If the post was available to non-Facebook users (and I assume it was, as that's the default "Public" category behaviour), then the SEC is really picking at straws here.
The direct link to the post is publicly accessible. A Facebook account is necessary to subscribe to posts, but you used to have to pay for a newspaper to see press releases.
There's probably no technical barrier preventing it, but I can almost guarantee that it would violate Facebook's terms of service. They're decidedly unfriendly to bots.
How are you supposed to know this link if you have no facebook account? It's not on the company page, it's nowhere available unless someone either sends it to you directly or you have a facebook account.
If I read the article correctly, the June blog entry is "okay" while the July facebook post is not? (please correct me if I'm reading this wrong)
If disclosure via Facebook is unfair because it's not reaching everyone at once, then isn't a disclosure via blogpost bad as well, since not everyone has internet?
The posts were different. The June blog post said "nearly a billion". The July facebook post said "exceeded 1 billion". It shows they crossed over an objective threshold.
July said they were over, and June under. If anything, the July information is less specific (assuming there can't be negative page views) as it is operating in a less constrained number space.
