None of that stands if one of the entities in a contract is breaking the law, and I'm guessing that colluding with China to break international human rights laws is not protected by a contract as it's illegal in the USA and likely illegal in the UK. If she falls under whistleblower laws it should protect her, that's evidently not happening.

the interesting part is that in this specific case, Meta allegedly was a tool to suppress free speech by government. Although, government was Chinese.

We have a legal system that allows for private agreements of restricted speech, which can be and is frequently abused by the party in a position of power (in this case, a 2 trillion dollar company). And these agreements are enforced by the government. So it is in a round-about way the government infringing on rights, both by allowing it to happen and also enforcing it.

He's not an idiot, he just doesn't think the law applies to him because he's one of the richest people in the world.

Not trying to defend him but this isn’t a fair characterization of his intellect since he was 15 years younger and tech industry was very interested in doing good back then.

> Is it that meta is anti-democracy or is it just that Mark Zuckerberg is kind of an idiot?

Porque no los dos?

there is no democratic process in a corporation besides board voting, but they could be supportive for outer democratic environment, instead of attacking it.

"If you don't sign you won't get severance" is exactly that.

But it was tied to that!

There is a great documentary called “The Century of the Self”, which is about the rise of consumerism in lockstep with politics in the United States.

The initial primary focus is Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, who is known as the father of public relations. He was incredibly influential during his time, having been a key advisor on most federal administrations from the 20s to the 70s. On the corporate side, early big wins were getting women to smoke at the dawn of the Great Depression, and changing the 'American breakfast' to bacon and eggs.

A core thesis of his is freedom in a large democratic state is a bit of an illusion… it needs to be controlled by consumerist impulses, or in other words, indirectly by corporations. Otherwise the all-encompassing hand of totalitarianism is needed. Without one of these mediating factors, the masses become unruly and descend into anarchy and chaos.

His late 20s book "Propaganda" is an interesting insight into his early, free from public scorn, view on the matter. It seems overwhelmingly cynical and puppet-masterish, if you will, and he somewhat stepped back from it after finding out how much it had influenced Goebbels. Still, I think it holds strongly as a guidebook for how the US evolved to present day.

I find this comment a bit strange considering

> she is being pushed to financial ruin through the arbitration system in the UK,

Not the US.

> reminiscent of the end of the Roman Empire

Are you sure he didn’t mean the end of the Roman Republic, which was the beginning of the Principate? The Western Empire would last about another 400 years.

We definitely are tracking the end of the Roman Republic. At that point, all constitutional norms had been violated so many times that they were mere suggestions, and political infighting by oligarchs was tearing the republic apart, to the point that people were relieved when Augustus took power. They still had a senate. They still had all the old offices and structures. But everyone knew who was in power.

Much like today in the US. We don’t have one Princeps, but we all know that the oligarchs and corporations own the entire political and economic process. They write the rules to suit themselves.

And they have common people fighting each other over cultural issues instead of fighting them for the stuff that matters — economic and political power. It’s a fantastic divide and conquer strategy. Unless common people start waking up to who their real enemies are, the American Republic is effectively over.

This case is from the UK. Is there some quote you can pull about someone critiquing the governmental system over there and how that’s reflected in this case?

Isn't that obvious?

When corporations can lobby to influence legislation, pay to get a candidate elected, and CEOs hold positions of power, including the presidency itself, any semblance of democracy is an illusion.

And why would "corporate" and "oligarchs" fight? Can the same person not be a "corporate" and an oligarch at the same time?

It's dangerous to make sloppy comparisons like that.

Augustus seized all the levers of power to create the Roman Empire and even developed a cult-like following.

Similarly, claiming there aren't two political camps is sloppy in the current environment.

Corporates and oligarchs are a completely different animal, and they deserve treatment as such.

They are not some homogenous, totalitarian entity: they're more akin to what Rome was before the Empire--a melange of senators fighting about everything while trying to stay rich.

>and that it is reminiscent of the end of the Roman Empire

What a totally ridiculous comparison. The roman empire always was an explicit a dictatorial state. Its end took hundreds of years of internal and external forces tearing it apart as coherent entity. Characterizing it as two factions fighting for power is just bizarre.

yes. and: kleptocrats. "thieves govern" captures the into-my-pocket better than oligarchs "few govern".

> This seems very reasonable? If you want to attack your employer you are free to do so, why should they pay you for that?

The two issues I see here are: NDAs without a public-good exception and forced confidential arbitration.

I think there should always be an exception to NDAs when the information is in the public good. I think it’s reasonable to disagree on where that line should be; that’s what legislation and court cases are for.

Also, forcing the resolution of this to go through confidential arbitration hides the issues from the public, and doesn’t let us make good decisions on where that line should be.

> This seems very reasonable? If you want to attack your employer you are free to do so, why should they pay you for that?

She wrote the book after she left. So, is it OK for someone to expose a company for illicit and illegal activities in this regard? And if not then why is it OK for these companies to use illicit or illegal tactics to silence former, or even, current employees?

Disney can fire people anytime they like if that person isn't meeting company/contractual obligations. What is illegal and that doesn't seem to matter to the current regime is that the FCC chair is saying that major media outlets better watch their step if he (read Trump) doesn't like what they're saying, or they will lose their licenses (implied). Similar things are going on with Pam Bondi going after critics of Trump rather than doing her sworn duty of following the law and upholding the Constitution.

[flagged]