuck would you? OK. We've got a couple more minutes here and so if folks have questions, I invite them to chime in. But now I just wanna ask you, looking ahead, you've been warning about these dangers for a long time. Uh has anything that's unfolded in the last few years surprised you in terms of how encryption privacy ai I mean, you've been a vocal critic of whether it's even possible to have privacy and ai, at the same time. Yeah, I don't think you can. I, I don't, I don't know, like, I, you know, I go to bed thinking about this, I wake up thinking about this. I'm very, like, intellectually engaged with these topics. So I don't know if surprise is the right descriptor. But I do think the way that the anti encryption sort of regulatory agenda sort of snuck in around 2018 has been a bit alarming to me, right? So in 2015, we had Apple and the showdown with the FBI around San Bernardino. And there was a, you know, there was a moment of, I would say, you know, from my perspective, victory there where it was clear like, you know, it was established, you cannot create a back door that only the good guys can go through. This is mathematically impossible to weaken security and not undermine the security of our core communications, core infrastructures, etcetera. And then 2018, you started seeing this being sort of floated under other banners. And you know what I think has happened in a sense is you have this sort of ai hype and magical thinking where a lot of people with, you know, a lot of self interest in many cases are claiming that artificial intelligence can do magical things, terminators, that kind of thing, its sentences, it will surpass humans. And so there is a suspension of disbelief around what technology can do. And that has bled into the encryption debate such that we're now undermining the very clear arguments that were made in 2015. And before around the, you know, factual impossibility of breaking encryption just for the good guys and people are now, you know, advertising ai based technologies or others that they effectively claim can conduct mass surveillance privately. All right, we got one minute left. I am going to ask my trick question. I've been a signal user for a long time in the last few years. All I can really remember in terms of new features is stories which I know are useful in other countries and the elimination of SMS on Android. What can the users expect in terms of how the signal app will get better? Yeah. Well, you know, we're a small team and maintaining and ensuring the robustness of the app is its own job. So, you know, we're not looking to be like Microsoft Word. We don't want a bunch of feature blows so our engineers can like meet their OK. R we don't work that way, but we are we on user names which will allow people to contact each other without sharing a phone number anonymously. That kind of thing, which is important, particularly in countries where you have to register personal information to get. Is that new news or something you've announced before? Asking for the journal? I haven't announced that before. Yeah, I mean, we don't, you know, I'm up here to talk substance. I don't have like a flashy give. No, of course, we're talking about teachers in the future. All right. Thank you for courageous stances and for sharing it here. Thanks everybody and to be continued. Thank you.

But now the SEC Chair says otherwise and is pushing to regulate crypto and crypto exchanges.

In 2018, Gary Gensler said Bitcoin and other coins were not securities

Fortune_Crypto

Gary Gensler said Bitcoin and others were not securities

The other thing I would say is for this is the old public policy guy. There are gateways to affect public policy, whether you're a taxing authority and you want to know who has a gain or loss or you're a securities regulator and you want to protect against market abuses. They're a real gateway. And so when I go around the globe, I set of regulators get the crypto exchanges. You'll do this whole debate about initial coin offerings and what's a security and what's not a security over 70% of the crypto market is Bitcoin, Ether light coin. Bitcoin cash. Why did I name those? Four? They're not securities, three quarters of this market is probably not securities. And if you want to affect public policy, it's here. And if you want to invest, I would say you should be knocking on the sec's door and Congress's door and say, please bring some, some semblance of sanity to this. The, the crypto exchanges.

Chris Smalls, President, Amazon Labor Union 
Interviewer: Roy Bahat, Bloomberg Beta

