 |
Congress's historic tech hearing suggests antitrust
crackdown could come soon
Analysis: heated exchanges raise concern over
anticompetitive behavior as chair warns of companies’ ‘monopoly power’
Kari Paul
in San Francisco
Thu 30 Jul
2020 02.47 BSTLast modified on Thu 30 Jul 2020 02.49 BST
After hours
of grilling top tech executives in a historic antitrust hearing on Wednesday,
US lawmakers suggested unprecedented antitrust enforcement might be on the
horizon.
In his
closing remarks, Representative David Cicilline, a Rhode Island Democrat, said
evidence put forward in the investigations and testimony showed just how
entrenched the tech companies were in the US economy and day-to-day life.
“These
companies, as they exist today, have monopoly power,” said Cicilline, chair of
the House judiciary committee’s antitrust subcommittee. “Some need to be broken
up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable. This must end.”
It is not
clear what antitrust actions may come out of the hearings, which were heated at
times and ranged in topic from claims of anti-conservative bias among social
media platforms to unlawful acquisitions and the spread of misinformation. The
hearings were conducted partially in person on the Hill and partially over
video messenger amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The
questions
Much of the
questioning of Mark Zuckerberg focused on Facebook’s history of acquiring or
copying main features of competitor platforms. Jerry Nadler of New York argued
in his questioning that Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram had all the
hallmarks of an antitrust violation.
“This is
exactly the type of anticompetitive acquisition the antitrust laws were
designed to prevent, and this should never have happened in the first place. It
should never have been permitted to happen. It cannot happen again,” he said.
In one
particularly intense exchange, Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat,
asked the CEO if Facebook had ever “threatened to clone the products of another
company while also attempting to acquire that company”.
Zuckerberg
responded that it had not. Jayapal followed up by reading evidence that
suggested the Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom felt he had no option but to
sell his platform to Facebook.
“Facebook
is a case study, in my opinion, in monopoly power,” Jayapal said. “Because your
company harvests and monetizes our data, then your company uses that data to
spy on competitors and to copy, acquire, and kill rivals. Facebook’s very model
makes it impossible for new companies to flourish separately, and that harms
our democracy, it has harms mom and pop businesses and it harms consumers.”
Criticisms
of Amazon focused primarily on third-party sellers on the online retail
platform. Lucy McBath, a Georgia Democrat, played emotional testimony from a
woman who said her bookstore on Amazon was throttled by the company’s
anti-competitive behavior when she was delisted from the site.
McBath also
questioned Apple over allegations the company has removed competitors’ apps
from its App Store. She said creators of screen time management apps alleged
that Apple removed their apps from the store right after launching its own,
similar app. Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, denied the allegation.
“The timing
of the removals seems very coincidental,” McBath pointed out. “If Apple wasn’t
attempting to harm competitors in order to help its own app, why did Phil
Schiller, who runs the App Store, promote the Screen Time app to customers who
complained about the removal of rival parental control apps?”
Sundar
Pichai of Google was targeted with questions about the company’s advertising
methods, data practices, and use of other companies’ content for its own pages.
Jayapal asked Pichai how Google could be anything but a monopoly if it
controlled more than 90% of the global online search market.
Cicilline
accused Google of stealing content from small businesses, calling the practices
“anticompetitive”. He described Google as a “walled garden” that traps users.
“I disagree
with this characterization,” the CEO responded, noting that Google “supports”
1.4 million small businesses.
The
non-answers
For as much
ground as was covered on Wednesday, the tech executives also gave many
non-answers. Zuckerberg initially claimed not to know about Facebook’s
controversial “Research” app and later had to amend his statement on the
record.
Bezos
frequently claimed not to know Amazon policies on data collection and other
issues he was asked by Congress members. The failure to answer or give details
on Amazon’s actions on Wednesday revealed Bezos “seemed to be unaware of the
widespread harms that Amazon inflicts”, said Dania Rajendra, director of
Athena, a non-profit group of activists against Amazon’s centralized power.
“Today’s
non-answers from Jeff Bezos prove that he lacks the will or competence to
change Amazon through his own leadership,” Rajendra said. “It is now up to the
subcommittee to take what they’ve learned and issue a strong set of
recommendations to meaningfully check Amazon’s out-of-control power. The future
of our economy and our democracy depend on it.”
