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

301–310 of 615 posts

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

#301

Post by brabel »

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.

That can only be a sarcastic answer, don’t you think?? You really believe people would get a job at former Facebook, after lots of scandals have been exposed, and not even think about that?? Sorry no way.

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

#302

Post by brabel »

petre wrote: post #262
bena wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She didn’t set herself apart. She was fired. She was forced apart. That’s the issue here. Is this someone who found their morals or someone who found a stick with which to strike back at those who hurt her? One of those doesn’t require her to change at all.

Even if she was fired it was an act of courage and a step in the right direction to write a book about it. The company is cancer, no wonder they named it Meta.

Courage guided by righteousness or vengeance? I feel like the motivation is very important here.

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

#303

Post by smohare »

kingofmen wrote: post #285
Oarch wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

[dead]

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

#304

Post by advael »

brabel wrote: post #302
petre wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if she was fired it was an act of courage and a step in the right direction to write a book about it. The company is cancer, no wonder they named it Meta.

Courage guided by righteousness or vengeance? I feel like the motivation is very important here.

I don't particularly think so. What matters is whether the stuff in the book was true, not whether the author is of unassailable character

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

#305

Post by charcircuit »

alterom wrote: post #272
mathgradthrow wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, clearly the employee and the company have the same leverage in negotiation here. It's a free market! If she didn't like the offer, she could've just gotten herself fired from some other company instead. /s

She can just reject the offer. Nothing can compel you to sign a contract you don't want to.

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

#306

Post by greenchair »

cwillu wrote: post #120
jeffbee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This sort of ridiculous “criticism” is why I have a hard time taking libertarians seriously.

good observation comrade!

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

#307

Post by charcircuit »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #140
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…

> "non-disparagement" clause Do you believe a civil contract should be able to stop a person from disclosing potential illegal activities?

I do. Illegal activities can be dealt with by the legal system without needing to be publicized first.

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

#308

Post by Mezzie »

jmull wrote: post #186
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…

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)

I believe what Sarah Wynn-Williams wrote in Careless People.

I also think she's shown herself to be a person I'd want to stay away from.

The reason this matters to me is because the more media attention Ms. Wynn-Williams gets, the more her ideas of what we should do about Meta will spread and be given credence. The more she will be given credence outside of simply reporting what she saw. I can both believe what she says and think it's best to stop fanning the flames and giving her personal attention.

This entire saga reads to me as intra-elite fighting: Ms. Wynn-Williams is representing the cultural/educational elite, and obviously the Meta execs are the tech elite. As an ordinary person, I'm not under any delusion that either side has my best interest in mind when they fight, or when they advance policy, regulatory, or other suggestions. The derision and disdain Ms. Wynn-Williams has for people not in her milieu throw up a lot of red flags for me.

It comes down to believing that Ms. Wynn-Williams wants to hurt Meta, not to help us.

I also believe that blindly supporting people or organizations just because they also hate people or organizations you hate is a very bad idea. The enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy. In this case, regarding technological politics, Zuck and co. want us to become braindead addicted zombies, and Ms. Wynn-Williams will want us to have no control or access at all, because we can't handle it and it's for our own good. She's from the cultural group pushing for things like age restriction and verification, devices you can't root/restricting what you can install on your own device, etc. Both are bad. One sees us as cattle and the other sees us as toddlers.

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

#309

Post by SpaceNoodled »

brabel wrote: post #301
Oarch wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That can only be a sarcastic answer, don’t you think?? You really believe people would get a job at former Facebook, after lots of scandals have been exposed, and not even think about that?? Sorry no way.

You seriously underestimate how myopic people can be. Not everyone is a sophisticated and socially aware HN commenter like you and I.

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

#310

Post by zeroonetwothree »

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.

You sound fun to date
Post reply on HN