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

191–200 of 615 posts

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

#191

Post by ryandrake »

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…

The fact that she did end up setting herself apart is what's remarkable. For every one of her who was able to self-reflect, become horrified of the ethics of what she was doing, and took the hard steps of stopping and breaking away, how many current and former Meta employees don't do this reflection and remain contributors to the problem? 1:100? 1:1,000? 1:10,000?

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

#192

Post by Esophagus4 »

BeetleB wrote: post #156
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

It’s kind of murky.

NLRB under Biden seemed to say that yeah you can disclose this to the media, and broad non-disparagements are unenforceable. But it’s also kind of a toss up depending on the NLRB, courts, administration, etc.

Trump’s NLRB has rescinded a bunch of that Biden-era guidance, so what is enforceable and what isn’t? Kind of hard to say at this point.

Arbitration agreed with Meta, but who knows what courts would say.

https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/nlrb-requires-change...

https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2226/2025-0...

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

#193

Post by jancsika »

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…

You read the book. Did she have the receipts or not?

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

#194

Post by fmajid »

jeffbee wrote: post #55
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

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.

NDAs cannot cover whistleblowing of actual criminality, including sexual harassment, which is why modern NDAs take pains to disclaim that, so they wouldn't be invalidated on that basis. Presumably the behavior exposed in the book, while arguably immoral or amoral, doesn't rise to the standard of criminality.

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

#195

Post by vr46 »

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…

Public interest argument is strong here

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

#197

Post by sifar »

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…

I felt it more being naive idealism in the beginning coupled with the thrill of achieving things before the realization. Yet certain things stand out like her trip to Myanmar. Why to subject oneself through that in that condition.

The title is very apt, the executives, they simply didn't care. That was a fascinating glimpse

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

#198

Post by zaphar »

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 corporation did not do this to her. It was a two party agreement. She bears just as much blame for the agreement as the corporation. She entered into it willingly. And that does and should have consequences.

Morally speaking I think the company is reprehensible. But nor do I think contact law should be changed because of it.

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

#199

Post by wtallis »

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".

Nobody was trying to equate non-disparagement clauses with slavery. The relevance of slavery here is as an example of the kind of contract terms that everyone should be able to agree are rightly invalid and unenforceable. Any argument in favor of contract enforceability that would apply to a slavery contract just as easily as it applies to a non-disparagement contract is a bad argument, or at least woefully incomplete. Bringing up slavery serves as a necessary reminder that the details and nuance of the contract terms and their effects need to be discussed and argued, and that an unqualified "contracts should be valid" position is untenable and oversimplified.

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

#200

Post by 1qaboutecs »

jeffbee wrote: post #64
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.

That's a ridiculous constraint to put on the freedom to enter into contracts.

The government enforces contracts, so it gets to choose which contracts it enforces. Without a functioning judicial system (and a law enforcement system to enforce its verdicts), a contract is a piece of paper.

Plenty of contracts benefit both parties but are bad for society as a whole, and if the government pre-signals which sorts of those contracts it will refuse to enforce, this is good for society.

Post reply on HN