Fine.
Both parts of the documentary talk about fake news, as well as Cambridge Analytica.
Obviously, the questions that were put to Facebook's former executives give us to understand that there was extreme naïveté among all of the executives, so much so that no one was aware of consequences or of the legal repercussions of using the information they collected from people.
In parallel, one of the important defences Facebook used rested on the famous Safe Harbor Rule in America. In fact, under that rule, you cannot criticize a business for the type of actions we are discussing here, to the extent that the nature of the company means that it cannot be caught under the terms of the law.
Does that mean that the structure of Facebook or the nature of its activities allows it to take advantage of a type of legal void and consequently, to not get caught?
Otherwise, is that hypothesis not applicable because the company is defined like that, it has activities that are also defined a certain way, and it claims to be providing a given service?
Does that exclude it from any legal proceedings?