Live data from Hacker News

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

thetimes.com

291–300 of 615 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be legal to enforce full stop. If you don't want to be disparaged, make your conduct worthy of not being disparaged. When you're being lied about, sue for defamation; "non-disparagement clauses" are redundant at best, an attack on free speech at worst.

You don't have to agree to a disparagement clause... She accepted a lot of money to agree to it.

That's nice, but the rest of us didn't accept anything to agree to provide a legal system that would enforce it... and there's no reason we should.

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

#292
Related. Others? (pretty sure there are others)

Meta exposé author faces $50k fine per breach of non-disparagement agreement - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45322050 - Sept 2025 (352 comments)

An ex-Facebook exec said staff let Zuckerberg win at board games - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44757228 - Aug 2025 (2 comments)

Careless People - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43780363 - April 2025 (537 comments)

Lawmakers are skeptical of Zuckerberg's commitment to free speech - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43643387 - April 2025 (63 comments)

How 'Careless People' is becoming a bigger problem for Meta - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43440449 - March 2025 (41 comments)

Meta puts stop on promotion of tell-all book by former employee - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43387325 - March 2025 (88 comments)

Ex-Facebook director's new book paints brutal image of Mark Zuckerberg - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43360024 - March 2025 (336 comments)

Meta is trying to stop a former employee from promoting her book about Facebook - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43349473 - March 2025 (108 comments)

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

#293
post #274
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 remains whether or not she would have written this book had she not been fired. Assume the answer is no. What does this change about any of this?

She’s attempting to use the public to bludgeon Meta.

This is a fight among shitty people. I will not lionize either side. They both contributed to the shitty state of affairs today.

Meta can burn and she can go broke. I’m fine with both

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

#294
post #264
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?

> but is it a question whose answer matters

Yes. 100%. And the fact that you're not seeing why it does is confounding to me.

This person has shown that they are willing to harm society (for their own benefit, presumably); by active choice. And, as such, anything they say needs to be viewed through the lens of "is this person lying for their own benefit".

1. Their previous actions do mean that we should not trust what they are saying outright, we should do (more) work verifying the information they provide.

2. Their previous actions to _not_ mean we should avoid holding other accountable when the information provided turns out to be true.

You're asking your question like someone is arguing that this person's information doesn't matter (2); but the point being made is that we should (1).

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

#295
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.

Also if you use Instagram regularly, consider replacing that time with something else. Does it really offer anything of value to you, compared to the harm Meta has caused?

Or just delete your Instagram account. Really, it’s easier than you think it is. You might find you don’t even miss it.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you become massively rich from working somewhere, then suddenly discover your conscience when you're fired, you're bitter, not principled.

Ok and?

Let's say she's bitter, not principled.

Now what? What's different now?

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

#297
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Even justice system considers the trustworthiness of a witness, evaluating incentive, conflict of interest.

Having worked in another FAANG, I realize a large number of criticisms do come from imaginations, since I could see the contrast first hand. Nobody could tell exactly the consequences of all actions, most of the time it's just a buncha folks trying to figure out what to do, experimenting, iterating. Have you tried executing a conspiracy, like a surprise party? Good luck keeping a secret with more than 5 people.

There's also the problem of perspective. To a less technical engineer who don't know what they don't know, having their deliverable rejected time and again could feel like a conspiracy against them. If you read a blog post from them you'd think the culture is very toxic when everyone is doing their best juggling to be considerate while keeping the quality high.

As with others commenting on this, I've no idea how true the book is, in fact I have never read it. OTOH, even without the book, researches saying social media is making teenagers depress look convincing to me, and, although it's a losing battle, privacy matters a lot to me so I've personally stopped using social media for many years.

None of these give me full confidence to trust nor distrust the narrator, for things that you can't observe externally. It's all percentage.

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

#298
post #293
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question remains whether or not she would have written this book had she not been fired. Assume the answer is no. What does this change about any of this?

She’s attempting to use the public to bludgeon Meta. This is a fight among shitty people. I will not lionize either side. They both contributed to the shitty state of affairs today. Meta can burn and she can go broke. I’m fine with both

That's a good reaction to have.

Thankfully she wrote the book so we know about all these bad deeds.

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

#299
post #250
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,…

Yes, all of this happens (and worse!) and still no boycott of Facebook. We have been turned into a country of dopamine deficient addicts. And now these same companies are funding a useless war, killing innocent children, and soon, collapsing the world economy. If you still use these platforms knowing what we know now you are just as complicit as every executive. https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/

Hard to boycott something you quit using 10 years ago.
Post reply on HN