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.

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

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.

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.

Not necessarily.

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.

No, I didn't even suggest that.

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

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...

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.

Vague phrases like 'fair game' and 'what if its true' and lies like 'they're not allowed to prove it' seem to legitimize anything Facebook did without actually talking about WHAT they did and then you drop truthy goalpost moving tidbits here or there about related... and yet not entirely on point as to Facebook's actual actions.

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