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

541–550 of 615 posts

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

#541

Post by antonvs »

wavemode wrote: post #498
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.

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

That’d be direct democracy, which is not such a bad idea.

E.g. in Switzerland, citizens can propose constitutional changes, challenge parliamentary laws, and some decisions automatically go to vote.

Citizens of California can pass laws directly, amend the constitution, and recall elected officials.

Probably the biggest reason we don’t have more of that is that people in power typically see it as a threat.

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

#542

Post by antonvs »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #356
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.

You make it sound like an a la carte option "I'll take the standard severance plus the non-disparagement bonus please!". That's not how it works at most companies.

Contracts are negotiable at most companies once you get to a certain level. I negotiated my last contract, and I’m an IC, not an exec. In fact I made the non-disparaging clause mutual, among other things.

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

#543

Post by ElFitz »

whynotminot wrote: post #501
Dylan16807 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not, because there's inevitably a transition period.

Sure, raise it past the transition period. I’m tired of the pearl clutchers. Decide an age you’ll actually accept. That’s an adult. No more infantilization.

Nothing to do with infantilizing anyone.

I’m probably stating the obvious, but some things are complex and don’t have good universal solutions. Which is part of why we have judges and lawyers, not just laws.

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

#544

Post by ElFitz »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #487
whynotminot wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not without impacting other political aspects. Remember we only lowered the voting age to 18 some 50 years ago to justify the ability to send more kids to a war we started. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

It still strikes me that some places consider someone fully able to freely consent to enrol in the army, to the risk of getting permanently maimed or mentally scarred, and consider them fit to make life or death split-second decisions for both themselves and everyone around them under terror In highly stressful situations.

But can’t be allowed to have a beer or a whisky, and isn’t able to freely consent to sleep with someone five or ten years older.

I wonder what the official legal justification for this dichotomy is, if there is any.

Edit: after looking it up, there doesn’t seem to be one.

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

#545

Post by wqaatwt »

lixtra wrote: post #527
bullshitcaller wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go on, which culture is that? Most "cultures" in Europe I know of it would be a breach of many stated and unstated rules and norms (Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Poland, and Belgium).

Example Finland. Could you end up in a nude Sauna with your superior? Yes, especially if it is same sex. Example Germany. Which law would be broken? Internal compliance rules, yes, that would be often the case.

> Example Finland

Example of a very different behavior than the claim above?

> Which law would be broken?

What is that supposed to mean? e.g. eating dogs or cats would be an even more significant taboo and its not even explicitly illegal in quite a few countries

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

#546

Post by rsynnott »

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.

… Have you read the book? _Plenty_ of illegal stuff there.

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

#547

Post by projektfu »

MikePlacid wrote: post #510
troyvit wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article covers this: Instead, [the arbitration ruling] relied on a non-disparagement clause in her severance agreement with Facebook to silence her. Which it did, from March 13, 2025, her publication day. We could still publish the book, but our author could not talk about it. So she followed the clause. Personally I don't care. If she can publish the ugly truth about Meta and snag a pile of their money in the pr…

> to silence her. That’s a lie. That’s not silencing. That’s taking back some money if she speaks. I know a guy who is sentenced to 15 years in jail for posting a YouTube video about the Ukrainian government. That’s silencing.

Was it this guy? It sounds like he was also convicted of espionage.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/ukraine-court-jails-man-for-...

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

#548

Post by Noaidi »

ben_w wrote: post #370
Noaidi wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Not voting with your wallet" essentially means becoming a hermit and living isolated in the woods. This is a total exaggeration and just gives power to these companies. You can start here: https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/ YOU voted for Facebook when you use it, by not installing a hosts file that blocks it and all advertisements. We do not need to use these platforms, and the less people that use them the les…

Unfortunately, no hosts file on iOS, and it isn't reliably listened to on macOS. But with all the other stuff Apple's doing, I suspect my next machines won't be Apple…

How about a VPN with ad blocking?

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

#549

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

prepend wrote: post #329
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,…

I think that was more about trying, in a dumb way, to make the pregnant woman not work all night than sexual harassment. The author was 8 months pregnant and was going to stay up for 12 hours doing stuff. This seemed more like a commanding boss trying to stop a workaholic from working.

Demanding that she sleep next to her on her bed does not sound like trying to stop a workaholic from working. It sounds creepy as hell.

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

#550

Post by ab5tract »

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?

In a better world, disparagement would not legally refer to the dissemination of factual accounts.

In such a world it would only add to penalties for proven libel.

It’s a pretty simple concept: if the truth hurts, you’ve got no one but yourself to blame.

NDAs theoretically should never be able to paper over illegal actions. In a similar vein, non disparagement clauses should not be able to paper over the publication of legitimate insider experience of terrible — even if legal — behavior.

Post reply on HN