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

421–430 of 615 posts

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

#421

Post by phs318u »

boca_honey wrote: post #388
dboreham wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some reasons they may have to: risk of being kidnapped, risk of random people bothering them for money, risk of random crazy people attacking them, illogicality of waiting hours in a TSA line for no other reason than "that's what poor people do".

Exactly. If I was one of those people, no one but my 30-50 most trusted friends and family members would be allowed 100 yards near me. I would be afraid for my safety 24/7, for my children's... For my private life (I would never talk about my personal opinions to anyone outside of my immediate family). Etc. Think Taylor Swift in Walmart. She could probably get trampled over and die (no joke). Zuckerberg or Gates in a…

> Zuckerberg or Gates in a bar or a county fair? Probably beaten to death or shot.

I think you’re probably right about these two. However if I try and imagine someone like, say, Warren Buffet or Jimmy Carter at a public place like that I think they’d do ok. The difference being of course that they’re not arseholes.

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

#422

Post by Aunche »

mortoc wrote: post #322
prepend wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Literally anyone with the access to these people would be someone making bank. Do you think Cheryl Sandberg would bother to talk to a poor person? That's kinda the nature of whistle-blowing. You're complicit, you have inside knowledge and THEN you choose to do the right thing. Snowden worked for the NSA before he exposed their lies about spying on US citizens, you think he did literally no work towards that end befor…

If the author didn't want others to think of her as a "careless person", she should have refused a severance with a nondisparagement clause.

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

#423

Post by mathgeek »

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…

Legally, your "slavery" distinction is not the same thing as agreeing not to speak a certain way about a company. Slavery implies that you can be forced to do things that you do not want to do, as it is inclusive of future decisions by the other party. Agreeing to not so some specific action, while it does bind you from future freedoms, is exclusive of any other action the party may wish you to undertake. (IANAL)

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

#424

Post by maximinus_thrax »

charcircuit wrote: post #307
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

The legal system makes illegal activities part of the public record.

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

#425

Post by svnt »

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,…

The job of execs/middle managers seems to often be dual parenting: 1) coordinate the capable well-parented employees below them, and 2) pander to the usefully myopic spoiled brats above.

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

#426

Post by reenorap »

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…

Can't she just return the money from the severance agreement and rescind the NDA?

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

#427

Post by itsdesmond »

_heimdall wrote: post #419
giwook wrote: 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.

Just be aware that the author really doesn't get much of the money you're spending. The publisher takes a sizable chunk, as does Amazon if you ordered from there.

The fuck are you arguing here? Should they not buy the book?

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

#428

Post by [deleted] »

none2585 wrote: post #407
nubinetwork wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to boycott something you quit using 10 years ago.

I'm in your boat, but I've been thinking more lately around how we create competitors to the sorts of things that people claim "lock them in" to using Facebook (events and messenger are the ones I hear the most anecdotally). Make these things reasonably self-sustaining monetarily (no ads) and just let it run.

[deleted]

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

#429

Post by mathgeek »

prepend wrote: post #345
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Not in the book directly, but she did accuse them of securities fraud prior to publication: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/15/whistl...

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

#430

Post by whynotminot »

ElFitz wrote: post #404
miltonlost wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age gaps in relationships is not inherently negative. Being a cougar is not a bad thing. The issue here was that Sandberg was the author's manager. Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults.

> Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults. I wouldn’t fully agree. All parties being adults doesn’t inherently remove the advantage very large age and experience gaps can give to one party over the other, especially when one is barely adult. 18 or 21 is just an arbitrary number, and one doesn’t suddenly become smart about these things just because the law says they are now legally full citizens, responsible fo…

Can we raise the age of adulthood from 18 to whatever acceptable age ends this discourse once and for all?
Post reply on HN