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

231–240 of 615 posts

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

#231

Post by jmull »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #217
jmull wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A strange response. Rather than address the comment you change the subject, “whaddabout the author!” Why do the dark work of deflecting on behalf of “Meta”? (lol, that name gets me every time. Might as well have renamed themselves NoIdeaWhatToDoNow)

Because recognizing the author as conflicted and an unreliable narrator changes how you should weight and consider the information they are providing. It doesn't necessarily mean anything is untrue - but it does add extra, valuable information to how much you trust it. If someone tells me something, I'm mostly likely to believe it without further investigation. But not always.

Another one. Deflecting the criticism of Meta with a “whaddabout the author!”

Formed as an answer to a question, but not one that was asked.

A different account than last time, though, so I’ll ask you too: Why do the dark work of deflecting on behalf of Meta (lol)?

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

#232

Post by robrain »

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.

Bought it on Kobo the day of the initial ban, mostly as a screw-you and reaction to corporate censorship. The fact that it's a good book and tells an interesting story in a clear manner was a side-benefit. Strongly recommend.

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

#233

Post by CalChris »

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.

Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

This doesn’t limit the Feds. Also, a state can prohibit non-compete. Etc. Basically, the freedom to enter into a contract is not one of the four corndogs of freedom.

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

#234

Post by amtamt »

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…

Overall this feels a good thing for public, even if the author is money oriented, because this will hopefully make even more details public.

I personally have no qualms about one criminal extorted by another, specially if their fued is making world better for everyone.

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

#235

Post by ipython »

everybodyknows wrote: post #219
mikkupikku wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peop…

Still looking for the part where, in acknowledgement of her own culpability, she assigns all book royalties to some charity that, say, provides counseling to troubled teenagers ...

So she’s expected to not only put her own financial life in jeopardy to publish this information, but then to take the money that she does have and donate it all to charity?

One has to live. And there are not a lot of commercial enterprises that pay well that will hire someone who publicly flaunts an employment or severance contract.

Give her a break. It’s amazing how many nits we have to pick with those with little power when they choose to exercise it, that we end up excusing wholesale abuses of power by those who actually monopolize it.

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

#236

Post by ipython »

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 funny as I see this argument from people who at the same time excuse Snowden for publicly exposing government surveillance overreach when he had similar tools (disclosure to relevant authorities) available to him.

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

#237

Post by SilverElfin »

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 are probably right that she was part of it all. There what money and power do to you. We need to limit it. The eat the rich stuff is the wrong messaging but the right goal. We need to reduce concentration of wealth and power.

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

#238

Post by ktimespi »

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…

Yeah, the fact that she realized what's going on and still worked tirelessly to give Mark / Facebook more negotiating power speaks volumes. I also can't buy the whole "I have financial woes and can't escape" spin that she puts on her situation.

Otherwise, great book.

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

#239

Post by newscracker »

> But when readers realised that Meta was trying to suppress it, the book became a global phenomenon. To date we’ve sold almost 200,000 copies.

The number of copies sold seems quite low for this book. It’s difficult to believe that across paperback, hardcover, ebooks and audiobooks, it hasn’t sold several million copies. This report is from February 2026 (just a month and a half ago).

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

#240

Post by zaphar »

rkomorn wrote: post #209
zaphar wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The antidote to a power imbalance is to recognize that there is no power imbalance and go about your life that way.

Pretending there is one lands you in an imaginary trap. Build a society where we recognize that and you build a society where the imaginary trap disappears.

Post reply on HN