Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 615 posts

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#61

Post by browningstreet »

0x3f wrote: post #31
chamomeal wrote: post #5

I guess I just don’t understand contracts and laws. Your employment agreement can include stuff like “if you say anything bad about us, even to your family in your own home, you owe us $50,000”. What in the world?? I guess NDA’s are like that, and used everywhere. Still it just seems wild

> I guess I just don’t understand contracts and laws. What's to understand? Person agrees to thing. Person is held to thing.

And yet it’s not even that simple. Contracts can be invalidated.

Other countries have fairness doctrines with allow/disallow lists of things that can be included in contracts.

There are other ways.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#62

Post by TrackerFF »

0x3f wrote: post #31
chamomeal wrote: post #5

I guess I just don’t understand contracts and laws. Your employment agreement can include stuff like “if you say anything bad about us, even to your family in your own home, you owe us $50,000”. What in the world?? I guess NDA’s are like that, and used everywhere. Still it just seems wild

> I guess I just don’t understand contracts and laws. What's to understand? Person agrees to thing. Person is held to thing.

Sure, as long as it is within the framework of the law.

Some contracts are illegal, and purely made to intimidate the other party - and completely rests on the fact that said other party will never challenge or even check if the contract is valid in the first place. Hence why so many of these contracts also have arbitration clauses which stipulate that the parties must resolve through private arbitration.

Any time someone has the balls to challenge these things is also a win for the working man.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#63

Post by pessimizer »

0x3f wrote: post #38
FpUser wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a normal society courts should be protecting from signing away basic freedoms

What are 'basic freedoms'?

If you don't believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, you should start by offering your list. If you do believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, then unlimited freedom of contract is a basic freedom for you.

What you shouldn't do is pretend not to understand.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#64

Post by jeffbee »

RIMR wrote: post #37
petcat wrote: post #26

My understanding is that as part of a severance package she received in 2017 she agreed to some kind of "non-disparagement" clause. She then went on to write a book disparaging the company. The arbitrator didn't rule on the disparagement itself or if anything was true or false. Only ruled that she had to abide by the contract she signed. It sounds like an interesting book, and I'll add it to the list. But it also sou…

It should not be legal to enforce this kind of thing 9 years after a person leaves your company. I get that it currently is legal, but have some principles. Just because this is legal doesn't mean it isn't morally reprehensible, and its legality should be challenged.

That's a ridiculous constraint to put on the freedom to enter into contracts.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#65

Post by ceejayoz »

0x3f wrote: post #56
ceejayoz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech?

So I can't sign an exclusive book deal? Or write for a newspaper?

Exclusive book deals tend to have defined timespans.

I'm not clear on the newspaper example; do you think reporters aren't allowed to write stuff outside their job? Plenty of reporters publish books.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#67

Post by ceejayoz »

0x3f wrote: post #59
mcbutterbunz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those that are deemed inalienable.

Please enumerate these inaliable basic freedoms that I should not be able to deal in.

The US will not permit you to sign yourself into slavery, as an example.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#69

Post by 0x3f »

pessimizer wrote: post #63
0x3f wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are 'basic freedoms'?

If you don't believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, you should start by offering your list. If you do believe that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, then unlimited freedom of contract is a basic freedom for you. What you shouldn't do is pretend not to understand.

I'm not the one making a positive claim. I haven't even claimed such rights exist so why on earth would be the expectation be that I list them? You've assumed that I believe in this shared fiction.

We sell ourselves into a form of slavery every day. Some would argue that is a big driver of our current society and way of life.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#70

Post by ghostpepper »

jeffbee wrote: post #55
chamomeal wrote: post #5

I guess I just don’t understand contracts and laws. Your employment agreement can include stuff like “if you say anything bad about us, even to your family in your own home, you owe us $50,000”. What in the world?? I guess NDA’s are like that, and used everywhere. Still it just seems wild

It's a condition of the severance payment. She didn't need to sign it. She wanted the money. Then she violated the terms of the contract.

I'm not a lawyer but even if it was, eg. a year's salary at the time she accepted it, is that really a fair price for a lifetime of silence?
Post reply on HN