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

#101

Post by 0x3f » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #93

0x3f wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Only for a very narrow definition of slavery. Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that I should not be able to deal in".

Well now you're equivocating. We've established one that you can't deal in in a specific country. _Should_ is quite a different question. You can't establish should by establishing is.

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

#102

Post by SauntSolaire » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #53

0x3f wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are 'basic freedoms'?

Those that are deemed inalienable.

Freedom of speech is far from inalienable. Non-disclosure agreements are most relevant, but every country on earth also has at least some regulations regarding hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, or defamation — not to mention security clearances or state secrets.

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

#103

Post by rorylawless » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

A couple of podcasts in my rotation had Sarah Wynn-Williams on as a guest [1] [2], with the caveat that she was unable to talk about the book or comment on the Meta. Absurd.

I need to give this a read soon.

[1] https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/live-special%3A-who-rules-...

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002mz5f

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

#104

Post by simpaticoder » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

truegoric wrote: post #86

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?

Because at least someone benefits. It's why theft is arguably better than vandalism. If you steal the thing, at least someone gets to use it. If it's vandalized, no-one does.

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

#105

Post by malfist » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

truegoric wrote: post #86

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?

Not op but because there's a reason for injustice. It's not just chaos for choas's sake

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

#106

Post by mcbutterbunz » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #91

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd like to research basic freedoms, I would suggest starting here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights

It's very boring for you not to actually commit to anything specific, so that you don't have to defend it.

There's a basic list on that page. There are many LLMs out there that you can discuss this with if you want to waste your own time. I'm not going to waste any more time with this thread. You have an attitude that says "Debate me but you'll never convince me". If you'd like to learn something, there are many resources on the internet available to you.

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

#107

Post by AndrewKemendo » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

SauntSolaire wrote: post #17

kubb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech on one hand, legal system capture on the other.

There's (perhaps unfortunately) nothing stopping you from signing away your freedom of speech.

Which means it’s not a right

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

#108

Post by loloquwowndueo » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

vntok wrote: post #16

giwook wrote: post #4

I'm going to place an order for the book right now. I encourage you all to do the same. We the people hold the power to keep in check the immoral companies, governments, and other unscrupulous entities that would exploit the collective to enrich the few. And ultimately that's through our money and how we spend it. Screw Meta and their anti-human business model.

[flagged]

Maybe part of the point is to support the authors a bit through purchasing the book.

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

#109

Post by thayne » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:11 PM UTC

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #47

SauntSolaire wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's (perhaps unfortunately) nothing stopping you from signing away your freedom of speech.

I understand freedom of speech and I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences. I understand that there are huge complexities in the legal system. I understand you can enter into agreements (part of your speech) that effectively gives away your speech. But if you step back and look at this situation, it's just fucked up that a corporation can do this to you. If freedom of speech is supposed to be i…

> She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.

But the contract is being enforced from the US.

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

#110

Post by 0x3f » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:11 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #82

0x3f wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

[flagged]