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

201–210 of 615 posts

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

#201

Post by mykowebhn »

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…

To all future whistle-blowers: Please ignore comments like this one! What you are doing is a valuable service to society.

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

#202

Post by sieabahlpark »

jeffbee wrote: post #75
ghostpepper wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes?

[dead]

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

#203

Post by vntok »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #108
vntok wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Maybe part of the point is to support the authors a bit through purchasing the book.

Probably not; OP wants to "check the immoral companies, governments, and other unscrupulous entities" and to "Screw Meta and their anti-human business model".

Giving money to the author rather than getting it for free has absolutely nothing to do with that laudable goal.

It's not as if the commenter's money would magically go to Meta if they did not give it to the book's author instead.

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

#204

Post by yoyohello13 »

gortok wrote: post #23

Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way,…

By allowing powerful adults to act this way, we are in a sense teaching our children to act this way too.

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

#205

Post by beepbooptheory »

jamiequint wrote: post #187
beepbooptheory wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am understanding correctly wouldn't that make it a more principled "thing" on her end? Like if you know they're gonna have a good case against you and still blow the whistle anyway, isn't that acting through some kind of principle, versus, at least, acting out when you feel you will be protected?

No, principled would be refusing to sign the exit agreement and forefeiting the money, then writing the book.

But how are supposed to know in that moment that's what you wanna do? Aren't there different ways to be principled?

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

#206

Post by troyvit »

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…

The article covers this:

Instead, [the arbitration ruling] relied on a non-disparagement clause in her severance agreement with Facebook to silence her. Which it did, from March 13, 2025, her publication day. We could still publish the book, but our author could not talk about it.

So she followed the clause.

Personally I don't care. If she can publish the ugly truth about Meta and snag a pile of their money in the process I say power to her.

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

#207

Post by mindslight »

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…

> I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences

nit: this isn't generally a valid analysis. Rather, it's a common refrain used by people undermining freedom of speech while pretending to support it. This trope is often even trotted out in full-powertalk mode where it's applied to consequences coming from the government itself.

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

#208

Post by ryandrake »

giwook wrote: post #4

I'm going to place an order for the book right now. I encourage you all to do the same. We the people hold the power to keep in check the immoral companies, governments, and other unscrupulous entities that would exploit the collective to enrich the few. And ultimately that's through our money and how we spend it. Screw Meta and their anti-human business model.

Unlike an elected government, who the common people at least in theory have a chance to replace via elections, the public pretty much has no say in what these companies and their leadership are allowed to do. Nobody voted for Meta. Nobody voted for Palantir. Nobody voted for Philip Morris. You can say that someone "voted with their wallet," but that doesn't point to a viable solution. "Not voting with your wallet" essentially means becoming a hermit and living isolated in the woods. Because there are no alternate companies that are ethical. Ethics have costs, and the nature of competition means that ethical companies will always be outcompeted and die to companies who don't care to pay those cost.

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

#209

Post by rkomorn »

zaphar wrote: post #198
mcbutterbunz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd agree with you if there wasn't a significant power imbalance that virtually always skews way more in favor of the corporation.

It is far more likely that an individual would do best to agree to a corporation's terms even if they favor the corporation than the other way around.

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

#210

Post by renewiltord »

Aurornis wrote: post #155
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 gene…

Huh, I didn't think of that. If you are aware of the Streisand Effect, it is only logical to use it to your own advantage. Just like Cunningham's Law, you can often get the right answer by posting the wrong one. In fact, this is probably the first time someone is knowingly using the Streisand Effect to their own advantage. There are no prior examples.
Post reply on HN