Brainstorm Tech 2022: How It Started; How It’s Going 

Alright. Hi everybody, this one's gonna be different. Alright so chris let's just start with for people who haven't been following the details of the story. What happened. You've been working at Amazon for a few years getting promoted within the company and just tell us what unfolded. Yeah absolutely. Um I was working there 2015 when I started came an entry level worked hard, got promoted up to a process assistant which is assistant manager. Um I was in that position for the next 4, 4.5 years. I opened up to other facilities. My first building was E. W. R. nine New Jersey. My second one was B. D. L. To Connecticut Windsor Connecticut. And my last building was okay so then you get to JFK Staten Island and what unfolds from there? Well I came in 2018 the building just opened. It was great at first you know um like a launch of a new building is opportunity for me myself to uh show the company who I am as a supervisor, hopefully move up. And uh of course I love working with people. So it was great at 1st 1st 2 years I was on the night shift only thing uh was the issue was to commute for me um from New Jersey to Staten Island. It's very difficult. Yeah. How was that a couple of hours? Hour or two hours both ways. Okay and so where did the where did the trouble that that the president talked about start? Well things really took a turn before the pandemic for me um personally you know I noticed over the years, you know, of course I lost a lot of good workers around me, a lot of hard working people. Uh just because there was a system that was designed to turn the burn and um I trained a lot of upper management, A lot of people came in entry level and what amazon does with their process assistance, they have them shadow the new hires, especially the ones that are gonna be management. And you know, for years I'm doing this position and it only takes two years to become a salary manager. I'm wondering when it's gonna be my opportunity. I applied to become a salary manager 50 times and only was interviewed twice in five years. So it didn't make any sense to me of why somebody that opened up three buildings train thousands of their employees, hundreds of their upper management didn't get the same opportunity uh of other, you know, counterparts. And this was before the pandemic, you know, So mentally I'm physically I was already checked out. You know, I said, I put enough time into this company. Uh It's really time for me to resign. Um but it wasn't until COVID-19 came to play and I noticed that, you know, amazon dropped the ball when it came to protecting its employees. You know, we didn't have any P. P. We didn't have any cleaning supplies. We don't have the essential needs that we were delivering as essential workers in the beginning of the pandemic and I tried to raise the flag well before the virus transition from Seattle to new york city. Um As we were sitting in the cafeterias everyday watching CNN like everybody else um the TVs in the cafeteria is saying, you know, we all need to be six ft apart, we need to be mashed up, We really need to be quarantine. And we're watching this while we're sitting shoulder to shoulder in a cafeteria for the 400 people. So I immediately stood up and ran HR tried to go through the proper channels to raise the alarm saying hey what are we doing about this? You know, I'm a single parent got kids, a lot of the workers, there, a majority of women um a lot of senior citizens work there as well. Um We do have grandparents at home things of that, you know, so we wanted to make sure that we would say um just to make sure tracking. So in the absence of any organization to represent you, you did what many companies would want their team, their people to do is to just show up and raise the issue to HR you know, try to make the case and then what happens yeah after doing that for A day or two um the company was nonchalant about, you know what we were advocating for our first um So I had to take further action, you know um I pretty much told them that I'm not gonna work as a supervisor instead, I'm going to tell the work is the truth. Um what happened was I came to work on a Tuesday. one of my colleagues uh tested positive and she text me this and she came back to work because she needed to make her money and she didn't know what to do. Actually, can I stop you from that for a second because we're gonna get to talking about the union. But one thing that people in business often say is, well, we have a free market where it's competitive if you didn't want to work at amazon or she didn't want to work at amazon, she didn't like their safety policies or something like that. She could go work somewhere else. That's clearly, I think not how you felt about it, but when people say, hey, it's a free market, you go take another job. What's your response to that? But that doesn't solve anything. You know, it's just like jumping out of, you know, I don't want fire into the next. You know, they always say that you don't like your job, just quit. But this overall picture today, you know, keep quitting our jobs. The next person that comes in is going to go through the same thing and these corporations want that. I think you were saying that some of your colleagues learned they got fired by looking at some internal app or something like that. And so, but eventually you got fired. Right? And so what happened? Right? So once again, you know, my colleague tested positive, you know, that was it for me. Um, I came back to work, we had a meeting daily meeting with our upper management and then that daily ST meeting, they're telling me as a supervisor not to tell the rest of the employees in the warehouse that somebody was positive. They wanted to make sure that, you know, business as usual, exact words. And I said, oh wow, that was it. Um, I couldn't stand with that. So I told every employee from that moment that I came in contact with, um the truth that we're exposed by the end of the week. Um they didn't answer to our advocacy about it. We sat in the cafeteria Off the clock every single day for 10 hours a day going into the general manager's office to tell him, hey, we were scared, were afraid to come to work. What are you guys gonna do? We want the building to be Closed down for the minimum of the 14 day incubation period. The beginning, that's what we wanted. We come back to work. Um We wasn't getting that. So that's when we started to organize the walk out. Um we spent the weekend doing that. And on that Monday March 30 we let her walk out around lunchtime noon and um two hours after that walk out. Um I was terminated over the meaning all the folks who worked in that facility together. Many of them, maybe not all all walked out together at lunch. Uh Quite a few. Yeah. No, I mean I just point out earlier today, there was a session about talent here and we were talking about a company where all the engineers said we're gonna take a day, a month for mental health day. I was thinking well, you know, like take lunch for physical health and has a very different context. We think of it as a strike or work stoppage or something like that. And so that was the point. Then you get fired and then, you know, uh one of the elements, you know that I think followed that closely was that the general counsel of Amazon sent out an email saying that, you know, they hoped that you would be the face of trying to organize because they said a lot of, you know, unkindly not smart, not articulate. So then you start this unionization campaign and by the way, we're gonna answer questions asked, you know, get you guys questions in a minute, but just tell us what happened and what you want now, like, let's just get up to present day. Yeah. Um um Yeah, at that moment when uh