I know - but that's standard boilerplate verbiage used in almost every company's delaware filings. Again, I think it's worth going by whatever description of t

I know - but that's standard boilerplate verbiage used in almost every company's delaware filings. Again, I think it's worth going by whatever description of the company has the best predictive power. For example, Facebook has exactly the same language in their filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512175673/d287954dex33.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512... But it's much more predictive to go by their mission statement, even though facebook too monetizes by ads and has given themselves permission to do anything. "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. " - it's fairly descriptive. Facebook is more likely to buy a messaging app (Whatsapp) that lets people communicate than to sell chickens. I wouldn't call FB an advertising company either, even though 85% of their revenue comes from ... advertising. It's a boring, content-low descriptor that lumps many different companies into the same bin. I suspect that FB, too, if they thought there was money in it, would happily pivot to offering users a paid, ad-free subscription service. In contrast, they probably wouldn't pivot to running ads on billboards.