I'd like to start by outlining the key guidelines for advertising and business on an internet

platform:

 Marketing messaging shouldn't abuse consumers' trust or profit from their inexperience or
lack of knowledge. It's crucial to deliver critical information in a method and at a time that
customers can take into account when making decisions.

 Marketing communications should not support any kind of discrimination, including those
based on race, national origin, religion, gender, age, ability, or sexual orientation. These
messaging ought to defend human dignity instead.

 Marketing messaging shouldn't purposefully cause fear or capitalise on suffering or tragedy.

 Marketing communications shouldn't seem to endorse or promote unlawful, aggressive, or

unsociable behaviour.

 Superstition shouldn't be used as a marketing tool.

 The CEO is expected to post a public apology on the social media platform in this case,
describing the issue that developed and the fact that the social media platform was not
responsible for it. The CEO must also look into the point of entry utilised for the intrusion and
find those responsible. The social media platform's security processes and servers need to be
modified to prevent such invasions in the future.

 Also, the company is presently dealing with intense parental resistance and significant
reputational harm, so the IPO plans must be temporarily put on hold. An initial public offering
exposes a business's internal operations to the public and regulatory bodies, putting it under
severe public scrutiny, which is not ideal for this firm at the present. Choosing an IPO is also
favourable when a firm has extraordinarily high revenues or when there is high demand for its
shares.

 Management must first make amends for the damage this incident has done to its reputation
before identifying fresh tactics to sell the business and regain the trust of customers. And after
it's through, the company may move on with an IPO.