that memo came out and motivated me to continue to advocate for workers rights, especially because Jeff Bezos who was the richest man in the world at that time, I was in that meeting and signed off on that. Um So we spent the year traveling to his mansions and penthouses protesting in front with amazon workers ah basically saying we're not gonna give up, you know. Um We got to a point where there was a union drive in Alabama. Um We supported it from new york, but we were curious about how they were doing it. We went down there, I learned some things, we saw some opportunities. Then we came back to Staten Island April of 2021 to begin our own independent worker led Union. Why did you want a union? Well, I've seen that there is a way of workers getting the protection that they need. You know, there's nothing on paper um that protects workers, You know, amazon's are at will company meaning that they can make up any reason to fire people. That's the system that's designed that we see Uh term terminates people at a rate of 150% a year. Um we're talking about 200 300 people losing their job every week in Staten Island. Um I just, I couldn't stand with that and having a union provides job security provide higher wages, provide better medical leave options, provides longer uh breaks if you need, it uh provides things that these workers need in these warehouses, just so they can have a better quality of life overall. And so those are the wants, that's what amazon labor union wants now, because you have this vote where, unlike in Alabama, you know, and for folks who don't know, those votes are certified by the federal government. You know, the majority wins. Amazon has since objected, which we could talk about a minute. But the idea is then you have a worker controlled organization that isn't part of some big national union, it's your own independent organization, and then the company is forced to negotiate a contract with you. That's the idea, right? Well, they're not really forced, you know, they they have to out of good faith they should come to the table to negotiate a contract. You know, the government can intervene and, you know, put an order for them to do that. But using how we're supposed to go, we won our election fair and square. Um the workers voted now, we represent the workers. The company should recognize that we won and come to the table so that we can negotiate the contract with those demands that we're asking for. Now. We don't get everything that we asked for. You know, this is why we call it negotiating. And we just, you know, once again, we deserve more as essential workers and having the union will give us representation. Uh, well, so, you know, and maybe it will turn to a question in a second. But let me just ask, you know, you're wearing, you're talking about Jeff Bezos, you're wearing the ether rich jacket and at the same time you're gonna have to have that company on the other side of the negotiating table. And I'm curious if you imagine what it might look like a few years from now. If somebody in this room is an amazon shareholder or something like that or an executive at amazon, what's your guess of how, what how should it play out in terms of what the relationship is between the company and the amazon labor union? Well, yeah, you know, number one, I represent myself, you know, I don't represent the workers, you know, the workers democratically decide how this union is formed. That's why it's an independent worker led union. I'm an intern president and the workers have a choice until the workers elect somebody that, okay, sorry, keep going. Right. So the workers feel that, you know, I'm doing a good job as the president, they will vote for it. You know, if not, um, they have the opportunity to elect one of their members are, choose who they like. You know, the thing about, um, you know, the way we organized, the way I talk, the way I dress the way you know who I am as a person. Um, it's important that we stay true to who we are. You know, I represent the community that we organized in new york city, you know, so for them, work is seeing that it inspires them. We're talking about labor and different platforms. We're reaching different plateaus. I've been at the White House Daily show, White House testifying congress. So it's just about breaking barriers, you know, a lot of stuff, a lot of stereotypes, you know, out there. And at the end of the day, I'm just, well, let me be direct then about the stereotype would not, it's not a personal thing or about the but the stereotype about unions is, and if you want to raise your hand and ask the questions, feel free with somebody come around with the paddle. The stereotypes about unions is, you know, an amazon said it, this is the greatest threat to the company. You know, Howard Schultz says it's an assault on the company. And the view is it will ruin the company. And so for people who like to shop at amazon or think it's a good business because it's been built in a certain way. What's your message to those people? Well, number one, we want the people to support the workers. You know, once again, these are your neighbors. You know, these are these are the people that come from your community, amazon sets up shop in your community. It reaps the benefits off of your community. Um, and it doesn't benefit in your community. I mean, your workers, your neighbors, they're going to work, they're getting injured at a high rate. They're being unprotected. They're working throughout the pandemic right now, they're being fired for by an app, you know, before you even get to work. Um, what's that app called by the way? Just so people, so the internal employee. Yeah, yeah. You know, there's been stories that people don't even hear about no deaths at these warehouses, you know, shootings, tornadoes, uh, violence, things like that is what we're trying to uh, pretty much bridge the gap. You know, as a union representative, we want to make sure that the company operates the way it is, make their money, but we want to make sure that the workers are also taken care of. So what I hear you saying is that the whole system has to work including for the workers. And unfortunately I think we're ticking down right here on time. Oh, it we haven't, can you do your question lightning fast before I get the Thank you for your, your perspective. My parents were both part of unions, one was a firefighter, one was a teacher and I think the biggest criticism around them has been kind of take backs that unions get. How do you look at that? Maybe explain what it takes back is? Well, I mean, I understand that there's some bad union represent, you know, uh, there's been bad unions in the past, there's been bad, uh, union contracts, things of that nature, but this is why we did, we chose to go the route we did. Absolutely. Because yes, you know, workers, what's the ultimate power of putting workers in the driver's seat? You know, we know the ins and out of the company, I knew the ins and out of amazon I was invested into the company. You've cited some of the management principles, disagree and commit that kind of thing. Absolutely. You know, I category same principles over to my organizing and activism. Yeah, somebody said to me, you know, are you pro union? I said I'm pro union in the same way I'm pro restaurant, I think they should exist, some are good, some are bad and so we're all gonna have to figure this out together, you know, for folks who are interested in exploring this further. You know, chris has been here the entire time, happy to talk about it and chris I just want to say we're learning because you're doing something completely new and for that example, I feel grateful and I hope we all should be grateful for the learning. So thank you very much

Bloomberg

Videos