Republicans
take on Silicon Valley’s politics
Meanwhile,
many Republican lawmakers used the hearing as an opportunity to air grievances
about what they perceive as bias against conservatives in the tech industry.
The stage
was set for such questioning early in the day, when Jim Jordan, a Republican of
Ohio, dedicated his opening statements not to antitrust topics but to concern
over bias.
“I will
just cut to the chase – big tech is out to get conservatives,” he said.
Several
lawmakers asked Zuckerberg about a viral video that, without offering proof,
suggested hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus and had been taken
down from Facebook. Zuckerberg reiterated that Facebook’s policies “prohibit
content that will lead to imminent risk of harm”, including unproven health
treatments.
Later in the
hearing, Jordan asked each executive what he thought of “cancel culture” and
the idea that differing viewpoints are now shot down or discouraged. All
executives agreed that a diversity of viewpoints is important.
Republicans’
insistence on returning to the topic of anti-conservative bias led to some
clashes with Democratic lawmakers. A verbal scuffle broke out when
Representative Mary Gay Scanlon opened her questioning with a sharp criticism
of Congressman Greg Steube and other Republicans.
“I’d like to
redirect your attention to antitrust law rather than fringe conspiracy
theories,” she said.
|
TECHNOLOGY
Why the tech giants may suffer lasting pain from
their Hill lashing
Lawmakers investigating Facebook, Amazon, Google and
Apple made it clear that their allegations of antitrust abuses come with a
lengthy paper trail.
Tech CEOs
This
combination of 2019-2020 photos shows Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim
Cook, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. On Wednesday,
the four Big Tech leaders answered for their companies’ practices before
Congress at a hearing by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust. | Pablo
Martinez Monsivais, Evan Vucci, Jeff Chiu, Jens Meyer/AP Photo
By NANCY
SCOLA
07/29/2020
10:36 PM EDT
Wednesday's
much-anticipated antitrust hearing subjected four of the tech industry's most
powerful CEOs to hours of aggressive questioning by Republicans and Democrats
alike.
But it also
may have revealed something far more lasting: A Congress that has largely
soured on Silicon Valley is beginning to figure out how to hold it to account,
compiling piles of documents that could back up allegations that the industry's
biggest companies aren't playing by the country's competition rules.
That could
be the most lasting implication for Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon's Jeff
Bezos, Google's Sundar Pichai and Apple's Tim Cook, whose companies are being
increasingly challenged by lawmakers in Washington and beyond.
Want the
full play-by-play? Check out POLITICO’s live coverage. With that, here are five
top takeaways of what we learned Wednesday.
1)
Democrats came ready, and with plenty of evidence
The House
antitrust subcommittee has spent a year on this investigation — collecting
emails and confidential presentations, locating chat records, and reassuring
small competitors that it’s safe to tell them of their stories of the Big Four.
And some of the subcommittee’s top Democrats came prepared with that evidence,
in a coordinated effort to poke holes in Zuckerberg's, Bezos', Pichai's and
Cook’s contentions that they compete fully in the letter and spirit of U.S.
antitrust law.
Take Rep.
Pramila Jayapal’s (D-Wash.) back-and-forth with Zuckerberg over whether he’d
threatened Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom before eventually buying the
company for a billion dollars in 2012. Jayapal pulled up a chat between Systrom
and an investor in which the Instagram co-founder floated the possibility that
Zuckerberg “will go into destroy mode if I say no.”
When
Zuckerberg disputed the congresswoman’s characterization of those events,
Jayapal swung back with a classic bit of congressional theater: “I'd like to
remind you that you’re under oath.” Underscoring the point, the subcommittee
published a cache of its investigative materials, including the full Systrom
chat log, midway through the hearing — a way of extending the five-hour-plus
hearing’s shelf-life even longer.
In the same
vein, committee members hit Bezos with emails illuminating Amazon's motivation
for buying the smart doorbell company Ring; wrote Bezos in that correspondence,
"To be clear, my view here is we are buying market position — not
technology."
