Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hackerman12345 2701 days ago
Sheryl Sandberg recently got in big trouble for having investigators look into whether he shorted $FB before going up on a public platform to talk about $FB ethical issues.
2 comments
duxup 2701 days ago
Facebook didn't just investigate... they hired a PR firm to tie Facebook critics to Soros and anti Soros stuff....

Investigate is one thing but they went way farther than that.

Also liked to put out lots of other news critical about other tech companies anytime there was a snowball of bad Facebook news.

link
sonnyblarney 2701 days ago
" they hired a PR firm to tie Facebook critics to Soros and anti Soros stuff...."

Yes, but what if it's true?

Soros funds many, highly targeted political activities.

It wouldn't be right if people were perpetuating falsehoods about him ... but if he's actively campaigning or supporting an initiative with major $$$, then it's fine if people are informed of that.

link
ceejayoz 2701 days ago
> Yes, but what if it's true?

Shorting a company and making public statements bashing it is both legal and common, so the answer there is "uh... nothing?"

link
sonnyblarney 2700 days ago
Shorting a stock, and then making big, loud, public moral assertions about the company is totally unscrupulous, obviously, because it undermines the 'moral argument' being made.

If that is in fact what is happening then FB has double duty to call it out.

If Soros has actually done that (I don't know that he did), i.e. take a huge position one day and then come out raging the next, it undermines his credibility entirely - he's effectively 'talking his book' and has a huge conflict of interest.

This is why Private Wealth managers are not supposed to hustle the stocks of the companies their firm's Investment Bankers are advising - it's a conflict of interest. That is actually illegal for example.

link
ceejayoz 2699 days ago
> Shorting a stock, and then making big, loud, public moral assertions about the company is totally unscrupulous, obviously, because it undermines the 'moral argument' being made.

Only if those assertions are untrue, I'd say.

> This is why Private Wealth managers are not supposed to hustle the stocks of the companies their firm's Investment Bankers are advising - it's a conflict of interest. That is actually illegal for example.

They have a fiduciary duty, don't they? Soros doesn't have one.

link
dragonwriter 2699 days ago
> They have a fiduciary duty, don't they?

Not necessarily.

link
duxup 2701 days ago
>Yes, but what if it's true?

Well then maybe they should prove it?

I don't get the question, do you think the critics of Facebook critics are all tied to Soros or something?

You could say "What if it's true" about anything... that doesn't mean anything.

link
sonnyblarney 2701 days ago
"do you think the critics of Facebook critics are all tied to Soros"

No, I didn't even suggest that.

But if Soros is actively funding FB criticism or litigation, then exposing that is definitely fair game.

link
duxup 2701 days ago
What is fair game? And why? Just because you said it might be true? But then deny you're saying it is true?

I'm not following.

It seems your idea of what is 'fair game' or what happened and what Facebook's hired PR firm actually did are totally disconnected...

link
sonnyblarney 2701 days ago
It's 'fair game' to expose who is funding which political or public activities, because it would be the truth.

Were it done by a journalist, it would be called 'journalism', for example.

Soros is funding individuals behind the group 'Freedom from Facebook' - it's perfectly reasonable for Facebook to highlight that fact.

Now I don't know all the details behind the game, but exposing the financial agents of those attacking you (or anyone else) is perfectly reasonable.

link
hackerman12345 2701 days ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/technology/george-soros-f...

They're not allowed to prove it. It's a scandal that they are even asking the question - someone was fired for it.

link
duxup 2701 days ago
>They're not allowed to prove it

I'm not sure what that means. Facebook can surely say "hey the PR firm we hired told the truth and here it is", but as far as I know they've chosen not to.

link
jyriand 2701 days ago
Not sure I understand. Why can’t he short a stock and then talk about how bad the company is? Isn’t that the whole premise of short selling?
link