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

151–160 of 615 posts

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

#151

Post by torton »

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 think people living outside the US don't realize how few disputes here are actually allowed to use the official legal system when dealing with companies of non-trivial size. Many employment contracts, many service contracts, and even website terms of use require mandatory arbitration in lieu of pursuing one's claims in court.

And arbitrator companies (some of which are explicitly for-profit) know the hand that feeds them.

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

#152

Post by 0x3f »

ceejayoz wrote: post #145
0x3f wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is not going to make appeal to authority work any better as an argument, I'm afraid.

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

#153

Post by ceejayoz »

0x3f wrote: post #152
ceejayoz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The specific term 'inalienable' is heavily associated with the founding of the US. The others are different things but not very different in substance, i.e. ultimately some guy claimed these are universal rights. Wikipedia is not going to make appeal to authority work any better as an argument, I'm afraid.

Clear ignorance again.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

> Preamble

> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...

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

#154

Post by Esophagus4 »

ghostpepper wrote: post #70
jeffbee wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a condition of the severance payment. She didn't need to sign it. She wanted the money. Then she violated the terms of the contract.

I'm not a lawyer but even if it was, eg. a year's salary at the time she accepted it, is that really a fair price for a lifetime of silence?

That would be up to her, wouldn’t it?

And she signed it, so presumably it was for her.

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

#155

Post by Aurornis »

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

> 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”.

Non-disparagement clauses are limited by the law, which in the United States is augmented by state-level restrictions. There have been some recent developments from the NRLB limiting how severance agreements can be attached to non-disparagement clauses, too.

So it's not generally true that you can be liable for $50K for saying anything bad about your employer in your own home.

The situation with this author is on the other end of "in your own home" spectrum: They went out and wrote a whole book against their employer that violates NDAs, too. Regardless of what you think about Meta or the author, this was clearly a calculated move on their part to draw out a lawsuit because it provides further press coverage and therefore book sales (just look at all the comments in this thread from people claiming they're motivated to go buy it it now). Whether the gamble pays off or not remains to be seen.

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

#156

Post by BeetleB »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #140
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?

I doubt such clauses can prevent you from disclosing them to relevant authorities. Disclosing them to the public is a whole other matter.

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

#157

Post by mikkupikku »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #140
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?

I don't think such clauses have ever been held to prevent people from testifying in criminal trials. Signing book deals on the other hand...

If it's true that she signed a severance deal, e.g. signed this when she was leaving and therefore already knew she was agreeing to protect a bunch of snakes.. Well she fucked up. At the point when she signed that agreement she was already informed and aware of what kind of people she was agreeing to not disparage.

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

#158

Post by pwdisswordfishy »

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.

It should not be legal to enforce full stop. If you don't want to be disparaged, make your conduct worthy of not being disparaged. When you're being lied about, sue for defamation; "non-disparagement clauses" are redundant at best, an attack on free speech at worst.

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

#159

Post by SauntSolaire »

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #122
SauntSolaire wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

To be clear, I do agree with everything you've said here — I just disagree that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and I don't think there's ever been a time or place where it has actually been considered one.

If it were up to me, I would require non-disparagement agreements to be standalone contracts, and cap the damages a company can claim to the amount they paid you to sign it. Once that number is met, the contract is void. That way the company only gets as much leverage as they're willing to pay for.

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

#160

Post by ceejayoz »

mikkupikku wrote: post #146
ceejayoz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just to be clear: you're asserting that "there are some inalienable rights" can be debunked by the existance of one that is not inalienable?

That's not how this works.

Post reply on HN