2)
Republicans are more interested in tech bias than antitrust
Jim Jordan
Rep. Jim
Jordan speaks during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on antitrust on
Wednesday in Washington. | Graeme Jennings/Pool via AP
The hearing
got off to a bang when Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) brought out his outdoor voice
to recite a litany of alleged examples of anti-conservative bias, including on
the part of Twitter, whose CEO Jordan had made a show of attempting to invite
to the hearing.
Perhaps
anticipating Jordan would have a go at hijacking the hearing, was primed to
shut him down: He quickly swatted away Jordan’s attempt to enlist a fellow
Republican not on the subcommittee to question the CEOs on their threats to
“freedom.”
That put to
rest any notion that the tech executives were facing a unified bipartisan front
ready to drill down on antitrust abuses.
Jordan
later tried again, attempting to go to the ropes with Google CEO Pichai over
whether his company would play fair during the 2020 election. Pichai seemed
somewhat befuddled by Jordan’s line of questioning, eventually promising that,
yes, Google would play things neutral. Pichai was let off the hook when the
right to question passed to Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), who opened with a
shot at "fringe conspiracy theories."
Jordan
objected, loudly, but the hearing moved on.
Republicans
did get traction here and there. Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), for example,
got into a robust exchange with Pichai on the ins-and-outs of how the company’s
ad tools interact with the YouTube platform it owns. When Pichai said the
company’s approach was more sensitive to users' data-security concerns than
other models, Kelly shot back that Google was using privacy as “a cudgel to
beat down the competition.”
But even
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who has recently carved out a lane as a thoughtful
conservative critic of Silicon Valley, touched on how Amazon engages with
competitors before veering off onto a round of getting each of the CEOs to
commit to not sell products produced using “slave labor.”
And while
the hearing produced few of the full-out tech gaffes that Congress has become
known for, top subcommittee Republican Jim Sensenbrenner notched one when he
asked Zuckerberg about why presidential son Donald Trump Jr.'s social media
account was recently taken down for a short time over a controversial hydroxychloroquine
video. But that controversy involved Trump's Twitter account, not Facebook.
(Zuckerberg sidestepped the platform misidentification, using it as a moment to
point out that Facebook is pointedly pro-“free expression.”)
3)
Facebook’s still vulnerable
Zuckerberg
was the target of perhaps the day’s toughest questioning, not simply from
Jayapal but other from Democrats who homed in on Facebook’s billion-dollar
acquisition of Instagram in 2012. Their premise: that Zuckerberg saw the
photo-sharing platform not as a neat startup that would round out Facebook's
own image-sharing tools but a potential existential threat — one whose
absorption, then, potentially violated U.S. competition law.
New York
Democrat Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee, laid into
Zuckerberg on the topic, again using internal communications in making his
case. Nadler pointed out that according to documents in the subcommittee’s
hands, Zuckerberg was prompted to dig out his checkbook because he worried that
“Instagram could “meaningfully hurt us without becoming a huge business,” and
that by buying the still-small company, “what we’re really buying is time.”
Buying up a
competitor simply so it will stop competing is potentially a no-no under U.S.
antitrust law, Nadler pointed out, to which Zuckerberg responded that the
Federal Trade Commission knew his thinking about Instagram way back in 2012,
and those antitrust enforcers still signed off on the deal. But Cicilline was
unpersuaded, telling Zuckerberg that "the failures of the FTC in 2012 of
course do not alleviate the antitrust challenges that the chairman described.”
The shorter
version: Just because that one corner of the federal apparatus approved the
deal some eight years ago doesn’t mean Zuckerberg is out of the woods. And
deals that are made can be unmade.
Facebook
has bought scores of companies, of course, but Instagram is different. The
visual-first platform, hugely popular in its own right, is key to Zuckerberg’s
vision for the future of Facebook — especially as it’s a way of attracting a
Facebook-phobic younger audience that otherwise is flocking to the
Chinese-owned upstart TikTok. Washington peeling Instagram away from
Zuckerberg’s empire might be unlikely, but it’s also a future that the CEO
isn’t eager to contemplate. And the House antitrust subcommittee made plain
that it’s a possibility it wants Zuckerberg to worry about.
