Live data from Hacker News

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

thetimes.com

461–470 of 615 posts

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

#461
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

That's not at all what it says. No one is "willing" to have this. The fact that this outcome exists is not a demonstration of this fact.

What it demonstrates is that the administrative enforcement system is broken. It simply does not work when capital exceeds an uncertain threshold or when the utility to the intelligence agencies is deemed to be of national importance.

It also demonstrates that our legislative system is entirely captured. It could fix this with a pen stroke. The people would loudly and eagerly support this. Yet no one has put pen to paper? Something deeper is clearly wrong here.

Blaming the public for being victims of this regime is insane.

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

#462
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, all of this happens (and worse!) and still no boycott of Facebook. We have been turned into a country of dopamine deficient addicts. And now these same companies are funding a useless war, killing innocent children, and soon, collapsing the world economy. If you still use these platforms knowing what we know now you are just as complicit as every executive. https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/

On the other side of every "useless war" is the what if question. Killing Hitler before WWII would have been seen as a cruel interference with German sovereignty. Anyway it would be wise not to tie social network corporate affairs to the war. The two are not linked in a more significant way than a social network in general being linked to such affairs as a media.

Are we going to ignore how Zuckerberg dines with the president, donated a $1M to his inauguration fund, put Trump allies in high positions at Meta, loosened the moderation rules in Trump's favour, and got appointed to the president's Science and Tech Council only a few days ago?

If you are that deeply intertwined you can't claim ignorance and innocense on the inconvenient stuff - like the Iran War.

If you want to stay with WWII metaphors: if you contributed to putting Hitler in power and benefited from Hitler's favors, you were complicit to the Holocaust.

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

#463
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very boring for you not to actually commit to anything specific, so that you don't have to defend it.

I'm glad we're all here under the goal of making non-boring statements for 0x3f

We're all essentially here under the goal of making non-boring statements for each other, yes. That is the general purpose of an online forum.

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

#465
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.

It was a page turner. I recommend it.

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

#466
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

That's the null hypothesis. There are no teapots orbiting the sun, either.

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

#467
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's not that deep lil bro. Yes, she broke her non-disparagement, but the good outweighs the bad here.

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

#468
post #425
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.

I would personally met the most spoiled brats dealing with big tech employees.

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

#469
How do these agreements works? Lets suppose she writes a fiction book about a fictional country, and then gives interview about the elites of the country. But by some tragic coincidence the elites are evil just like Meta executives. Could Meta prove in a court, that its executives are exactly as evil as fictional elites and they are evil in exactly the same way, which means Sarah really talked about Meta so she should be fined? Or such reasoning will not work in a court?

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

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike an elected government, who the common people at least in theory have a chance to replace via elections, the public pretty much has no say in what these companies and their leadership are allowed to do. Nobody voted for Meta. Nobody voted for Palantir. Nobody voted for Philip Morris. You can say that someone "voted with their wallet," but that doesn't point to a viable solution. "Not voting with your wallet" es…

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.

Vote with you wallet is not about civic function it’s about getting what you want from the market place.

And yes rich people get more goods and services.. which is why people want to be rich?

Post reply on HN