Wow, this seems bananas. The loss in value isn’t even other investment, but rather “mental health issues for millions of users and increasingly negative political rhetoric, while facilitating ethnic cleansing, drug cartels, modern slavery, and vaccine disinformation”
I think they are intentionally being vague to encompass as much as possible in their theoretical “diversified portfolio”.
I think their goal is to prove that Meta’s negative impact was so broad that most investors had some sort of negative impact outside of their Meta holdings.
