<story><title> Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs</title><url>https://www.npr.org/2021/10/04/1042921981/facebook-whistleblower-renewing-scrutiny-of-social-media-giant</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jimkleiber</author><text>I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say &amp;quot;I didn&amp;#x27;t break the law&amp;quot; but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; There should be no question, that what FB is doing here, while not illegal, is highly dubious ethically.&lt;p&gt;At the same time, I believe some of the stuff FB has done is currently illegal, such as this example in one of the whistleblower&amp;#x27;s disclosures to the SEC [0]:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Our anonymous client is disclosing original evidence showing that Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ: FB) has, for years past and ongoing, violated U.S. security laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to investors and prospective investors, including, inter alia, through filings with the SEC, testimony to Congress, online statements, and media stories.&lt;p&gt;So it could be a combination of them both violating ethics and violating the law.&lt;p&gt;[0]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;jason_kint&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1445248400237244423?s=20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;jason_kint&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1445248400237244423?s=...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>woeirua</author><text>I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be &lt;i&gt;made&lt;/i&gt; illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values.&lt;p&gt;For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry.  In fact, it exploited the law to allow it to grow into the monstrosity that it eventually became.  In response, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 which subsequently prevented the actions that Standard Oil had used to consolidate the market.&lt;p&gt;There should be no question, that what FB is doing here, while not illegal, is highly dubious ethically.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>taf2</author><text>My Mom said it to me with simpler terms when i was little...  &amp;quot;we only have laws because of the assholes&amp;quot;</text></comment>
<story><title> Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs</title><url>https://www.npr.org/2021/10/04/1042921981/facebook-whistleblower-renewing-scrutiny-of-social-media-giant</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jimkleiber</author><text>I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say &amp;quot;I didn&amp;#x27;t break the law&amp;quot; but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; There should be no question, that what FB is doing here, while not illegal, is highly dubious ethically.&lt;p&gt;At the same time, I believe some of the stuff FB has done is currently illegal, such as this example in one of the whistleblower&amp;#x27;s disclosures to the SEC [0]:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Our anonymous client is disclosing original evidence showing that Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ: FB) has, for years past and ongoing, violated U.S. security laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to investors and prospective investors, including, inter alia, through filings with the SEC, testimony to Congress, online statements, and media stories.&lt;p&gt;So it could be a combination of them both violating ethics and violating the law.&lt;p&gt;[0]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;jason_kint&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1445248400237244423?s=20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;jason_kint&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1445248400237244423?s=...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>woeirua</author><text>I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be &lt;i&gt;made&lt;/i&gt; illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values.&lt;p&gt;For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry.  In fact, it exploited the law to allow it to grow into the monstrosity that it eventually became.  In response, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 which subsequently prevented the actions that Standard Oil had used to consolidate the market.&lt;p&gt;There should be no question, that what FB is doing here, while not illegal, is highly dubious ethically.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>_tom_</author><text>Then there is the case of things are illegal, but are not enforced. Leading to the question of what is the law? What is written, or how it is enforced?&lt;p&gt;How many of you went above the speed limit today?&lt;p&gt;I suspect that much of what goes on in the stock market is similar.</text></comment>