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

161–170 of 615 posts

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

#161

Post by mikkupikku »

bell-cot wrote: post #149
mikkupikku wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Have you ever been conned into releasing something into the public domain? Me either. Its not a real problem. But signing over the rights to some corporate party? That happens all the time, and is permitted in Germany. Germany is being very stupid here. They're letting abstract reasoning about principles blind them to common sense (many such cases in German history.)

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

#162

Post by Aurornis »

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…

> This book was SO GOOD.

One of the (very valid, IMO) criticisms of the book is that the author tries to set herself apart from the culture she was deeply embedded within. I think it's becoming a trap to hold the author up as a hero when she was clearly part of it all to the very core. It was only after she got separated from the inner circle club that she tried to distance herself from it.

So while reading it, be careful about who you hold up as a hero. In a situation like this it's possible for everyone to be untrustworthy narrators.

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

#163

Post by elmomle »

simpaticoder wrote: post #112
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much easier to do when you exist 40ms and a firewall away from the world. The cloud companies ability to not share the experience of those using the service, to be remote, is a much greater retreat than what was possible 101 years ago, it feels like.

I hear lots of talk about concentration of power, but too little about its amplification. It was a quieter world before amplifiers, both literally and figuratively.

It has been discussed for generations, but unsurprisingly the people with the megaphones don't tend to promote that angle.

https://inist.org/library/1982-03-21.Illich.Silence%20is%20a...

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

#165

Post by mikkupikku »

ceejayoz wrote: post #160
mikkupikku wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

We're talking about whether people should be permitted to sign away their right to speech. I think you've conceded that such is permissible at least for a limited duration. Shall we quibble the permissible durations, or are you done?

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

#166

Post by hsuduebc2 »

fwipsy wrote: post #34

How the hell did Zuck run Facebook for so long without learning about the Streisand effect?

Because he simply doesn't have to. He is controlling comically evil ad machine which is always caught redhanded doing something deeply immoral and nothing ever happens for them apart fine from EU from time to time. He is not even trying to have some positive image. He doesn't have to.

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #159
mcbutterbunz wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by dmschulman »

It's been interesting to watch some of Wynn-William's claims be vindicated by recent court decisions about the addictive and manipulative qualities of Meta and Google's products. She left the company in 2017, and along with her many other allegations about Facebook and their executive team, had a good amount of information in the book about the reasoning, rationale, and management decisions that led to allowing advertisers to hyper target "coveted" demographics of tweens and children (among other claims).

Facebook, according to Wynn-Williams, sold advertisers on the fact that they could target young girls who post and then remove selfies from their services in order to market to demographics who were likely experiencing depression and negative feelings about their body image.

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

#169

Post by goodolddays9090 »

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…

[dead]

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

#170

Post by 0x3f »

ceejayoz wrote: post #153
0x3f wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is the US not in the UN now or something? The whole UNUDHR was an Eleanor Roosevelt project. She literally drafted the documents! At least look it up before being rude. You need to get the knowledge before applying the sass.
Post reply on HN