zuckerberg where he said we have removed content that could lead to imminent real world harm it's undoubtedly true facebook has undoubtedly removed certain amounts of content we have built an unprecedented third party fact checking program in fact we've talked about their fact checkers here in some of the videos in virtual legality the system isn't perfect again undoubtedly true but it is the best approach that we have found to address misinformation in line with our country's values that last proviso is doing work this is actually at its bare minimum a philosophical question what is freedom of speech how far should it go what should governments regulate and then if a government isn't regulating it first amendment united states very strong very powerful we've talked about that in this space should a company step in to regulate it if it doesn't should it be liable for not doing so that's all built in to a quote-unquote whistleblower complaint like this one and the answer is not at all obvious which leads us to the legal theory here one of francis haugen's lawyers is john tai he's the founder of a washington legal group called whistleblower aid the interviewer asks what is the legal theory behind going to the sec what laws are you alleging have been broken john thai says as a publicly traded company facebook is required to not lie to its investors or even withhold material information so the sec regularly brings enforcement actions alleging that companies like facebook and others are making material misstatements and omissions that affect investors adversely we're going to finish up with this little section but we're going to talk about all these laws in just a minute interviewer says well one of the things that facebook might allege is that she stole company documents john thai the dodd-frank act passed over NUMBER_TOKEN years ago at this point created an office of the whistleblower inside the sec and one of the provisions of that law says that no company can prohibit its employees from communicating with the sec and sharing internal corporate documents with the sec now that's their position from a legal perspective so let's back up a step we'll finish this interview when we do but what they are saying is that they can whistleblow and be protected under the sec's whistleblower protection act because they are claiming that facebook failed to disclose the results of this research right and if you go and you look at rule NUMBER_TOKEN bNUMBER_TOKEN as we have done so often of the securities rules you see it is unlawful by use of means of instrumentality of interstate commerce as we have to do in federal law to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made the ones that you did choose to make in the light of the circumstances under which they were made not misleading in connection with the purchase or sale of any security this is where a lot of security exchange commission actions fall something that you put in your annual report in another report that you made to the public didn't meet this standard you failed to say something that didn't make the rest of your statements correct right however if you invest in a company like facebook you'll see a very very long document this is page NUMBER_TOKEN of NUMBER_TOKEN for those of you keeping track at home and it's going to include a whole lot of disclaimers lawyers specialize in this are paid a whole lot of money to write these documents and
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN