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.

▲

gruez 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>which can be and is frequently abused by the party in a position of power (in this case, a 2 trillion dollar company).

Define "abuse"? Is it just because Meta is a trillion dollar company? Or that they offered a huge amount? Does that mean the courts should refuse to enforce any sort of agreement between Meta and any individual? If meta decides to offer me (no prior relationship to them) 50k to stop talking shit about them, and I accepted, am I being "abused"? What if I'm a vocal critic? Would that be abuse?

▲

riku_iki 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Does that mean the courts should refuse to enforce any sort of agreement between Meta and any individual?

not any, but those which cover potential crimes.

▲

gruez an hour ago | parent [-]

Even with a NDA, you can still go to the authorities to report illegal acts. You just can't monetize your past employment in the form of a 500k book deal. Between the public's interest of crimes being prosecuted and the freedom of individuals being able to enter into agreements, I think that's already a pretty fair trade-off.

	▲	riku_iki 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> you can still go to the authorities to report illegal acts that authority could be birded by corp and report will go nowhere. > You just can't monetize your past employment in the form of a 500k book deal. sure, its reasonable to have non-monetization clause in contract, but it is unreasonable to have blanket statements to not ever talk about events during employments under any circumstances, which likely included into NDA.