I have to say this particular article really seems like spin.<p><i>1. Facebook is still not “essentially” a public company</i><p>The problems which are being raised aren't so much saying FB is becoming a identical to a public company but that it's getting of <i>some and only some</i> of the benefits of publicness. That is exactly why this is dodgy, why the SEC is looking into it and so forth (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8242361/SEC-examines-disclosure-rules-after-Goldmans-Facebook-deal.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...</a>). Quote the letter of law a few dozen times more to us and it won't change a thing. Certified investor only regardless, it's raising a lot of money in something that looks like a public auction on terms that aren't those of a public corporation. Yes IANAL but I'm from alone in viewing this as "skirting" regulation. The point is that it is <i>more</i> dodgy, not less, to occupy a gray between public and private corporation because you are roping investment while giving out less information (and it's true I keep repeating "information, vee vant information...").<p><i>this isn’t an IPO no matter how badly some members of the tech press want it to be.</i><p>What do <i>you</i> call raising a few <i>billion</i> dollars with stocks issuance? It indeed doesn't technically qualify as an IPO but I think that almost enhances "be evil" as a slogan here...<p><i>The reason entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg, Reid Hoffman, and countless others who opted to [not] sell their companies in the last few years do not want to go public has nothing to do with disclosing quarterly numbers</i><p>Publish those numbers and show us...