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

#141

Post by 0x3f » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #137

0x3f wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But your glib response above was just to quote "the law", like this was a sufficient justification. If merely quoting the law is enough, then great, we already justified perfectly the copyright and jailing weed smokers stuff. It's only now that you changed tack to make a different argument, which... I mean I might disagree with or not, but it's not what I took issue with above.

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

#142

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

jonahx wrote: post #129

Avicebron wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> 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.

Arguably, its more like non-compete agreements but with the added fact that state enforcement of the agreements is in tension with freedom of speech.

But, you know, lots of jurisdictions sharply restrict enforceability of non-competes, too.

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

#143

Post by mikkupikku » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:24 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.

In Germany, this sort of thinking is the reason you can't release anything into the public domain. People are presumed to be too stupid to be trusted with the decision to renounce their copyright and so they are "protected" from this possibility.

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

#144

Post by 0x3f » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:26 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #139

0x3f wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions.

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

#145

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #144

ceejayoz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're taking a strangely ethnocentric view here. I don't take the founding fathers' writings as a form of scripture. Those are but bare assertions.

You're taking a strangely US-centric view here.

This has nothing to do with the founding fathers. The Ancient Greeks talked about natural law. The UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 193 countries have ratified at least parts of it.

Again, I beg you to at least read a paragraph or two off Wikipedia.

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

#146

Post by mikkupikku » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #65

0x3f wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Exclusive book deals tend to have defined timespans

Good. We have "enumerate[d] [at least one] inaliable basic [freedom] that peopke should be able to deal in".

Of course, we can quibble over the permissible duration of such timespans, but I think the point has been made clear.

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

#147

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #141

ceejayoz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But your glib response above was just to quote "the law", like this was a sufficient justification. If merely quoting the law is enough, then great, we already justified perfectly the copyright and jailing weed smokers stuff. It's only now that you changed tack to make a different argument, which... I mean I might disagree with or not, but it's not what I took issue with above.

> But your glib response above was just to quote "the law", like this was a sufficient justification.

And this is not true for your (false!) cite of "Hacker News"?

At least my quote from the law was accurate.

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

#148

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:29 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…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by bell-cot » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #143

SauntSolaire wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In Germany, this sort of thinking is the reason you can't release anything into the public domain. People are presumed to be too stupid to be trusted with the decision to renounce their copyright and so they are "protected" from this possibility.

Did you mean to say "presumed to be too stupid, or too easily conned or coerced"?

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

#150

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

Ms. Streisand. Paging Ms. Barbra Streisand. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.

I am not sure which exec at meta thought that this would be a good idea.

They are, literally, giving the book the best publicity it could have ever had. She's probably happy to not talk about it. There will be plenty of proxies that only have to read out of the book, prefacing it with "This is what Mark Zuckerberg doesn't want you to hear."