Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 270 posts

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#261

Post by comex »

close04 wrote: post #259
comex wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a freedom of speech issue, at least from a US perspective. Whether newspapers can be held liable for inadvertently publishing false information was the exact issue at hand in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case which is one of the foundations of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. It held that, in almost all circumstances, they cannot.

I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. Inadvertent implies no intention, accidental. Bloomberg did zero due diligence with regard to this information, no attempt to validate it or the source was done before publishing. This resulted in market manipulation and that is punishable by law. Newspapers could always publish anything by just saying "I found it on the internet".…

> I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning.

humanrebar wrote that if it had hypothetically occurred in the US, it would "push against the First Amendment". You quoted that phrase and replied that it "isn't a freedom of speech issue", which I interpreted as disputing the claim that it would hypothetically push against the First Amendment. I replied in that context.

Whether it violates freedom of speech in a more abstract sense is, of course, subjective. I think that requiring the press to do some degree of due diligence is not unreasonable, but I also think there are advantages to the US's more deferential approach.

As for the Press Freedom Index, I'm under no illusion that the US is perfect in that regard.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#262

Post by mratsim »

axlee wrote: post #242
1996 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like in most govt project, I'm sure they found a good excuse for why they were off budget, and thus needed more money. I presume too big to fail works everywhere!

The highways are actually privately operated. The privatization of highways was a big public issue back in the days, with most people against it arguing that it will lead to an increase in prices due to the profit-seeking nature of the operators. Turns out, they were right, and in hindsight, privatization is a failure as far as the highway users are concerned. But please, carry on with your factless dogma.

In the mean time, public transportation the SNCF railway company is accumulating debts at an amount that would raise brows in a private company.

Though I don't have any stance on the private vs public for utilities/healthcare and the like:

- public companies are more likely to squander resources due to a backer that cannot default.

- private companies are more likely to price gouge captive consumers due to the immense barriers to entry and very few alternatives if any.

Pick your poison

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#263

Post by stoicShell »

blackflame wrote: post #240
blackflame wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all journalism has the potential to become viral and once that happens you will never be able to fix the damage you've already done.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston S. Churchill

Allow me to reply, I think you've misunderstood parent's point:

- there is a spectrum of "importance" to software: a shopping app crashing is generally less critical than medical software crashing during surgery.

- there is a spectrum of "importance" to the news: surely the benefit and damage of reporting on Netflix's latest show is lesser than reporting on an incoming tsunami.

If you are warned upon fast release of a piece of news of "lesser impact" that it's "unverified", "untrusted source", etc., then you get to choose the impact: you either wait for further confirmation or act now, that's on you.

Conversely, for the "important" part of the spectrum, then we all agree that like critical software, it must be vetted and validated before release. There's no question about that.

As for where to draw the line, it's anywhere each particular new outlet feels it should be; but the mention of where we are on that spectrum should be at least industry-wide ethics for the Press, and enforced by regulation if necessary (see other comments for great suggestions about how to indicate trustworthiness of information, extent of research, sources, etc).

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#264

Post by chmod775 »

wheelzr wrote: post #146

Classic case of the carrot and the stick. Freedom of the press radically changed public access to news for the good. Was it too powerful? Back when you had to own a printing press for mass consumption -- No it wasn't. But it is now. The demand for updates and net-new information creates markets for information. There are too many pretenders and pranksters now because there are no barriers to posting on the internet.…

There's a permanent reminder above 4chan's most notorious board that "only a fool would take anything posted here as a fact." (or something along those lines).

To respond to the entirety of you ludicrous idea: No thanks.

This story is an example of why existing regulation already seems to do the job.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#265

Post by driverdan »

gamblor956 wrote: post #252
driverdan wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to be debunked. Bloomberg never produced any evidence. Until they produce an example board it's safe to assume the story is garbage.

Bloomberg did provide evidence. In the article. You supply refuse to accept it as evidence of their claims. They aren't obligated to provide more evidence, especially since their report has not been debunked in any way.

