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

491–500 of 615 posts

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

#491

Post by johnnyanmac »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #333
Hizonner wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"we" is a strong word here. More like some people 50-80 years ago decided to at worst rule against the worker's best interest, and at best chose to ignore it and pretend things would work out with a "gentlemans' agreement".

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

#492

Post by johnnyanmac »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #347
materielle wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A corporation having to ability to bribe people who need money to pay their rent and healthcare in order to save their own image is indeed "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?

Not when they have full time people dedicated to lobbying the legislation. That's the issue on why things move so slow or halt when it comes to really voting on such policy.

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

#493

Post by strulovich »

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,…

That chapter struck me as paranoia and hit piece.

What really happens there, if you ignore the author’s spin on it and concentrate on the facts is Sheryl is repeatedly asking her pregnant employee to please come stay in the big bed in the private jet and rest.

Then author has good points, such as Sheryl not taking into account she’s expecting ready deliverables. But she also spins it as if something sexual might happen there, or that Sheryl saying “you should have slept in the bed” in the end of the flight is a mafioso threat - and literally suggesting that Sheryl stopped trusting her because she didn’t take that offer.

(Worked at Meta for many years, not directly with Sheryl, and I am generally a fan of her, I think the book distorts at multiple times the messages she said)

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

#494

Post by sethops1 »

andy_ppp wrote: post #369
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.

So you should never be allowed to comment on the behaviour of companies you worked for?

If you read the book it becomes clear the author was a key enabler of Mark and Sheryl. Should she be allowed to comment? Of course. But don't think for a second she's a good person for doing so.

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

#495

Post by gyomu »

scrubs wrote: post #446
yoyohello13 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By allowing powerful adults to act this way, we are in a sense teaching our children to act this way too.

Well absolutely. Half the times we're tough on kids is in hopes they don't permanently turn into adults their behavior reminds of And as kids learning from adults (although the subject matter is different) is exemplified in To Kill a Mockingbird. As of today I am periodically embarrassed to be an American. Periodic in the sense that every once in a while the shameless behavior of elites feels like I ok'd in the prese…

> Relatedly, this is ultimately why European courts went they way of the dodo. Moody kings, palace intrigue, the maneuvering for kinship to power, the gossip, the scandals whilst spending stupid money so aggravated people we quit.

European courts went the way of the dodo because the insane material affluence unlocked by industrialization definitely swayed the balance in favor of the merchant class over nobility. The average person under monarchy had absolutely no exposure to palace intrigue & gossip.

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

#496

Post by wavemode »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #490
prepend wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don’t really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other. Given that this runs tangential with whistleblowing and free speech, this is exactly where I want a government to draw a line.

But it was a severance agreement. She accepted a sum of money for agreeing to not disparage. You don't see anything wrong with someone knowingly accepting these funds, and then turning around and immediately violating the agreement by writing a book (making even more money in the process)?

If it's about whistleblowing and doing the right thing, why not just refuse the money?

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

#497

Post by groundzeros2015 »

kubb wrote: post #9
chamomeal wrote: post #5

I guess I just don’t understand contracts and laws. Your employment agreement can include stuff like “if you say anything bad about us, even to your family in your own home, you owe us $50,000”. What in the world?? I guess NDA’s are like that, and used everywhere. Still it just seems wild

Free speech on one hand, legal system capture on the other.

Freedom of speech is that you are allowed to express any viewpoint, not make any sounds with your mouth or disclose any information.

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

#498

Post by wavemode »

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.

...Huh? You want to be personally consulted before any law comes into effect?

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

#499

Post by losvedir »

How do know she's telling the truth? I'm not inclined to give any high level Meta person (current or former) the benefit of the doubt. I haven't read the book, so I don't really know what kind of, like, proof or anything she includes (or could include). Is it just a "trust me not them" thing?

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

#500

Post by jonah »

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…

That's a really effective way to get a group of people to do horrible things. Break it up into small pieces where each one isn't that bad in and of itself.
Post reply on HN