今年七月，视频网站网飞公司（Netflix）的CEO里德•哈斯廷斯在他的个人Facebook主页上披露了一份本应该是重要公司文件的材料。美国证券交易委员会（SEC）已经就此向该公司发出了一份“韦尔斯通知”，也就是约谈Netflix，要求它对此做出解释。我们现在不知道证监会具体会给出什么惩罚，但可以确定的是，Netflix离受罚已经不远了。

    美国证监会基本上认定哈斯廷斯违反了《披露信息法规》（Reg FD）。这个法规于2000年颁布实行，旨在避免企业有选择地披露信息。换句话说，所有投资人应有权同等地获知信息。

    不出意料，很多科技博客写手对此事相当愤慨。不仅是因于我们这些科技博客写手必须职业性地每周至少表达一次愤慨，而是因为美国证监会似乎在故意淡化社交媒体在这件事中扮演的重要性，而社交媒体却是一种我们很喜欢的沟通方式。毕竟使用Facebook的人要比使用Edgar的人多得多。（Edgar即电子化数据收集、分析、检索系统。1996年美国证监会规定，所有信息披露人，即上市公司，都要实行电子化入档——译注）

    不过唯一的问题是，美国证监会这回做了一次正确的事。不仅在于它严格执行了《披露信息法规》的条款，同时它还捍卫了公平获取信息的精神（假设哈斯廷斯披露的信息的确是重要信息）。

    让上市公司的投资人在互联网的各个角落辛苦地搜罗各种重要信息，这本来就是一件不应该的事。这类数据应该公开在某个地方集中发布，比如在公司网站的投资者关系页面上。网飞公司就有一个这样的页面，上面包括了所有的新闻通稿、证监会文件、年报、季度分析电话会议记录等。如果网飞想搞一个“社交媒体披露”也没问题。但仅凭哈斯廷斯在Facebook上披露了一份重大材料，就以为投资人们会自动去看，这显然是不应该的。

    记住，问题并不仅限于Facebook。哈斯廷斯也完全可以通过Twitter账户来披露重要信息，或是通过网飞的官方Twitter账户。通过公司的图片分享网站Pinterest账户、Tumblr账户或博客也完全可能。他甚至可能把重要信息录到MP3里，然后免费上传到iTunes上。或者干脆在维基百科里搞一个词条。

    我的意思是，互联网是分散的，要确保投资人能平等地获得同样的信息，集中发布非常重要。我相信“信息进化论”，但是我们不能指望投资人也像达尔文一样，去预测某家公司的CEO会选在哪一天、选择哪个平台去发布消息。

    美国证监会应该与时俱进地对《披露信息法规》进行修订，以适应社交媒体的普及。不过，美国证监会不能仅仅因为违规者使用的是一种比传统新闻通稿更时髦的玩意儿，就觉得违规者的选择性披露行为无所谓。

    译者：朴成奎

    Back in July, Netflix (NFLX) CEO Reed Hastings disclosed what may have been material company information via his personal Facebook page. The SEC has since responded with a Wells Notice, which is the regulatory equivalent of being told to go to the principal's office. You don't yet know the specific punishment, but are pretty sure one is coming.

    The SEC basically thinks Hastings violated Reg FD, which was adopted in 2000 to prevent companies from selectively disclosing information. In other words, all investors should have access to the same information.

    Not surprisingly, a lot of tech bloggers are outraged. Not only because we bloggers are contractually obligated to be outraged at least once per week, but because the SEC seems to be trivializing social media (i.e., our preferred method of communication). After all, way more people use Facebook (FB) than Edgar.

    The only problem, however, is that the SEC happens to be right. Not only in terms of enforcing the letter of Reg FD, but also in defending its spirit of equal access (assuming, of course, that the information Hastings disclosed actually was material).

    Investors in publicly-traded companies should not need to crawl all corners of the Internet to discover material information. Such data should be publicly-available in a central location, such as the investor relations page of a company's website. Netflix has one, which includes all press releases, SEC filings, annual reports, quarterly analyst call transcripts, etc. And if Netflix wants to create a new section for "social media" disclosures, fine. But it should not allow Hastings to make a material disclosure via Facebook and then just assume that investors will know to look.

    Remember, this isn't just limited to Facebook. What's to stop Hastings from disclosing material information via his Twitter account. Or via Netflix's Twitter account? Or via the company's Pinterest account? Or its blog? Or maybe Hastings has a Tumblr. Could he record material info in an MP3 that only gets shared (freely) via iTunes? Would Wikipedia entries suffice?

    My point is that the Internet is disparate, and centrality is essential for insuring that investors have equal access to the same information. I believe in information evolution, but am not so Darwinian as to think that investors should be expected to divine which outlet a company CEO will choose to utilize on a given day.

    The SEC certainly should update Reg FD, in order to better accommodate the use of social media. But it should not simply shrug its shoulders at selective disclosure, just because the offender is using something hipper than a traditional press release.