Some anonymous sources making claims is not evidence.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#266

Post by Zarel »

comex wrote: post #220
Hamuko wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Funding secured." - Elon Musk exercising free speech, 2018.

Read up on New York Times v. Sullivan. You can be held liable for knowingly publishing false statements, as Elon Musk did, but mistakenly publishing false statements is protected by the First Amendment. The exception (in the case where the target is a public figure) is if you exhibit “reckless disregard” for the statements’ “truth or falsity”, but that standard is much stricter than it sounds; you have to have “serio…

I'm still confused by what sense Elon Musk's statements were knowingly false. My memory of the situation was that the Saudis offered to buy Tesla, and Musk considered this to constitute funding being secured. Does "funding secured" have a technical definition that a verbal offer doesn't qualify for, and would Musk be expected to know that difference? I'm asking sincerely; I don't know.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#267

Post by blackflame »

stoicShell wrote: post #263
blackflame wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston S. Churchill

Allow me to reply, I think you've misunderstood parent's point: - there is a spectrum of "importance" to software: a shopping app crashing is generally less critical than medical software crashing during surgery. - there is a spectrum of "importance" to the news: surely the benefit and damage of reporting on Netflix's latest show is lesser than reporting on an incoming tsunami. If you are warned upon fast release of…

As a journalist, you don't get to determine importance because you don't what people value, who is going to read your stuff, and who they are going to tell about it. A large number of people think Kim Kardashian is the most important news. I think it's you who misunderstands.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#268

Post by Hamuko »

Zarel wrote: post #266
comex wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read up on New York Times v. Sullivan. You can be held liable for knowingly publishing false statements, as Elon Musk did, but mistakenly publishing false statements is protected by the First Amendment. The exception (in the case where the target is a public figure) is if you exhibit “reckless disregard” for the statements’ “truth or falsity”, but that standard is much stricter than it sounds; you have to have “serio…

I'm still confused by what sense Elon Musk's statements were knowingly false. My memory of the situation was that the Saudis offered to buy Tesla, and Musk considered this to constitute funding being secured. Does "funding secured" have a technical definition that a verbal offer doesn't qualify for, and would Musk be expected to know that difference? I'm asking sincerely; I don't know.

This is what the SEC had to say about it:

>In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source.

>When he made these statements, Musk knew that he had never discussed a going-private transaction at $420 per share with any potential funding source, had done nothing to investigate whether it would be possible for all current investors to remain with Tesla as a private company via a “special purpose fund,” and had not confirmed support of Tesla’s investors for a potential going-private transaction.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#269

Post by jammygit »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #206
privateprofile wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any guesses to why aren't Super Micro or other affected parties taking legal action, if it was a hoax like what's reported in this case?

Because the bar is really high if they’re a news outlet. You have to prove that they knew what they were saying was false, and did it with the intent to harm. Besides, I’m sure SuperMicro just wants it to blow over and be done with it. Being in the news for a lawsuit will bring it up again and possibly harm them financially as people (managers who order) who don’t understand things have knee jerk reactions.

Doesn’t torte law cover cases of stating things as fact that ended up untrue, which caused harm?

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#270

Post by lbenes »

fredophile wrote: post #87
lbenes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this accusation thrown out there on social media a few times now. When I've asked for examples, no one been able to provide a list showing that this is actually a systemic problem. With resources like the Internet Archive it should be trivial to prove that this really a problem. Can you back up your claims? Journalists are people and make mistakes. But overall, respected institutions like NYT, WSJ, WaPo, an…

Check out this twitter account for some examples. https://mobile.twitter.com/nyt_diff?lang=en

LOL

> fixtures on the Republican party --> "fixtures of"

clutches pearls

Did you even click on your own link? That twitter account does NOT show "a systemic problem". If you had, you see it focuses on one of the "bad apples", the Bronx Girl story with some minor headline tweaks. Sorry but fixing the Headlines to improve the grammar or accuracy is not a mark of bad journalism.

Whoever runs that account clearly has an axe to grind against the NYT, and beyond the Bronx girl story their examples don't prove anything.

Post reply on HN