4) Jeff
Bezos took lots of heat, and didn't always seem ready
This was,
somewhat amazingly, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ first ever time testifying before
Congress, despite the enormous wealth and power he enjoys. (When Bezos was
sworn in today, he was ranked No. 1 on Forbes’ list of the world’s richest
people, with $180 billion under his control. As a point of comparison, the
wealthiest member of House of Representatives, Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mont.),
was worth about one-thousandth that.)
And for a
time, it looked like it would be a easy day for Bezos. Seemingly because of
technical difficulties with his Cisco Webex feed, Bezos wasn’t called on for
questions until long after the hearing that begun. But when the technical
details were sorted out, Bezos was in for it.
Some of the
toughest queries came from Cicilline himself, on a topic that the chairman has
been pursuing for many months now: whether Amazon uses the data of independent
sellers on its platform to figure out how to best sell its own products. (The
committee has questioned whether another Amazon witness misled the panel on
this very point a year ago.) Bezos declined repeatedly to dig into the details,
often arguing that he simply didn’t know the relevant information, even though
it's common for CEOs to prep thoroughly for these sort of high-profile
Q&As.
After Bezos
responded "I can't answer that question yes or no" when Jayapal asked
whether Amazon has ever used information extracted from the experiences of its
on-platform independent sellers to plan its own offerings, Cicilline followed
up incredulously: “You said that you can’t guarantee that the policy of not
sharing third-party seller’s data with Amazon’s own line [of products] hasn’t
been violated. You couldn’t be certain. Can you please explain that to me?”
Said Bezos:
“We are investigating that, and I do not want to go beyond what I know right
now.”
At another
point in the hearing, Bezos said he was unfamiliar with a startup that was
featured in the opening anecdote of a Wall Street Journal story on the
company's dealings with smaller competitors that appeared last Thursday.
Don’t
expect Cicilline to let this one go. He’s known to keep his teeth dug into
topics that have grabbed his attention, and he’s made clear that he takes
strong offense to how Amazon has handled this key question.
5) Congress
still has no clear bipartisan antitrust agenda
Cicilline
has said from the start of his tech investigation back last summer that he’s
eager to keep it a bipartisan affair, and somewhat remarkably he has mostly met
that goal. Still, it became clear Wednesday that the subcommittee's Republicans
are not on board with making major changes to antitrust law to counter Silicon
Valley’s power — a stalemate that could give the beleaguered tech giants a
legislative win by default.
Some GOP
lawmakers also explicitly rejected the idea that, as the oft-heard saying goes,
“big is bad.”
“I have
reached the conclusion that we do not need to change our antitrust laws,” said
Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the subcommittee, who would be a crucial
ally for any bipartisan drive to make transformational changes. “They’ve been
working just fine. The question here is the question of enforcement of those
antitrust laws.”
That still
leaves Cicilline a plenty-big lane to have some impact on the country’s
competition policy, though he will to navigate carefully to make sure that
pre-election bickering doesn't rip apart the policy recommendations he has said
he’ll release by the end of the year.
On the
other hand, the November election could yield him another path to victory, by
offering an antitrust legislative roadmap to the next presidential
administration — if that president is Joe Biden.
Leah Nylen
and John Hendel contributed to this report.
“Chegámos aqui à maneira americana”. Gigantes
tecnológicas usam patriotismo para justificar domínio
A Amazon, Google, Facebook e Apple juntaram-se, por
videoconferência, para tentar convencer o Congresso norte-americano que não
representam monopólios tecnológicos.
Karla Pequenino
29 de Julho de 2020, 16:58 actualizado a 29 de Julho de 2020, 23:37
A Amazon, Apple,
Facebook e Alphabet (dona da Google) têm demasiado poder. Foi essa a conclusão
dos congressistas norte-americanos após uma audiência que se prolongou durante
mais de cinco horas.
Os líderes das
quatro grande tecnológicas norte-americanas prestaram esclarecimentos ao
Congresso norte-americano durante a tarde de quarta-feira. Objectivo: mostrar
aos congressistas, com poder para separar o império das quatro gigantes, que
não usam os dados, ferramentas e informação que têm para monopolizar o mercado
e impedir novas empresas de florescerem nas áreas do comércio, navegação e
comunicação online. Não convenceram.
