back to article Facebook ordered to open internal docs for investors livid about losing cash following data slurp scandal

A court in Delaware has backed investors who want to see internal emails and other documents relating to how Facebook handed data on 50 million users to Cambridge Analytica. The ruling (PDF) said that shareholders provided enough evidence to support a claim that failures by senior management and board members at the social …

  1. Commswonk
    Devil

    A Joy to Behold

    I simply lurve that haunted, shifty look on The Zuck's face...

    1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      Re: A Joy to Behold

      Oh yes.

      Breaking the law? Meh. Violating people's privacy on a global scale? Yawn.

      Costing investors money? BRING OUT THE PITCHFORKS!!! LIGHT THE TORCHES!!!

      It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

      1. Commswonk

        Re: A Joy to Behold

        Costing investors money?

        I am still somewhat baffled that investors would put money into Facebook without getting the appropriate level of voting rights in exchange.

        To my untutored eye it looks more than somewhat foolish, but hell, what do I know?

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: A Joy to Behold

          "To my untutored eye it looks more than somewhat foolish"

          You know what they say about fools and money.

          1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

            Re: A Joy to Behold

            You know what they say about fools and money.

            No, I don't, please do tell.

            NB: I know all about fools and their gold.

            1. Twanky Silver badge

              Re: A Joy to Behold

              *all* about? Wow! I thought that was Zuck's job?

              1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

                Re: A Joy to Behold

                Zuck's job entails separating the two, knowledge about either isn't strictly necessary for the job.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: A Joy to Behold

                  Hasn't anyone told him a Maxwell's Demon violates the laws of thermodynamics?

                  Oh...Zuckerberg...ignoring laws.

                  SOP, ignore, pass on.

        2. Commswonk

          Re: A Joy to Behold

          I wrote: I am still somewhat baffled that investors would put money into Facebook without getting the appropriate level of voting rights in exchange.

          To postulate an answer to my own question... perhaps the investors didn't care while Facebook was making lots of money; nudge, nudge, wink, wink; know what I mean?

          However when the revenue stream stalled the investors suddenly decided to make waves. If that is the case it might suggest that investors' ethical standards are not greatly different from Facebook's / Zuckerberg's.

          Time, perhaps for the "which is more likely" test.

        3. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          @Commswonk Re: A Joy to Behold

          Do you invest in companies and own their stock?

          The truth is that most of the investors don't vote or even read the proxies.

          The company makes money and they get either dividends or a higher share price.

          They then sell or buy more depending on how they think the company will do in the future.

          Do you own any mutual funds? They own shares in companies. Do you have a say in what they invest in or how they manage your money?

    2. adnim

      Re: A Joy to Behold

      It appears to me that a journalist asked him a question.

      "Are you a honest and truthful person Mr Zuckerberg?"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A Joy to Behold

        Looks like he would turn to dust if the sun shone on him too long (or if someone got too close him with garlic)

        Maybe he's clocked someone loading up with silver bullets? Or that someone has ordered garlic bread with their pizza and now he's in a world of shit.

        I like alcohol. Hic.

  2. cantankerous swineherd

    you aint seen nothing yet

    https://mobile.twitter.com/tanthonyhowell/status/1134203108307996692

  3. Basil II

    Zuckerberg and Sandberg need to be in prison for their crimes.

  4. Nick Kew

    What are they fighting for?

    Shareholders suing their own company need an objective. Financial compensation as such is self-defeating[1]: they'd be paying their own compensation. Has someone applied to the Court to order Facebook to do something - like change its management structure / give them a board seat?

    [1] Unless there's some diabolical tax wheeze. Or - worse - fund managers joining lawyers in deliberately taking fees at the expense of their own investors.

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: What are they fighting for?

      The theory at this point is that there is evidence of wrongdoing that resulted in lost funds. If the investors can obtain this evidence, they can use it as a rationale to gain more power by trying to have some people held accountable. They can't use this to persuade other shareholders because there is a single majority shareholder, but in the case of a normal company, that'd have been another factor. If they can't get the evidence, the evidence is found not to exist, or Facebook managed this by not creating any evidence, they will have gained nothing by attempting this.

  5. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    Faceboob must die.

  6. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    Is it me

    or does zuckerborg look like H.P.Lovecraft?

    1. FozzyBear

      Re: Is it me

      Not sure about lovecraft but if ZuckerFace had a heap of tentacles on his face ........

  7. Dabooka Silver badge

    Why do they refer to this as a 'breach'?

    Everything I read at the time seemed to suggest it was how permissions were set up, allowing friends of friends data to be accessed if someone used an app /undertook a quiz. These permissions were acknowledged and set up intentionally (at least I recall correctly).

    If that was the case it was a data sale not a breach. Breach implies they weren't implicit.

    If I'm wrong I'm happy to have my understanding corrected.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021