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

#331

Post by zeroonetwothree » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:18 PM UTC

orochimaaru wrote: post #315

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 superv…

You don’t think private contracts should be enforceable in other countries? I don’t that would make for a great world to live in.

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

#332

Post by prepend » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:19 PM UTC

orochimaaru wrote: post #315

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 superv…

I dont think the severance value was disclosed. It could be $10M. She was a senior exec for years and hasnt had to work since leaving Facebook.

I mean even for small amounts like $100k, I’d likely sign non disparagement agreements. Early in my career I signed agreements for really low amounts as it was greater than zero and I needed the money.

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

#333

Post by zeroonetwothree » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:20 PM UTC

Hizonner wrote: post #291

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.

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.

We have a system of laws that decide which private contracts are enforceable and which are not. So we can try to change the law but as it stands we have decided that this one is enforceable.

FWIW I agree about not enforcing non disparagement clauses but legally that not the world we live in.

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

#334

Post by prepend » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #37

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…

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.

She didn’t have to agree to the contract. I don’t really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other.

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

#335

Post by zeroonetwothree » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

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

The company offers you money in exchange for signing certain agreements. You are free to decline. There is no obligation on either side.

If non disparagement clauses were illegal then perhaps the severance amounts would be smaller since there’s now much less value to the company.

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

#336

Post by ronsor » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

orochimaaru wrote: post #315

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 superv…

> 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.

You really need to familiarize yourself with the New York Convention.

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

#337

Post by prepend » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

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 was privileged to even get a severance. Most people just get fired.

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

#338

Post by dylan604 » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

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.

Could be courage guided by a paycheck. Would not be surprised if the publisher did not reach out directly to suggest writing a book.

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

#339

Post by zeroonetwothree » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:23 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #220

wtallis wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was trying to equate non-disparagement clauses with slavery. The relevance of slavery here is as an example of the kind of contract terms that everyone should be able to agree are rightly invalid and unenforceable. Any argument in favor of contract enforceability that would apply to a slavery contract just as easily as it applies to a non-disparagement contract is a bad argument , or at least woefully incomple…

The general principle is that you shouldn't be able to "sign away" something that's a constitutional or human right. Like the right to freely speak, the right to practice a religion, the right to be paid for work, and so on. Imagine if the severance contract specified that she had to convert to Islam in order to get her severance, or that she had to sacrifice a child. No court in the country would consider those clau…

Everyone who has a job that requires them to speak for their employer signs away their “free speech” right to an extent. Your proposal would not lead to a tenable system.

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

#340

Post by prepend » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:23 PM UTC

Avicebron wrote: post #87

jeffbee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So allowing someone to sign themselves into slavery should be "legal" because it's "impinging on someone's right to enter contracts"? I get that some people balk at "morally reprehensible" as some sort of slippery slope, but c'mon we as individuals have to function somewhat coherently. As a social species reliant on some form of social cohesion (how much oil did you refine this morning?) we have to have some guidelin…

I mean it is currently legal in most countries to do that.

Read about record contracts. Prince spoke extensively about his restrictive contracts.