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

131–140 of 615 posts

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

#131

Post by jeffbee »

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…

We already recognize that contracts that violate one party's fundamental human rights cannot be enforced because they "shock the conscience", in terms that American jurists use. This article does not include the terms of the non-disparagement clause, or the other terms and payments, so we can't really say whether the clause is vulnerable to being ruled unenforceable by courts. But it's wrong to say that nobody can enter into contracts that constrain their speech. People do that all the time.

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

#132

Post by seneca »

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.

Why would it not be legal to enforce a contract after 9 years? If she didn't want it enforced after a duration, she could have negotiated for that, or just not signed it.

I don't see how it's principled to legally swear to not do something, then turn around and do it anyways. She's an adult, she has agency, and she chose to enter that contract.

It's also not like we're talking about a legal whistleblower here. That act DOES (and should) have a lot of legal protections. This is someone writing a book that they personally profit from.

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

#133

Post by dragonwriter »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #74
FpUser wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That would also preclude non-disclosure agreements. I'm curious if you also find those unreasonable?

Both non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements should—just as many jurisdictions have for non-compete agreements, which do not even implicate free speech the way the others do—be sharply limited as a matter of public policy (non-disparagement even moreso than non-disclosure.) Both are routinely used to inflict public harm for private gain, and government enforcement of either is in tension with freedom of speech; while there is a legitimate case to be made that non-disclosure agreements within certain bounds have a certain degree of necessity in enabling legitimate business, this is a much harder case to make for non-disparagement agreements, at least for ones that are not temporally bounded within an active business relationship.

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

#134

Post by 0x3f »

ceejayoz wrote: post #125
0x3f wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Should is an opinion.

Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.

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

#135

Post by bluefirebrand »

simpaticoder wrote: post #104
truegoric wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Because at least someone benefits

Arguably this makes it worse, not better

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

#136

Post by idop »

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.

Except that a well functioning society that expects its laws to be respected cannot allow the law to be circumvented by commercial agreements.

If a country passes a law that guarantees all its citizens the right to free speech, and now a company forces (!) a citizen to sign a contract saying they waive that right in order to receive the compensation they're entitled to anyway, why should the country accept that? Why should that person lose their right to free speech? Did the country give the company the authority to cancel its own laws at will?

It's the same with companies forcing candidates to sign non-compete agreements in order to be hired, if and when the company fires them. If you're a lawyer, and your employer fires you, what do you do? Work as a cashier for 3 years until the NCC expires? Change your career?

No company should have the authority to make the illegal legal (or vice-versa), and no country should accept its own citizens giving away their rights to some for-profit company. That's mafia shit: "If you excercise your right to free speech to expose our crimes, we will withhold the money we owe you and ruin your life in court".

Sign me up!!

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

#137

Post by ceejayoz »

0x3f wrote: post #123
ceejayoz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have consistently said "should be illegal", not "is currently illegal".

I'm entirely aware that these sorts of contracts are legal in US law. They should not be.

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

#138

Post by sieabahlpark »

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…

[dead]

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

#139

Post by ceejayoz »

0x3f wrote: post #134
ceejayoz wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Should is an opinion. Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable. In fact if we're talking about the US slavery _is_ legal in certain contexts. So it's definitely not inalienable. Only in the context of voluntary agreements between private citizens.

> Well that would seem to make the rights in question not particularly inalienable.

You should read up on what "inalienable rights" are about. Even the first couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia will suffice.

They get violated all the time and need constant protecting.

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

#140

Post by maximinus_thrax »

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…

> "non-disparagement" clause

Do you believe a civil contract should be able to stop a person from disclosing potential illegal activities?

Post reply on HN