> 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.

▲

gruez 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>I think there should always be an exception to NDAs when the information is in the public good.

AFAIK that already sort of exists because NDAs doesn't cover you if you're subpoenaed, like if there was a congressional hearing.

▲

pseudalopex 7 hours ago | parent [-]

A congressional hearing had the author's testimony because of this book.

▲

gruez 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Right, but if the book hasn't been written congress can still subpoena her to get her testimony and that wouldn't break the NDA. I agree having it in book form is more convenient, but it's not like if Zuckerberg burned down an orphanage and he got the only witness to sign a NDA he would get away with it.

▲

pseudalopex 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Right, but if the book hasn't been written congress can still subpoena her to get her testimony and that wouldn't break the NDA.

Congress could have sought her testimony before the book and legal battle became news. They did not.

> I agree having it in book form is more convenient, but it's not like if Zuckerberg burned down an orphanage and he got the only witness to sign a NDA he would get away with it.

Pretending to agree with a weak claim I didn't make is a sign of bad faith. And do you believe public interest is limited to atrocities?

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]