IIRC insider trading is any trading based on any non-public information. Everyone knows you're running ads because they can see the ads, but not everyone knows how long you're going to run them for, or how much you're paying for them, and that would be enough. Also if you do it before you start the ad campaign, that's non-public knowledge, similar to a pump-and-dump.

▲

loeg 2 days ago | parent [-]

Wrong. Insider trading is about breaching your duty of confidentiality to some other party who owns the information (your employer, some other business you have an NDA with, etc). The owner of the non-public information is fully allowed to trade on it.

Pump and dumps are fraud because you lie about the target stock in order to achieve the pump. The lying is a crucial element to make it fraudulent.

▲

immibis 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) based on material, nonpublic information about the company.[1] In many countries, some kinds of trading based on insider information are illegal. The rationale for this prohibition of insider trading differs between countries and regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading

▲

loeg a day ago | parent [-]

The context of this thread[1], which you replied to, is specifically the US law. You are wrong on the US law. Wikipedia's general statements about what some countries do is not authoritative or specific to the US.

US law does not generally prohibit insiders from trading. It prohibits doing so only in breach of some obligation to keep that information private[2] ("in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence").

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45178318

[2]: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

	▲	jbstack 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The context of this thread[1], which you replied to, is specifically the US law. That's not correct. I started this particular sub-thread, and in my original comment I specifically said that the answer is jurisdiction dependent. Your reply may have been US-centric but the overall topic was not.