“Estamos aqui
hoje porque não é possível uma escolha [além das quatro empresas]”, começou por
resumir o congressista norte-americano David Cicilline, que presidiu a sessão.
“Estas empresas têm demasiado poder”, sublinhou Cicilline, explicando que é
difícil navegar na Internet sem ter de usar uma de muitas ferramentas das
quatro gigantes norte-americanas. “As pessoas estão presas com más opções”,
concluiu.
Desde Junho de
2019 que o subcomité do Congresso norte-americano, responsável por assuntos
relacionados com práticas monopolistas, está a investigar as tecnológicas por
suspeitas de prática anticoncorrencial.
Nos discursos de
abertura, os presidentes executivos das gigantes refutaram as acusações. Um dos
argumentos utilizados é que se não forem empresas norte-americanas — como o
Facebook, a Google, a Amazon e a Apple — a inovarem, essa inovação virá de
potências estrangeiras como a China. Em comum, todas as empresas apelaram ao
patriotismo, notando que trabalham para criar empresas americanas, em solo
norte-americano, que respeitam os valores fundadores dos EUA.
“O Facebook é uma
empresa de sucesso”, reconheceu o presidente executivo do Facebook, Mark
Zuckerberg, no seu discurso de abertura que pode ser lido na integra no site do
Congresso norte-americano — “Chegámos aqui à maneira americana.”
Respostas vagas
A Google e o
Facebook foram de longe as empresas que receberam mais atenção. A Google foi
criticada por manipular o tráfego do motor de busca para destacar os seus
produtos e serviços, e o Facebook foi repetidamente acusado de comprar empresas
rivais (como o Instagram) antes que se tornassem uma ameaça.
Os reguladores
perguntaram à Apple sobre a vantagem que as ferramentas desenvolvidas pela
empresa têm na App Store, a loja de aplicações da Apple. E a Amazon foi
questionada sobre o facto de usar dados de empresas rivais na sua plataforma de
comércio online para desenvolver os seus próprios produtos, e foi fustigada por
permitir alguns produtos falsificados no site.
Senhor Zuckerberg, será que isto não sugere que a sua
plataforma é tão que grande que nem com as políticas certas é possível conter
conteúdo que pode ser mortífero?”
David Cicilline, congressista
Frequentemente,
as respostas dos líderes das tecnológicas foram vagas, alegando falta de informação
sobre os documentos citados pelos congressistas. “Não posso responder sim ou
não à pergunta”, respondeu, a certa altura, o presidente executivo da Amazon,
Jeff Bezos, sobre a possibilidade da empresa usar informação de vendedores na
sua plataforma para promover os seus próprios produtos. Bezos insistiu que a
empresa tem políticas contra esse tipo de estratégias mas disse que é
impossível “garantir que as políticas nunca foram violadas.”
Vários
congressistas republicanos também aproveitaram a sessão para questionar se o
Facebook e o Google suprimem visões e opiniões de direita (algo que as empresas
negaram). Outros reprovaram aquelas gigantes por permitirem a proliferação de
informações falsas sobre a pandemia de covid-19.
O último ponto
foi utilizado para justificar as desvantagens no tamanho e poder de empresas
como o Facebook. “Senhor Zuckerberg, será que isto não sugere que a sua
plataforma é tão que grande que nem com as políticas certas é possível conter
conteúdo que pode ser mortífero?”, questionou David Cicilline, que deu por
encerrada a sessão cinco horas após o começo.
Zuckerberg foi ao
Parlamento Europeu para pedir desculpa - e pouco mais
“É evidente, para
mim, que estas empresas têm o poder de monopólios e têm de ser
responsabilizadas e reguladas”, resumiu o congressista. “O controlo que têm do
mercado permite-lhes fazer aquilo que querem para esmagar negócios
independentes e expandir o seu poder. Isto tem de terminar.”
Nas próximas
semanas, o subcomité do congresso norte-americano vai elaborar um relatório
sobre a investigação feita com recomendações para as empresas.
