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

281–290 of 615 posts

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

#281

Post by rectang »

analog8374 wrote: post #100
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…

Understanding takes effort too, effort that might be better spent creating value. Also, understanding creates culpability. So that's a downside. It's like people who walk in front of you on the road and pretend to not notice you. If I don't see the badness then I am not responsible for the badness. And thirdly, never underestimate people's power to ignore.

> never underestimate people's power to ignore.

One of the hardest things to do is to put yourself in the place of those you see as villains and recognize that they generally see themselves as heroes. The human capacity for self-justification is extremely powerful.

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

#283

Post by dboreham »

chrisrogers wrote: post #259
ryandrake wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The leadership team of Meta (and all other giant mega corps) are much more isolated from the real world than 40ms and a firewall. These people don't interact in any way with normal people. They live in a different world than us, and don't even think about us, let alone wonder if their actions are hurting us. Do you think Zucc does his own shopping and has to interact with store employees? Do you think he talks to any…

The billionaire class can do those things, but they don't have to. Same with non-celebrity Royalty.

There are some reasons they may have to: risk of being kidnapped, risk of random people bothering them for money, risk of random crazy people attacking them, illogicality of waiting hours in a TSA line for no other reason than "that's what poor people do".

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

#284

Post by mattbee »

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 law (OK, well, British law) does recognise that many terms can be Unfair especially when one of the parties is an individual, and especially when it relates to employment. They can nullify them on that basis.

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

#285

Post by kingofmen »

Oarch wrote: post #246
ryandrake wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A few years ago I had a date with a backend engineer at Meta. I asked if they'd ever considered the societal implications of the work they did. They said "Oh wow I've never even thought about it". Probably a solid hire from Meta's perspective.

Or you missed the eye-rolling sarcasm in the answer they have to give on every goddam first date.

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

#287

Post by RHSeeger »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #223
Aurornis wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If we require every whistleblower to be a saint, then we’ll never hear a whistle. If you have a serious criticism of their credibility , that’s potentially different, but arbitrary criticisms of someone’s moral worth is mostly irrelevant.

The fact that someone actively worked against the welfare of society as a whole, in significant and impactful ways, _is_ a criticism of their credibility. It speaks to their morals and empathy for others.

It doesn't mean that what they're saying is a lie, but it puts them firmly in the bucket where what they say needs to be verified.

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

#288

Post by bena »

tzs wrote: post #264
bena wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that up until she was fired, she was Meta. She wasn’t a random employee, she was their global public policy director. She wasn’t just implementing policy, she was responsible for creating it. The question remains whether or not she would have written this book had she not been fired. It’s not like she quit due to her ethical objections

The question does indeed remain, but is it a question whose answer matters? If someone exposes a shady organization why should I care if they did it for ethical reasons or for something less noble like revenge for getting kicked out of that organization?

Because it doesn’t really target the issue.

Would she go do the same job at Alphabet? X? Probably, if they’d have her.

And the only real thing that’d happened is the government has been used to remove other companies’ competition.

Hooray I guess

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

#289

Post by dboreham »

materielle wrote: post #179
seneca wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Needless to say even in the USA, dick-move clauses in contracts are not a magic wand that allows anything to be enforceable. Contracts can be challenged through litigation (e.g. as unconscionable) and there are laws (e.g. California state law prohibits non-compete clauses).

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

#290

Post by thyrsus »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #276

Wait you can legally ban someone from saying negative things? How does this work with the first amendment?

The first amendment protects from U.S. government censorship (with exceptions for national security and commission of otherwise illegal acts, such as child molestation, fraud, or yelling fire in a crowded theater). The suppression here is a civil matter in which the author signed a contract not to "disparage" and would suffer civil penalties (monetary, other negotiated constraints) for violating the contract.
Post reply on HN