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

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496