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

#451

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:07 PM UTC

0x3f wrote: post #185

ceejayoz wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"An American helped convince 193 countries of something, therefore it's invalid" is a take, I suppose.

Well this was really just a sub-argument about whether 'inalienable' is an Americanism, which it is. The real point about 'natural' rights, or whatever term you've switched to using, is that they're simply assertions. Not supported by anything else. Doesn't really matter who is asserting them. The argument takes the same form, and is equally bunk.

> whatever term you've switched to using

They're synonyms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_right goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right.... This happens a lot in English.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable..."

> is that they're simply assertions

So's "we don't have natural rights".

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

#452

Post by miki123211 » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:11 PM UTC

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.

Messenger does 3 things right:

1. Being able to discover people by name / surname, no phone number necessary. This is the most important privacy feature people care about, it's ironic that Meta had it from the get-go, while other platforms have barely caught up.

2. Used to have frictionless message sync, including in the event of a catastrophic loss of all devices, which put it far ahead of most apps (sadly nerfed by E2E).

3. A much better group implementation than Whatsapp / iMessage (no need to maintain a contacts list, no need to share phone numbers with everybody, you know who everybody is by name and surname). This is perfect for semi-professional groups where people are acquainted but not close with each other, especially when some members hold positions of power and don't wish to receive calls from irate people). Parents / teachers or blue-collar coworkers are perfect examples.

It's sad that all these apps are converging on the same set of features and mis-features, with nobody (except Telegram) really exploring the tradeoff space any more.

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

#453

Post by kakacik » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:12 PM UTC

miltonlost wrote: post #387

bostik wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cheryl Sandberg inviting the author of the book to sleep in her bed next to her on the company jet, and the petulent and vindictive behavior when the author said 'no'. Considering the timing... does that mean MeToo doesn't apply if the predator is also a woman? Sexual advances from a position of power are simply not okay. (Weirdly as a society we appear to have accepted that an older woman predating younger men is…

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.

Fine with that, as long as we agree that it goes both ways and is judged same, equality and all. Otherwise deeply sexist to use kind words

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

#454

Post by fmajid » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:14 PM UTC

loeg wrote: post #211

fmajid wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NDAs cannot cover whistleblowing of actual criminality, including sexual harassment, which is why modern NDAs take pains to disclaim that, so they wouldn't be invalidated on that basis. Presumably the behavior exposed in the book, while arguably immoral or amoral, doesn't rise to the standard of criminality.

Writing a book isn't covered whistleblowing. If she wants to go to the FBI or whatever, no one can stop her.

Exactly. Or a legislature as Frances Haugen did.

That said, arbitrators like that which gagged her are inherently conflicted since they are paid by the corporation, sadly our corrupt Supreme Court rubber-stamped binding arbitration so she has no recourse.

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

#455

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:14 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,…

> It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about.

This encapsulates the entire moral bankruptcy of "the Epstein class" so perfectly. I highly recommend reading the series about the Epstein class by Anand Giridharadas (Giridharadas didn't actually coin the term "Epstein class", apparently that was Ro Khanna, but he really was the first to popularize and clearly define it).

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

#456

Post by miki123211 » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:15 PM UTC

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…

Hence why I don't think private jets are such a bad idea.

Imagine getting anywhere near Taylor Swift (landside) in an airport terminal when on tour. She wouldn't be the only one trampled.

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

#457

Post by mememememememo » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:17 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #330

cousin_it wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "voting with your wallet" is hilarious to begin with, because it admits that rich people have more voting power and implies that's how it should be.

Collectively “rich people” spend less than 50% of the total consumer spending so this isn’t actually true exactly. If you mean an individual person then it really depends.

Consumer being the operative word. What about business spend?

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

#458

Post by badgersnake » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:20 PM UTC

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.

> Screw Meta and their anti-human business model.

Let’s not forget they’re also behind all this age verification BS.

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

#459

Post by aaron695 » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:21 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,…

[dead]

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

#460

Post by superkuh » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 10:23 PM UTC

Schmerika wrote: post #441

jmye wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody voted for Meta. Of course they did - they “voted” for them every time they signed on to Facebook or Instagram or used WhatsApp, and they doubled down every time they let their children use them. They vote for them every time they elect grifters and spineless toadies to office. These companies don’t have users by default. They have users because shitty people use shitty services made by even shittier people b…

You're on HN; a platform where the founders and CEO are big cheerleaders of DOGE. Where talk of many third rail topics is quietly flagged into oblivion, and discussions on the flagging processes are explicitly banned. YC were best buds with Peter Thiel... And literally had Sam "scan everyone's eyeballs" Altman as Pres for 5 years . They are actively seeking out "defense" tech to invest in; even during a US sponsored…

>I'll put it like this - what you're doing with that comment above is a lot like blaming smokers for feeding the tobacco companies. Despite all the lies and ads and manipulation, despite all the dirty tricks, despite the hard-core science used to get people hooked from every possible angle.

I have never used Facebook and I never will. What they have done is immoral and unethical and deserves regulation.

What I fear is that regulation will be informed from the false and dangerous equivalence you've made there comparing addictive drugs to looking at an audio-visual screen. Drugs literally can make you want without there being any enjoyment. Screens are just a medium, like, a radio (which can also be used for random internal operant conditioning), the screens and the radio are not the problem and they are NOT LIKE DRUGS. You actually have to enjoy the experience and repeat it. And that's just normal learning. That drug comparison will lead to government's treating computers' like drugs which means heavy regulation of end users and violence against them. A far more dangerous scenario than the issues were facing from the corporations now.

We need regulation of the corporations intentionally doing random interval operant conditioning. Not regulation of the medium they do it over and the people enjoying using that medium.