Five questions answered on Netflix's Facebook "violation"

Digested.

Netflix Inc’s chief executive Reed Hastings is in trouble with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because of something he posted on Facebook. We answer five questions on his controversial post.

What did Hastings say?

On 3 July Hastings announced on a public Netflicks Facebook page accessible to 244,000 subscribers that one billion hours of video was being viewed a month by members of the video streaming website. 

He said exactly: "Netflix monthly viewing exceeded 1 billion hours for the first time ever in June."

So, what’s the problem with this post exactly?

The way the information was disclosed is the problem. The SEC believes that this particular figure is material information and therefore should have been disclosed in a press release or regulatory filing.

SEC's Regulation FD, adopted in 2000, requires public companies to make full and fair public disclosure of material non-public information.

What kind of action is the SEC taking?

The "Wells notice," as it is known as, that was received by Netflicks and filed by the company as regulations dictate, states that the SEC is planning on bringing civil action against the company because of the post made by Hastings.

The SEC staff will recommend the full commission pursue either a cease-and-desist action and/ or civil injunction against Netflix and Hastings.

What has Hasting said about his contentious Facebook posting?

According to The Telegraph, Hasting said yesterday that his posting was public enough: "First, we think posting to over 200,000 people is very public, especially because many of my subscribers are reporters and bloggers," 

In a letter posted alongside the regulatory filing he added "We remain optimistic this can be cleared up quickly through the SEC's review process." 

What are other people saying?

Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter told Reuters: "It's totally disingenuous to say that his statement wasn't material when the stock went from under $70 a share to more than $80 and the only data point was that post."

While, Joseph Grundfest, former SEC commissioner and Stanford Law School professor also told Reuters: "The evolution of social media presents the SEC with some very interesting regulatory challenges. But if they're worried about social media, there are ways for them to address that without threatening to sue Reed Hastings. They should have a rulemaking where they can ventilate these issues. "

Netflix is in trouble. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496