I have not read the book.

But this line of argument doesn’t always hold with me. At some point, the behaviour of a company or person could be so heinous, that no amount of voluntary signing of an agreement should prevent you from exposing them.

▲

casenmgreen 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can read into this something like mugger says "my victim, whom when I was holding a knife out promised not to tell anyone about the robbery, went on to tell the police".

"I then sued my victim for causing me harm."

But it's hard to know about a situation when it's complex and you're a long way away from it. Maybe the book was unfair. Maybe it was fair. Or both. Maybe what happened was so bad it should supersede this kind of agreement. Who decides, and how?

▲

dh2022 10 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a false (and dare I say dishonest?) analogy. Reporting crimes is protected by law [0]

If the author would report a crime she would be protected. The author is just airing some dirty laundry. She was paid money in exchange for not airing said dirty laundry. Hence her troubles now. Cry me a river.

[0] Whisleblower protections: https://www.dol.gov/general/topics/whistleblower

▲

samirillian 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t take a position on this because I don’t know it but I think you’re (willfully?) misunderstanding the point. I don’t think all ethical problems can be legally defined. Something may be legal and wrong or illegal and not wrong. If she was indeed forced out for reporting sexual harassment, then what ethical responsibility does she still bear towards that company, regardless of what they ask her to sign as she leaves? The point isn’t that she’s right or wrong for sure, it’s that the problem is complex and legalities cannot account for all situations.

	▲	dh2022 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I did not misunderstood the point. The GP equated reporting a crime (robbery) with airing some dirty laundry.

▲

cmiles74 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I read the book and can recommend it. It was both interesting and, in places, had a good sense of humor. It was interesting to see the intersection of news coverage I had read with the author’s inside perspective.

IMHO, the book has little or nothing about the kind of things we usually see called out in NDA breaches: ideas or code names from products, details on contract negotiations with competitors, internal processes, etc. The author was involved with managing relationships between Facebook and foreign governments and this makes up the meat of the book.

	▲	stevenbedrick 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’ll second this sentiment on all counts. Definitely give the book a read before making any judgments about the author and her situation.

▲

JKCalhoun 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it even legal? Like, can I sign away my 1st Amendment rights? I mean, I'm sure a corporate lawyer thinks so.

	▲	mminer237 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The freedom of contract is pretty fundamental. The entire point of a contract is to force you to do something it's your right not to do or to not do something you have the right to do.
	▲	simonh 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The 1st amendment is about what laws the government can or cannot pass restricting your rights. It doesn’t say anything about what rights you can choose to give up by entering into a contract. There may be other laws governing the validity of such contracts though.

▲

Dumblydorr 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Parent comment cares more about Zuckerberg’s lawyers’ paperwork than calling out a terrible company for its terrible actions. Maybe if we play nice those lawyers could help Zuck buy another Hawaiian island?

▲

dh2022 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Cry me a river. The person who wants to get rich here is Sarah. If she was motivated by exposing some dirty laundry inside Meta she could have started a blog or podcast. But she went for the book deal.

	▲	Dumblydorr 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Congrats empowering billionaires, great stance to take in our oligarchy