4 ms·
If the post was available to non-Facebook users (and I assume it was, as that's the default "Public" category behaviour), then the SEC is really picking at stra
by elithrar 14y ago
If the post was available to non-Facebook users (and I assume it was, as that's the default "Public" category behaviour), then the SEC is really picking at straws here.
- shawn-butler 14y agoHmm, when I go to https://www.facebook.com/reed1960 https://www.facebook.com/reed1960 I am presented with a login screen. When I click the "CLOSE" button I see no information. How is that information available to the public exactly? Am I missing something?
- natrius 14y agoThe direct link to the post is publicly accessible. A Facebook account is necessary to subscribe to posts, but you used to have to pay for a newspaper to see press releases. https://www.facebook.com/reed1960/posts/10150955446914584 https://www.facebook.com/reed1960/posts/10150955446914584
- shawn-butler 14y agoSounds like an opportunity. Gather posts by executives and add to an activity stream with other relevant data available to the public?
- apendleton 14y agoThere's probably no technical barrier preventing it, but I can almost guarantee that it would violate Facebook's terms of service. They're decidedly unfriendly to bots.
- rmc 14y agoAnd Data Protection issues in some places.
- fijal 14y agoHow are you supposed to know this link if you have no facebook account? It's not on the company page, it's nowhere available unless someone either sends it to you directly or you have a facebook account.
- hkmurakami 14y agoIf I read the article correctly, the June blog entry is "okay" while the July facebook post is not? (please correct me if I'm reading this wrong) If disclosure via Facebook is unfair because it's not reaching everyone at once, then isn't a disclosure via blogpost bad as well, since not everyone has internet?
- rmc 14y agoThe posts were different. The June blog post said "nearly a billion". The July facebook post said "exceeded 1 billion". It shows they crossed over an objective threshold.
- sageikosa 14y agoJuly said they were over, and June under. If anything, the July information is less specific (assuming there can't be negative page views) as it is operating in a less constrained number space.