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

#171

Post by tclancy » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:38 PM UTC

seneca wrote: post #132

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.

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 a…

Because it’s unbalanced. The company benefits for as long as the ex-employee is alive, the ex-employee’s trade, theoretically of a high salary and privilege for keeping shtum winds down fairly quickly.

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

#172

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:39 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #165

ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sure; we have to resolve conflicts between two sets of people with rights sometimes. The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud; the inalienable right to freedom of movement doesn't apply to jailed murderers.

Unconscionability is a bit like obscenity; hard to perfectly define, but sometimes quite clear.

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

#173

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #94

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.

No I just mean in the sense that I give over the rights to my own words. I can't repeat them outside of the context that I've agreed to. They were both examples of the same kind of agreement. They'll keep those rights well after I'm dead, by the way.

You're not giving over the rights, you're selling the right to profit from them under contract.

You can argue that contract law is essentially a battle of relative political and economic power, and IP and employment contracts will always be unfair unless limits are set by statute and enforced enthusiastically.

And personally I would.

But generally you're signing away the rights to specific text, not the insights or commentary in that text, and if you freelance there's nothing to stop you making your points through some other channel, and/or some other text.

If you're a full-time employee then the usual agreement is that your words (code) are work product and owned by your employer, and you're in that situation because your political and economic power is relatively limited.

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

#174

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #170

ceejayoz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"An American helped convince 193 countries of something, therefore it's invalid" is a take, I suppose.

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

#175

Post by SoftTalker » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

seneca wrote: post #132

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.

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 a…

I basically agree but as a civil instrument, a contract is not a law. The only consequence of violating a contract should be having to pay back whatever damages were caused. Not prohibitions on behavior or other freedoms. Enforced by whom?

Corporations will violate contracts all the time as a cost of business if the cost of the violation is less than the benefit gained.

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

#176

Post by fmajid » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

mcbutterbunz wrote: post #47

SauntSolaire wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I understand freedom of speech and I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences. I understand that there are huge complexities in the legal system. I understand you can enter into agreements (part of your speech) that effectively gives away your speech. But if you step back and look at this situation, it's just fucked up that a corporation can do this to you. If freedom of speech is supposed to be i…

The UK is far worse, with draconian libel laws where the burden of proof is on the defendant. Originally designed to stop uppity commoners from challenging the aristocrats, now used by oligarchs to silence journalists.

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

#177

Post by andrewaylett » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

seneca wrote: post #132

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.

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 a…

There would have been a power imbalance at the point of signing. I can well imagine that the implications of that particular clause weren't apparent at the time.

As a society (more so here in the UK than in the US, I'll grant) we have laws governing what one party may demand of the other. They don't prevent a genuine meeting of the minds, because enforcement of a contract will only be an issue if at least one party doesn't follow through. But they do limit the ability of the company to impose sanctions beyond a point.

One limitation in the UK is that penalty clauses that are "private fines", like this one, must be based on the actual damage caused.

In this case, as in the non-compete case, I would say that if a company wants to continue to influence what someone does, they should continue to pay them.

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

#178

Post by SauntSolaire » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

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.

You asserted that free speech was an inalienable right, they provided an example showing it's not.

They also could have mentioned: NDA's, hate speech, threats, incitement, purjury, defamation, security-clearances or state secrets.

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

#179

Post by materielle » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

seneca wrote: post #132

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.

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 a…

There are all sorts of contracts that are deemed non-enforceable. Our government should pass a law that bans non-disparagement clauses.

One of the most pressing problems of our time is that these large corporations, on balance, have too much power compared to the electorate.

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

#180

Post by zaphar » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #162

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 ca…

There is nuance here though. Taking a step back and learning from an experience is something to be celebrated.