Defesas e
acusações
Jeff Bezos: “A
Amazon tem de ser escrutinada"
Apesar da falta
de atenção dos congressistas durante as primeiras duas horas da audiência foi
Jeff Bezos, presidente executivo da gigante do comércio online Amazon, quem deu
início aos discursos de abertura. Nos últimos meses, a empresa de Bezos tem
beneficiado do facto de o isolamento social empurrar vendas online. Desde o
início do ano, as acções da empresa subiram 73% e a fortuna de Bezos passou de
74 mil milhões de dólares a 189,3 mil milhões de dólares em apenas seis meses.
O líder da Amazon
afirmou que compreende a atenção dos congressistas. “Eu acredito que a Amazon
tem de ser escrutinada”, admitiu. “Devemos escrutinar todas as grandes
instituições, sejam grandes empresas, agências governamentais, ou agências sem
fins lucrativos.” A responsabilidade da Amazon, disse, “é garantir que passam o
escrutínio com ‘nota máxima’.”
Sundar Pichai:
Google investe no “futuro da America"
O presidente
executivo do Google, Sundar Pichai, foi o segundo a falar. Contrariamente à
Amazon, a Google não é inexperiente a enfrentar acusações de abuso de poder.
Nos últimos três anos, a empresa foi multada três vezes pela Comissão Europeia
por práticas anticoncorrenciais com várias das suas ferramentas, somando oito
mil milhões de euros em coimas. A multa mais recente, em 2019, foi de 1490
milhões de euros. Esta quarta-feira as atenções voltam-se também para a forma
como a empresa destaca as suas ferramentas e produtos no motor de busca e nos
telemóveis Android.
No discurso de
abertura, Sundar Pichai, começou por sublinhar que a Google “vê com orgulho o
número de pessoas que escolhem os seus produtos e serviços.” Para Pichai, os
investimentos da empresa na criação de novas ferramentas e produtos (90 milhões
de dólares nos últimos cinco anos) são um “investimento no futuro da América”.
“Através destes investimentos, as nossas equipas de engenheiros estão a ajudar
os EUA a solidificar a sua posição como um líder global em tecnologias como
inteligência artificial, carros autónomos e computação quântica”, explicou
Pichai, que acredita que a Google constrói produtos que “aumentam
oportunidades.”
Tim Cook: Apple
não domina em nenhum mercado
Tal como a
Amazon, o presidente executivo da Apple, Tim Cook, também elogiou o escrutínio
dos congressistas. “A competição promove a inovação”, insistiu Cook, dizendo
que a Apple não trabalha para criar um monopólio.
A história do
iPhone foi usada como exemplo: apesar de a Apple redefinir a forma como as
pessoas vêem e usam os telemóveis em 2007, com o lançamento do primeiro iPhone,
hoje em dia o aparelho faz parte de um ecossistema muito competitivo que inclui
empresas como a Huawei, Samsung e LG. “A Apple não tem uma quota de mercado
dominante em nenhum mercado onde opera”, destacou Cook.
Mark Zuckerberg:
Facebook compra rivais para as ajudar
O presidente
executivo do Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, concluiu os discursos de abertura. Nos
últimos anos, a empresa realizou várias audiências com representantes políticos
e reguladores norte-americanos e europeus devido ao escândalo Cambridge
Analytica, em 2018, em que se descobriu que uma consultora britânica usou dados
de 87 milhões de utilizadores do Facebook, sem autorização, para orquestrar
campanhas políticas personalizadas em todo o mundo.
Esta
quarta-feira, porém, o foco foi o poder e domínio da tecnológica
norte-americana no campo das redes sociais e plataformas de mensagens. Além do
Facebook, a empresa de Mark Zuckerberg é dona da rede social Instagram e dos
sistemas de mensagens Messenger e WhatsApp, somando dois mil milhões de
utilizadores mensais em todo o mundo.
“Ao comprar o
Instagram a empresa deixou de ser um competidor, para se tornar numa empresa
que nós podemos ajudar a crescer”, explicou Zuckerberg. O argumento, porém, não
convenceu os congressistas.
Para Zuckerberg,
as mudanças e aquisições do Facebook reflectem evolução e não monopolismo. “Há
muito que acredito que um dia, como é normal na nossa indústria, um produto vai
surgir e substituir o Facebook. Quero que sejamos nós a criá-lo”, insistiu
Zuckerberg, alertando que se a inovação não vier dos EUA, virá da China.
tp.ocilbup@onineuqep.alrak
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário