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

601–610 of 615 posts

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

#601

Post by margalabargala »

alterom wrote: post #599
margalabargala wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The service to get a severance has been provided prior to termination And here is the root of your misunderstanding. You seem to be under the impression that because some companies occasionally scale severance based on tenure, it's comp for work already performed. Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all. Keeping one's mouth shut is a service. They're paying for it. So would be not competing with…

>Severance is like tipping in that it's not required at all. 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 w…

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

Happy to. A service is any activity that one party performs (or refrains from performing) in exchange for consideration from another. That's basic contract law. Every lawyer learns this in 1L.

> it makes blackmail a "service"

No, because blackmail involves a threat to do something you have no right to do, or a threat to reveal information as leverage. A company offering severance isn't threatening you with anything. They're offering you money you aren't otherwise entitled to. You're free to walk away with nothing and disparage to your heart's content.

> you're conflating legal and moral arguments

I'd say that's been your move this entire thread. You keep asserting that severance is compensation for past work as though it's a legal fact, when legally it isn't. It's a voluntary offer. Then when the legal framework doesn't support you, you pivot to "well it's a basic expectation," which is a moral argument. I'm fine having either conversation, but pick one.

> It's not restricting factual statements

Agreed that overbroad non-disparagement clauses are bad. But "this clause is sometimes too broad" and "this clause is inherently coercive" are very different claims, and you've been arguing the latter.

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

#602

Post by margalabargala »

alterom wrote: post #598
margalabargala wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we agree on how the legal system works. Should existing laws be reinterpreted or new laws passed such that severance is treated as compensation for work already performed, then the arguments you've been making will begin to hold merit. Until then, statements building from "severance is compensation for past labor" are imagined theories about a hypothetical reality with different laws than the world we live in.

>Yes, we agree on how the legal system works Indeed. It's also clear from the article. Laws don't describe reality though. Severance is compensation for past labor in the real world, just not from a legal standpoint in the US. In the same vein, I didn't purchase psychedelic mushrooms; I merely made a donation to the institution that subsequently dispensed them to me as a religious sacrament. From a legal standpoint,…

> Laws don't describe reality though. Severance is compensation for past labor in the real world, just not from a legal standpoint in the US.

Ah, the "I'm right, it's the world that's wrong!" argument.

> In the same vein, I didn't purchase psychedelic mushrooms; I merely made a donation to the institution that subsequently dispensed them to me as a religious sacrament. From a legal standpoint, it wasn't a sale.

There's actually some pretty strict laws surrounding donations and gifts to prevent exactly this. You haven't found some legal loophole, you've just reinvented tax evasion and fraud.

You're at least consistent in the amount you know about sales law and severance pay.

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

#603

Post by alex1138 »

the_why_of_y wrote: post #553
JuniperMesos wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Zuckerberg loosened the moderation rules in Trump's favor he tightened them in favor of anti-Trump forces (and even using the terms "loosened" and "tightened" is assuming a frame that online speech that politically-benefits Trump in some way is inherently more worthy of moderation than speech that politically-harms Trump, which is itself an object-level political stance). It's probably a mistake to characteriz…

Facebook has always moderated (in those languages where they do moderate at all) according to policies, and politicians are exempt. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/09/facebook-confirm... Joel Kaplan was hired as the VP of global policy at Facebook in 2014, and he was hired for DEI reasons, i.e., specifically because he was Republican. Before his role in the GWB White House, he participated in the Brooks Brot…

I want to know who was responsible for the "it's ok to call gay people etc mentally ill" policy. Kaplan? Zuck?

Not that it matters. FB's moderation and policies are so inconsistent it's unlikely they banned it before or would ban something now that supposedly goes against their TOS

Awful company and awful people

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

#604

Post by Schmerika »

jmye wrote: post #593
Schmerika wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're on HN; a platform where the founders and CEO are big cheerleaders of DOGE. Where talk of many third rail topics is quietly flagged into oblivion, and discussions on the flagging processes are explicitly banned. YC were best buds with Peter Thiel... And literally had Sam "scan everyone's eyeballs" Altman as Pres for 5 years . They are actively seeking out "defense" tech to invest in; even during a US sponsored…

> Punch up dude. 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…

> 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

Settle down would ye.

> in exactly the same way, to use your example, that smoking cigarettes is bad.

No one said Facebook isn't bad. But "in exactly the same way" - calling cancer victims (who were lied to by tobacco executives and victims of disinformation campaigns and media blitzes) "complicit" in all the tobacco companies various crimes is unhinged. As in, not tethered to reality. And deeply uncool.

> There is no need whatsoever to use any of these products.

Correct.

> You just don't want to, because you'd rather things be a bit easier and you're willing to ignore the negative externalities.

I do want to. Yet I don't, mostly for the reasons I described above ("network effects, captured systems"). I acknowledge the negative externalities, much as I acknowledge them when I use my phone despite the fact that makes me complicit in slavery; or when I acknowledge that it's easier to pay taxes to the US, despite their complicity in genocide, than it is to go to jail.

There's absolutely no need to invoke some sort of divine power to know my true motivations - unless you're just arguing this dead thread to feel superior or something. You know that meme with the guy popping out of the little hole, saying "You condemn society, yet you partake in it! Curious!"? ... Join the dots mate.

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

#606

Post by Samson_Corwell »

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.

> 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.

This is exactly the kind of response with the right amount of flippancy/belligerence that "they aren't/weren't forced to sign" deserves to be met with.

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

#607

Post by Samson_Corwell »

margalabargala wrote: post #517
alterom wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

> Sorry, what was forced about the NDA? > Did I miss the part where a gun was held to their head?

She was not forced to sign the NDA. That is correct. Take note, however, that she would still be forcibly silenced by the government if you want this contract upheld. And that will "hold a gun to their head".

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

#608

Post by Samson_Corwell »

charcircuit wrote: post #305
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

She can just reject the offer. Nothing can compel you to sign a contract you don't want to.

> She can just reject the offer. Nothing can compel you to sign a contract you don't want to.

Not an argument. Yes, she can reject the offer. The guy up top is saying that the non-disparagement clause shouldn't be enforced, a claim that you are just dodging.

After all, why should we be okay with government censoring people on behalf of businesses?

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

#609

Post by Samson_Corwell »

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.

> She didn't have to agree to the contract.

Everyone is aware of that.

> I don't really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other.

Great! Then you surely don't want the government to censor this author if she were to criticize Meta, a.k.a., "enforcing the non-disparagement agreement".

If I'm wrong, and you do think it should be enforced, then my alternative response is this: You are confused. It is the enforcement of the non-disaparagement agreement that is the government limitation and restriction of private parties.

I'm a staunch defender of civil liberties, so I think the government should stay out this affair by declaring the agreement to be unenforceable.

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

#610

Post by Samson_Corwell »

jeffbee wrote: post #64
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.

That's a ridiculous constraint to put on the freedom to enter into contracts.

> That's a ridiculous constraint to put on the freedom to enter into contracts.

Then it's a good thing this doesn't do that. Instead, all it would do is take away enforcement of non-disparagement clauses. That gives people more freedom. Because, contract law is just law that compels people to keep promises they make.

The reason we have contract law is commitment. This is sometimes necessary to keep things flowing smoothly, but it this principle can very quickly lead to extremely intrusive government. As a consequence, we have to keep it carefully trimmed.

Post reply on HN