Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by ehutch79 » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:01 PM UTC

grokcodec wrote: post #7

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.” ― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

If my high school English is worth anything, that quote has nothing to do with being careless, or the privileges accorded to wealth, but is in fact a metaphor for the external struggle of chicken farmers against predators.

/s

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

#312

Post by mech422 » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:02 PM UTC

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?

>> but is it a question whose answer matters?

I think it does? "scummy person loses job, finds another way to cash in" almost seems to becoming a trope? I think it raises questions about what is left _out_ of the book, not just what's in it - are the issues raised the worst/most important, or just the ones that will sell the most books? Did we really need someone to 'tell us' meta/social media can be evil?

There are reasons that (some) criminals are not allowed to profit from books/movies about their crimes.

Anyway, that's just my general feelings about this sort book - I've never heard of the book or the author. And I honestly have no interest in reading it. Based on what I'm reading here - that would basically be rewarding/enriching one of the 'bad actors' ?

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

#313

Post by Mezzie » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

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,…

> We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way, but we're perfectly willing to allow fully grown adults to act like this.

Speak to a group of K-12 teachers.

We (as a society/culture) are absolutely giving our children passes and teaching them to act this way.

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

#314

Post by Dumbledumb » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:03 PM UTC

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 .

Getting to know the views and values of your date is not a weird thing to do on the first date. If it’s a question that annoys them, they should consider why.

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

#315

Post by orochimaaru » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:05 PM UTC

I don't agree with this ban. I also don't understand how a non-judicial US arbitration applies to the UK or in Europe. It shouldn't.

From the book authors perspective, signing the severance (and by definition taking the payout) means you're giving up the rights of disparagement and legal action against the company. This happens a lot of times. For example, if you have a legal employment complaints against your supervisors in a US company and have filed for external legal action, signing severance (if the company lays you off) means you give up your legal action and agree not to disparage company leaders.

The solution here was to not sign the severance and write the book.

Fwiw - I believe severance should be like non-competes. It cannot come with these clauses unless the value of the severance is over some set amount (e.g. above $10m).

I think the publisher should just make the book freely downloadable and distribute it via torrents and any other means.

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

#316

Post by a4isms » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:06 PM UTC

julianeon wrote: post #225

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…

We would have no book if the author was a hero: they would say "I'm not doing this," quit, and that would be the end of it. By this definition, only an unheroic person could've written it. By the same definition, an firsthand expose of Meta could never be written by a trustworthy person. This obviously protects the company: you are ceding this ground to them, "No trustworthy person could work at your company and writ…

Why is it that the only people willing to testify against the cartel are murderers, drug dealers, and bank robbers? These are not trustworthy witnesses.

Same problem.

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

#317

Post by prepend » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:06 PM UTC

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…

I think the author was complicit and only complained once FB stopped paying her.

It was weird how the author claimed not to know how facebook targeted ads worked until 2016/2017 after she had made millions.

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

#318

Post by prepend » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:08 PM UTC

julianeon wrote: post #225

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…

We would have no book if the author was a hero: they would say "I'm not doing this," quit, and that would be the end of it. By this definition, only an unheroic person could've written it. By the same definition, an firsthand expose of Meta could never be written by a trustworthy person. This obviously protects the company: you are ceding this ground to them, "No trustworthy person could work at your company and writ…

Not really. Author could have whistleblown and quit early on revealing unsavory things.

The book is mainly attempts to embarass Zuck (eg, he’s sweaty, he’s not good at Catan, etc).

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

#319

Post by prepend » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:09 PM UTC

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.

How is it courageous? She’s profiting off her book. Seems pretty normal.

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

#320

Post by nostrademons » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:09 PM UTC

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.

I know an ex-Facebook employee who told me that "Nobody at Facebook ever makes a conscious decision about whether something is good or bad. You are given a metric, and your job is to make that metric go up. If it turns out that making the metric go up has negative consequences [for the business, I don't think it's anyone's job to worry about the rest of society], then somebody else is given another metric to ameliorate the negative consequences of you making your metric go up."

He didn't last all that long, he had a conscience. I've heard similar things, but not quite in such clear words, from several other people I know who have worked at Facebook/Meta.