It doesn't have to be illegal or fraudulent to reveal bad things about the company that the company doesn't allow its employees to reveal. Looking up various definitions of the term, the activity reported on doesn't necessarily have to be illegal. Though I acknowledge that in many cases the activity involved is illegal.
> Scott Pelley: What is the legal theory behind going to the SEC? What laws are you alleging have been broken?
> John Tye: As a publicly-traded company, Facebook is required to not lie to its investors or even withhold material information. So, the SEC regularly brings enforcement actions, alleging that companies like Facebook and others are making material misstatements and omissions that affect investors adversely.
How would any of this information affect investors adversely? What she revealed is that they actually are doing what is in the best interest of the shareholders. The users are not the investors. She just revealed what we all already know and what FB has known all along…that high engagement doesn’t mean the content is worth sharing at scale in all cases, and deciding whether that line is, is often very difficult and technology/rules need to catch up to solve that problem.
No but what Facebook is doing is harmful, and what she is doing is embarrassing to the company and to those who work for them.
For all I know, what she did is illegal. But I'm glad she did it, it was very brave and she puts herself at a lot of risk by doing it. If Facebook goes after her, they will undoubtedly get bad press and encourage government regulation and possibly even antitrust action.
Facebook and other social media aren't inherently bad, but the incentives are certainly there for them to amplify the worst of human nature. This is most likely a problem that needs people outside of Facebook (and all these other companies) to solve. I am 100% in agreement with her that it is a solvable problem.
I did read it. The law says she is allowed to share documents with the SEC. I don't know if she is allowed to go beyond that, such as doing this interview. And I certainly don't know all the requirements for it falling under that law.
Regardless, my whole point is that what she is doing is a positive and I salute her for it.
To quote Matt Levine, “everything is securities fraud”. If FB is representing to the public that they are doing better than they actually are on fighting these issues, and the truth damages their share price, then they have committed securities fraud and will be sued by shareholders.
Are there no consumer protection laws which forbids a company from pushing a product to market that they know to be harmful to their customers? IANAL but it seems pretty illegal to my eyes.
I think we should agree that women and girls physically harming themselves is "harmful".
> Frances Haugen: And what's super tragic is Facebook's own research says, as these young women begin to consume this-- this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more. Facebook's own research says it is not just the Instagram is dangerous for teenagers, that it harms teenagers, it's that it is distinctly worse than other forms of social media.
The "who defines" question isn't really much of a gotcha for laws. Either the legislature specifies when the pass the law, or courts get to decide when a case comes before them. Sometimes a jury is also involved.
It is a huge question, because leeway in the definition, or political disagreement about the definition, makes for a law that is impossible to know you are breaking.
Vague terms should be avoided in laws. Vague terms with obvious political wiggle room should be avoided at all cost.
