Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by asgraham » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:01 PM UTC

ethin wrote: post #35

ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The ruling, awarded without proper notice by an emergency arbitrator (a non-court mediator that is part of the American Arbitration Association), actually said nothing about the truth or otherwise of Sarah’s devastating claims in her book. It made no mention of defamation. Instead, it relied on a non-disparagement clause in her severance agreement with Facebook to silence her. It's well past time to rein in arbitra…

Honestly, I would be all for outright abolishing arbitration. I have yet to see anything actually good come out of arbitration other than a ruling that protects the entity that forced arbitration in the first place.

The good is hidden: court systems are already overwhelmed. If the arbitration cases were added, then it’d take even longer to get a court date.

(Which isn’t to say I think the system as it is is good, just that there is a good)

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

#82

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:01 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #79

ceejayoz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, sometimes." — the law ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability )

[flagged]

It's Hacker News, not I'm Thirteen And Just Discovered Anarchism And It Sounds Cool Because Now My Parents Can't Tell Me To Brush My Teeth Before Bed News.

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

#83

Post by righthand » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:01 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #43

LightBug1 wrote: post #18

[flagged]

YC is run by these kinds of careless people, so in a literal sense it probably isn't allowed, but we should say it anyway: FUCK META

FUCK META

FUCK YC TOO

FUCK ALL THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE

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

#84

Post by indymike » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:02 PM UTC

Invictus0 wrote: post #12

ceejayoz wrote: post #6

> The ruling, awarded without proper notice by an emergency arbitrator (a non-court mediator that is part of the American Arbitration Association), actually said nothing about the truth or otherwise of Sarah’s devastating claims in her book. It made no mention of defamation. Instead, it relied on a non-disparagement clause in her severance agreement with Facebook to silence her. It's well past time to rein in arbitra…

she agreed to it to get a severance payment

I hate seeing this down-voted. It is such an important warning to people here. Severance agreements are pretty strong. Also, be very careful of snap settlement offers.

So many of the greatest tragedies I've seen inflicted on people come from accepting an expedient way to get what is really a small amount of money quickly. So often the drive is paying the rent/mortgage or fear of losing health benefits. If you are in a bad situation and offered a settlement and you really feel like something isn't right please talk to an employment lawyer. Most US States have expedited processes for quickly resolving these cases, and the lawyer can help you a lot when you feel like your only choice is to take the severance.

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

#85

Post by 0x3f » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:02 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #71

0x3f wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll find the person in question's title is quite far from content moderator.

I think you'll find that's why the "in this particular case" line is there.

Nobody forced her to break her contract and thus come up against that. She would have been perfectly fine on the leftovers from ~$500k/y while searching for her next job. The parent makes out like she simply had to get the extra money, lest she starve to death. Which is patently ridiculous.

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

#86

Post by truegoric » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:03 PM UTC

surprisetalk wrote: post #10

This book was SO GOOD. It's bleak. I always imagined that rich/powerful people only created suffering if that suffering was required for certain goals. It's easier for me to bear injustice when it's a zero-sum game. But the story of Facebook is not that. Facebook didn't make ethical sacrifices for profit -- its executives just didn't care to understand the consequences of their actions. I wish those folks could feel…

Why injustice being a zero-sum game would make it easier to bear?

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

#87

Post by Avicebron » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:03 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #64

RIMR wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So allowing someone to sign themselves into slavery should be "legal" because it's "impinging on someone's right to enter contracts"? I get that some people balk at "morally reprehensible" as some sort of slippery slope, but c'mon we as individuals have to function somewhat coherently. As a social species reliant on some form of social cohesion (how much oil did you refine this morning?) we have to have some guidelines.

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

#88

Post by Fricken » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

Careless indeed. Mark Zuckerberg and Meta are complicit in the Rohingya genocide

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...

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

#89

Post by williamDafoe » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

These non disparagement contracts are typical in silicon valley. Databricks offered me a tiny amount of money and expected me to sign when they fired me on a whim after my stock grant quadrupled in 9 months. There was no warning and no review, just fired. They fired my 2 managers within the year, too, probably because they were fools.

I told them to fuck off. I should have continued with the lawsuit, probably.

But in american courts its "heads i win tails you lose" with labor laws - according to my lawyer wins are in the low single digits for discrimination lawsuits.

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

#90

Post by 0x3f » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #67

0x3f wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Arguably constructing society such that it costs so much to just exist (for example, by artificially restricting housing supply) and thus you have to work is not all that different to slavery. I would say the dollar is but company scrip with better PR.