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

What you are pointing out is a legal loophole.

In the same way I got legal psychedelic mushrooms after making a donation to the institution that distributed them as religious sacraments.

I didn't get a receipt, so it was not a "sale", legally speaking.

In normal human terms, I bought those mushrooms, and I earned my severance pay.

It's can be an unspecified part of the compensation package, but one that is absolutely counted on.

A company known for no severance for high level positions would struggle to hire people unless they offered something to compensate for it.

>So it's very hard to argue that severance is compensation for past work when the company can choose not to give any severance

Same applies to year-end bonuses, so I can't accept this part of the argument.

>Basically the reality is that business offer severance as a type of bribe for people not to sue them or disparage them

We wouldn't have this discussion if it were the case. Bribes aren't enforced in courts.

The legal thing to do is to do the opposite of what you are bribed to do.

The reality is that businesses figured out a way to withold compensation unless the employee agrees to a gag clause, by exploiting a legal loophole.

They'd put it in the employment contract if they could get away with that.

>This is why the courts have rejected your line of reasoning.

Again: we're in agreement regarding the current legal status of non-disparagement clauses.

The issue I have is people considering those as fair, seeing severance as a privilege, and seeing violation of the non-disparagement clauses a moral failure.

In particular, there are multiple comments putting the credibility of Sarah Wynn-Williams in question, as well as seeing the gag order as justified.

If we roll with the bribe analogy: doing the thing that you were bribed not to do is seen as a laudable thing to do.

But here, we see people siding with the entity that pays bribes.

That's before we even get to the discussion of how certain things should not be bought and sold at all, as a matter of principle.

We universally agree that one shouldn't be allowed to buy or sell people (including oneself) into slavery.

Disallowing purchase or sale of sex isn't seen as problematic by many people.

Non-compete clauses are illegal in California, which is equivalent to saying that the freedom of choice who to work for (i.e, the right to accept a job offer when you're unemployed) may not be sold. You can't sign it away in a contract (including a severance contract).

Going back to what you said: bribes are generally illegal, even though the actions that are bought with bribes are.

That's because when it comes to, say, government officials, we decided that their choices and decision-making power are not things that could be, in principle, bought or sold.

The same, I argue, should apply to the right to disparage (colloquially: talk shit about) anyone and anything, including one's former employer.

It shouldn't be a thing one can buy or sell.

Particularly in a country founded on freedom of speech being a moral value.

On that note, when the courts get involved in enforcing those "non-disparagement" clauses in the US, I consider it to be a 1st Amendment violation (the government punishing people for speech). There's no provision in the Amendment that excepts speech which someone was privately paid to not produce.

The laws establishing the legality of non-disparagement clauses quite literally abridge the from of speech.

I fully understand that, somehow, they are, as of today, considered constitutional.

But then, so was slavery.

No, thanks, though. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't care if everyone on the planet thinks he's a dick. But as long as folks like you will go to the ends of the earth to make excuses for anyone who's complicit in the use of these tools, you're also to blame for the consequences of their use.

> Maybe things aren't as vanta-black and ultra-white as you're insisting.

Of course they're black and white, in exactly the same way, to use your example, that smoking cigarettes is bad.

There is no need whatsoever to use any of these products. It is completely possible to live your life without them. You just don't want to, because you'd rather things be a bit easier and you're willing to ignore the negative externalities.

Do you, dude. Just own it.

Of course, considering the NDA was a condition of his employment, he was paid for his work that he could not have done had he not signed said NDA. What did he expect would happen after he received his money and then opened his mouth?

Great comparison. Tipping is also a form of compensation for work already performed.

It's not required in the legal sense indeed. It is, effectively, required in every other sense. It's a basic expectation of a reasonable customer.

Positions where tipping is expected (e.g. waiters) typically have lower wages; furthermore, in the US, the minimum wage for waiters is lower because of that.

Tips are compensation, as in: payment for work. It is the part of the compensation that you can refuse to pay and not have the cops called on you.

Severance is like that indeed, except you're asking the server to hereafter refer to you as "daddy".

>So would be not competing with the company, if it were legal to enforce.

See, you understand that some things (like "not competing") aren't considered "services" that you can sign a contract to "perform" in exchange for severance.

"Not disparaging", in my opinion, belongs in the same category for the same reasons.

>Maybe look up what an economic "service" is.

Please provide a definition according to which not disparaging constitutes a service.

I wonder what definition you're using, because it makes blackmail a "service" (you're paying me for not to beat you up, see).

>Maybe you're confused because as you say, no one has ever offered you money to keep your mouth shut?

I've signed NDAs and signed severances with "non-disparagement" clauses in the past, so I understand the concept full well.

But come on. You're conflating legal and moral arguments, as well as legality and reality.

>The people getting paid have valuable information to offer, which someone else either does or does not want shared.

This is not what non-disparagement is. It's not restricting factual statements.