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

121–130 of 615 posts

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

#121

Post by qnleigh »

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.

Also if you use Instagram regularly, consider replacing that time with something else. Does it really offer anything of value to you, compared to the harm Meta has caused?

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

#122

Post by mcbutterbunz »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #102
mcbutterbunz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that's where the complexity arises in this argument that I don't know how to resolve. In the case of this woman vs Meta, to me it doesn't "feel" legal that one disparaging comment costs $50K. It feels that there's something wrong here that should not be allowed despite her entering the agreement. Maybe I don't believe she should have been allowed to enter the agreement.

But I understand that my point of view doesn't match legal code. Just feels fucked.

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

#123

Post by 0x3f »

ceejayoz wrote: post #116
0x3f wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hackers should absolutely oppose unconscionable contracts, yes. As we should and do oppose unconscionable punishments like jail for marijuana or the current copyright setup. Because they're wrong .

You understand that this is an entirely different form of argument than just linking to statute or case law.

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

#124

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #53
0x3f wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are 'basic freedoms'?

Those that are deemed inalienable.

The majority of people will self-alienate themselves in exchange for power or even just survival

Think of a person digging their own grave under threat of immediate murder (tons of well documented examples). This is the maximum self alienation: do work to make life easier for your oppressors.

In my 41 years it seems like the majority of people are content digging their own graves

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

#125

Post by ceejayoz »

0x3f wrote: post #119
ceejayoz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts. Lift with hips.

America = literally the whole world and everyone in it so QED inalienable rights exist Well I wouldn't call it a strong argument... Nonetheless the goalposts were never shifted. The question was always 'should'. So I'm very confused by your confusion.

What proof, exactly, would you accept for "should"?

Should is an opinion. You're welcome to feel "slavery should be legal". I'm welcome to (and should) think you're insane for holding that opinion.

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

#126

Post by zb1plus »

asgraham wrote: post #81
ethin wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Sounds like the solution is just hire more judges instead

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

#127

Post by AndrewKemendo »

0x3f wrote: post #69
pessimizer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can’t get people to try to break out of a prison they don’t think they are in

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

#128

Post by josephcsible »

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.

IMO, "freedom to enter into contracts" isn't actual freedom, for the same reason that the MIT license isn't more free than the GPL despite it allowing more behaviors: in both cases, it's basically "permission to have your freedom taken away".

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

#129

Post by jonahx »

Avicebron wrote: post #87
jeffbee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 guidelin…

Fwiw, I think making such non-disparagement clauses illegal is an interesting idea, and could be a net positive. That said, I think the slavery comparison is a stretch. The situation up for debate is: Should you be able to voluntarily accept money in exchange for promising not to say bad things about someone or some company? I don't see a good faith interpretation of that as "signing yourself into slavery".

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

#130

Post by mil22 »

AugustoCAS wrote: post #77

This is common across all corporations. My go-to example is Unilever or Nestle pushing products that are 100% unhealthy. In Asia, it's not uncommon to see healthy drinks for children that are sugar+artificial flavouring with huge marketing campaigns targetting the parents . The corporation makes millions and then advertises how they donated $10k to an obesity charity.

Yes. Even companies like Google have had plenty of scandals involving senior leadership. I've personally heard more than a few that are not public from people with direct knowledge. The difference is that some companies and executives are simply better at containing the fallout, suppressing what gets out, or cultivating such a polished public image that allegations seem implausible because they clash so sharply with the persona they project.

If you're considering working for a billionaire, choose carefully whose fortune and influence you're helping expand. Caveat emptor applies to employees as well. Or even better, don't work for one at all.

Post reply on HN