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

341–350 of 615 posts

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

#341

Post by jmye »

Aurornis wrote: post #162
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…

> 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…

> I think it's becoming a trap to hold the author up as a hero

Cool, then don’t do that.

Every single employee at Meta is still vile and making the world a worse place every single day, and anything exposing the depths of their shittiness, no matter the source, is a good thing.

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

#342

Post by orochimaaru »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #331
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.

The contract should be subservient to the laws of the country/state. She may have signed it in the US. But if the non-disparagement is not legal in the UK it shouldn't be enforceable.

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

#343

Post by zeroonetwothree »

tuckerman wrote: post #99
jeffbee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For arbitrary contracts I would agree, but I think increasing the limitations in severance agreements specifically makes sense. There are already certain requirements (at least in California) for severance agreements and I think limiting the duration of non-disparagement clauses to 1-2 years would be a positive change.

I think that’s a good proposal.

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

#344

Post by prepend »

SoftTalker wrote: post #175
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…

I basically agree but as a civil instrument, a contract is not a law. The only consequence of violating a contract should be having to pay back whatever damages were caused. Not prohibitions on behavior or other freedoms. Enforced by whom? Corporations will violate contracts all the time as a cost of business if the cost of the violation is less than the benefit gained.

In the US, a contract is considered law. It’s just only between the parties.

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

#345

Post by prepend »

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?

In the US, a contract can’t supersede laws like those that protect whistleblowers. (I think this is part of how Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted because his NDAs were found invalid)

The author didnt disclose any illegal activities in her book. And she didnt claim whistleblower status.

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

#346

Post by zeroonetwothree »

mindslight wrote: post #118
jeffbee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're invoking a common "libertarian" trope, so I'm going to address that larger topic. Right-fundamentalist (ie axiomatic) "libertarianism" is fallacious. Logically, by asserting an unlimited "right" to contract, one can straightforwardly reframe any totalitarian state as merely being contracts between the state and its citizens/subjects/victims. And simply renaming things clearly does not make for a society that r…

Contracts are entered by private individuals, not by the state. So your pithy claim to instantly demolish the idea is not actually effective.

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

#347

Post by zeroonetwothree »

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.

How does this show that corporations have too much power? We are literally discussing that this act could easily be stopped by legislation. Doesn’t that imply they have less power than the electorate?

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

#348

Post by motbus3 »

nostrademons wrote: post #320
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.

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 ameliora…

I know couple of people who said exactly same thing. One of them is quite smart and I asked what was his/her personal opinion and I've heard: "I'd rather not talk about it ever again"

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

#349

Post by phil21 »

ethin wrote: post #189
asgraham wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good is hidden: court systems are already overwhelmed. If the arbitration cases were added, then it’d take even longer to get a court date. (Which isn’t to say I think the system as it is is good, just that there is a good)

Then fix the court system? Create more courts, hire more judges/clerks... I mean, I know it isn't "as simple" as that, but that's the proper solution instead of creating a half-legal half-favoritist system where a company can force you into arbitration where, more often than not, the arbitrator is paid by the company, and therefore rules in it's favor.

Or reduce the demand on the legal system? Just adding more expense to an outright broken thing isn't an actual fix. It's a half-measure patch at best. And no, I don't mean create a workaround like arbitration.

Why do court cases take so long and suck up so many resources? Start with that. Perhaps reduce the amount of legislation/laws/etc. on the books, and write laws that limit the litigious society we find ourselves living in.

That is of course easier said than done, but we've chosen this path and can choose to unwind it if we have enough desire to.

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

#350

Post by prepend »

cmiles74 wrote: post #40
SauntSolaire wrote: post #11

A good reminder not to sign contracts with non-disparagement clauses, if you can help it. Seems like good territory for California to ban like they did with non-competes. At the very least they should be restricted from inclusion in severance agreements - at that point the company already has you over a barrel.

I'm not sure we can hold individuals responsible for signing these non-disparagement clauses. They often don't have a lawyer to review the paperwork and, I am sure, employers like Facebook aren't going to wait for a new hire to have a lawyer review that paperwork. There's a real pressure to sign everything with HR and get on to starting your new role. Plus the power imbalance.

In this case the author is an attorney, so can presumably understand a contract she signed.

And the non-disparagement wasnt in her hire agreement, it was in her severance agreement, in exchange for a negotiated amount of money. Author was wealthy enough to afford dedicated lawyers to review.

Post reply on HN