4 ms·

> why should this research be done at university level? I think this questions is backwards. This seems very much in line with other research already done at u

> why should this research be done at university level? I think this questions is backwards. This seems very much in line with other research already done at universities. > So we should look for smaller individuals and groups to conduct research. Smaller individual and groups can be much more easily sued. It's much easier to spin a story about suing some rogue partisan non-profit than it is for suing academic researchers. > Being public also creates a financial incentive. If your research indicates something is a fraud or very harmful you can short the stock to fund your research These sorts of financial incentives provide the easiest and simplest way of discrediting these groups (aside from simply ignoring them). All Meta has to say is "Don't believe a thing they say, they're simply doing it since they're shorting us".

bko 3y ago
You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities? I get that stuff like it is already done there, but why? Short selling has a long history. Obv people don't like them but don't know any successful lawsuits. Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short seller.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  > You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities? Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives. Tenure is meant to insulate academia from having to worry about financial incentives and what is popular so they can focus on what is true. > Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short seller. Meta doesn't have to sue a short seller. All Meta has to do is point to the now extremely clear conflict of interest. Having such a strong conflict of interest makes it easy to cause doubt about the validity of the research. And that's good enough. Compare two following two headlines: 1. Prestigious research group at Harvard shows wrongdoing on Meta's part. 2. Opportunistic short sellers put out yet another hit piece against Meta for their own financial gain. It's like going to get your nutritional advice from the small sample size and suspect studies put out by supplement companies. Obviously they won't publish findings that go against their financial interests, or even run the experiments in the first place.
  - bko 3y ago
    > Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives. Wasn't this whole thing preempted by financial incentives playing a role in Harvard dropping the case. My point is financial incentives exist either way. The difference is that FB can point and say "Harvard says we're great and they have no financial incentives to lie *wink*" or we can say "sure I have a lot to gain if I'm right but that doesn't mean I'm wrong". So you kind of made my point for me. It's the high minded veneer of objectivity I am most against
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      The deifference for me is that this is, allegedly, Harvard acting unethically and against how we expect them, as a research university, to act. There exists no such expectations on other private companies. This is a failure of the model, not business as usual.

bko 3y ago

You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities? I get that stuff like it is already done there, but why? Short selling has a long history. Obv people don't like them but don't know any successful lawsuits. Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short seller.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
> You didn't answer my question. Why should it be done at universities? Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives. Tenure is meant to insulate academia from having to worry about financial incentives and what is popular so they can focus on what is true. > Prob a lot easier and cheaper to capture a uni than sue some short seller. Meta doesn't have to sue a short seller. All Meta has to do is point to the now extremely clear conflict of interest. Having such a strong conflict of interest makes it easy to cause doubt about the validity of the research. And that's good enough. Compare two following two headlines: 1. Prestigious research group at Harvard shows wrongdoing on Meta's part. 2. Opportunistic short sellers put out yet another hit piece against Meta for their own financial gain. It's like going to get your nutritional advice from the small sample size and suspect studies put out by supplement companies. Obviously they won't publish findings that go against their financial interests, or even run the experiments in the first place.
- bko 3y ago
  > Let me try again. One of the reasons research is supposed to be done at universities is specifically to remove financial incentives. Wasn't this whole thing preempted by financial incentives playing a role in Harvard dropping the case. My point is financial incentives exist either way. The difference is that FB can point and say "Harvard says we're great and they have no financial incentives to lie *wink*" or we can say "sure I have a lot to gain if I'm right but that doesn't mean I'm wrong". So you kind of made my point for me. It's the high minded veneer of objectivity I am most against
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    The deifference for me is that this is, allegedly, Harvard acting unethically and against how we expect them, as a research university, to act. There exists no such expectations on other private companies. This is a failure of the model, not business as usual.