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

511–520 of 615 posts

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

#511

Post by throwaway173738 »

wavemode wrote: post #496
johnnyanmac wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

There should be a statute of limitations on this stuff. Otherwise we’ll see things like chemical plant employees who signed such an agreement keeping stories of dumping to their deathbeds.

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

#512

Post by gfody »

mekoka wrote: post #411
gfody wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

normalizing toxic as standard industry practice is sort of like condoning it, imo

That's a strange outlook. How often do you still get shocked that a politician lied? Do you cultivate the surprise effect by fear of feeling complicit if your reaction instead is "what else is new?"

when people do disgusting things, it's okay to be disgusted - saying "what else is new?" is nearly "this does not disgust me" which is essentially condoning it.

not being shocked because it reinforces a negative stereotype you'd already assumed is not the same as dismissing it as uninteresting/expected behavior

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

#513

Post by DavidPiper »

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 don't know if anyone is holding the author up as a hero, least of all herself. The book reads as a masterclass in grooming, manipulation and abuse.

If anything, the title "Careless People" does a disservice to its message: the people above and around her clearly knew exactly what they were doing, and took great care to evade any and all responsibility for anything.

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

#514

Post by alterom »

margalabargala wrote: post #280
alterom wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, clearly the employee and the company have the same leverage in negotiation here. It's a free market! If she didn't like the offer, she could've just gotten herself fired from some other company instead. /s

Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral. If someone gives you the option to accept $ to sign a contract agreeing not talk about something that is legal but morally bad, and you say yes, then talk about the thing, you will correctly be losing the lawsuit, no matter how bad the thing is.

>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral.

Having a leverage to force an NDA is not immoral, but breaking the NDA (no matter how unfair the situation that led to it being signed was) is immoral.

Got it.

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

#515

Post by RHSeeger »

navane wrote: post #325
RHSeeger wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that someone actively worked against the welfare of society as a whole, in significant and impactful ways, _is_ a criticism of their credibility. It speaks to their morals and empathy for others. It doesn't mean that what they're saying is a lie, but it puts them firmly in the bucket where what they say needs to be verified.

It doesn't matter if she's as bad as the others. The message is that the others are bad. Pointing out that she's also bad is meek at best.

You are missing the entire point

> The message is that the others are bad

The message is that they're bad and the fact that they did these bad things proves they're bad.

And the key thing here is that we need to decide if we believe "they did these bad things". If the person reporting them is well known as someone the is truthful and trustworthy, we're likely to believe them with little proof. If the person reporting them is well known as a bad person that does things to harm others for their own benefit... we're less likely to believe them until we can verify the truth of their statements.

You're completely skipping over the "is this person telling the truth" part; I assume because they're saying things that fit in with your pre-existing view of the world. And that's not a good thing.

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

#516

Post by scrubs »

gyomu wrote: post #495
scrubs wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make a good point; I agree.

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

#517

Post by margalabargala »

alterom wrote: post #514
margalabargala wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral. If someone gives you the option to accept $ to sign a contract agreeing not talk about something that is legal but morally bad, and you say yes, then talk about the thing, you will correctly be losing the lawsuit, no matter how bad the thing is.

>Different entities having different amounts of leverage in a negotiation is neither unusual nor inherently immoral. Having a leverage to force an NDA is not immoral, but breaking the NDA (no matter how unfair the situation that led to it being signed was) is immoral. Got it.

Sorry, what was forced about the NDA?

Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head?

If I offer you money to eat a turd, is it your view that you are being forced to eat the turd?

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

#518

Post by lokar »

strulovich wrote: post #493
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 happ…

I read it differently.

I agree the basic offer was probably sincerely from kindness. What seems creepy is her continued insistence, her inability to relate to the human in front of her.

I suspect she is just not used to anyone acting genuine towards her, let alone contradicting her. She always gets what she wants, even when it’s a whim.

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

#520

Post by lokar »

prepend wrote: post #334
RIMR wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be legal to enforce this kind of thing 9 years after a person leaves your company. I get that it currently is legal, but have some principles. Just because this is legal doesn't mean it isn't morally reprehensible, and its legality should be challenged.

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’m certain that if these clauses were banned, exactly zero contracts that would otherwise have been agreed would be abandoned. They are completely one sided, and superfluous to the goals of the contract.
Post reply on HN