America doesn't own greed. Hardly.

But like the movie American Psycho the American presentation of greed is starkly in your face ... it's something horrifying to see

> Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults.

I wouldn’t fully agree. All parties being adults doesn’t inherently remove the advantage very large age and experience gaps can give to one party over the other, especially when one is barely adult. 18 or 21 is just an arbitrary number, and one doesn’t suddenly become smart about these things just because the law says they are now legally full citizens, responsible for their acts and for themselves.

But I also agree it doesn’t make age gaps between adults inherently negative. It’s just… complicated.

People in the C Suite should not be asking any employee to join them in bed whether they're that person's manager or not.

>Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults.

there's exceptions to every rule but as a general statement that's about as false as it gets. With increasing age gap between partners divorce and breakup rates go up significantly. Cultures with strong aversion to age gaps, East Asia for example, have both low divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births.

The reason isn't extremely difficult to see, where someone is in life, what priorities they have and how responsible they are is significantly influenced by age, the rom-com industrial complex might have convinced people that relationships are about butterflies in the stomach, but in reality compatibility matters.

I'm in your boat, but I've been thinking more lately around how we create competitors to the sorts of things that people claim "lock them in" to using Facebook (events and messenger are the ones I hear the most anecdotally).

Make these things reasonably self-sustaining monetarily (no ads) and just let it run.

'We' as in the nation (world?) at large. FaceBook hasn't faced a large-scale boycott

Yes, it does. I was speaking generally. I think if you selected teachers at random from the entire set of K-12 teachers in America, you'd find more who do have to deal with that behavior than don't.

> Do you think he talks to any of the staff of plumbers, electricians, HVAC repair people, gardeners, who maintain his homes?

Believe it or not, but yes. I remember overseeing his terrarium while he was still a small lizard, barely hatched from an egg.

The billionaire class can do those things, but they don't have to. Same with non-celebrity Royalty.

It has been discussed for generations, but unsurprisingly the people with the megaphones don't tend to promote that angle.

https://inist.org/library/1982-03-21.Illich.Silence%20is%20a...

Collectively “rich people” spend less than 50% of the total consumer spending so this isn’t actually true exactly.

If you mean an individual person then it really depends.

So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen?

Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."

Who are their customers in this scenario?

Unfortunately, no hosts file on iOS, and it isn't reliably listened to on macOS.

But with all the other stuff Apple's doing, I suspect my next machines won't be Apple…

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 genocide, and now-daily war crimes.

The users here aren't tech-clueless like a lot of Facebookers would be. In theory we're better educated, better informed, more tech savvy, and higher paid. As a group, we're far more deeply connected and complicit with the tech bros than Whatsappers and Instagrammers.

So, we have that much less of an excuse to be "shitty people [who] use shitty services made by even shittier people because they need their little hits of dopamine."

I despise Meta. I also use their services sometimes. Maybe it's not simply a matter of voting for Zuckerberg, but there are network effects and captured systems and manipulation of addictive behaviors. Maybe things aren't as vanta-black and ultra-white as you're insisting.

I'll put it like this - what you're doing with that comment above is a lot like blaming smokers for feeding the tobacco companies. Despite all the lies and ads and manipulation, despite all the dirty tricks, despite the hard-core science used to get people hooked from every possible angle. Despite the cancer, the lung disease, the heart problems suffered by the victims.

Punch up dude.

It's kind of the reason C-execs (and up) stay, the company keeps paying them more and more to hold the secrets.

If the author didn't want others to think of her as a "careless person", she should have refused a severance with a nondisparagement clause.

Allowed, sure. Celebrated, not really.

Nothing, just keep in mind they're still unscrupulous.

That pretty much describes confidential informants (used by the police, all the time). Many of these CIs are risking a lot more than just getting sued, and they are seldom angels. Many of them do it, so they won't go down with the ship, or because the cops have real leverage over them.

Why is it that the only people willing to testify against the cartel are murderers, drug dealers, and bank robbers? These are not trustworthy witnesses.

Same problem.

GP's point is not that only heroes should tell the tale, but rather that in this case the whistleblower was also an active part of the problem, but sought to distance herself from her then behavior by swapping it down instead for a more passive lack of situational awereness. That is, she reached for stupidity as an escape hatch from having to reckon with her own malice. And she's now being celebrated for it.

The lack of accountability paired with the celebration of the "hero" are the problem. Not the fact of her testimony.

Not really. Author could have whistleblown and quit early on revealing unsavory things.

The book is mainly attempts to embarass Zuck (eg, he’s sweaty, he’s not good at Catan, etc).

A few years ago I had a date with a backend engineer at Meta.

I asked if they'd ever considered the societal implications of the work they did. They said "Oh wow I've never even thought about it". Probably a solid hire from Meta's perspective.

Did you read the book? Because that's not the story, she way too many opportunities to do that, yet didn't. Only after she stopped getting paid, she did an "expose".

I hate facebook more than the next guy but this person just helped Facebook to accomplish usual evil things, and only stopped once she cannot profit. I'm pretty sure she didn't start that way or maybe even saw it that way, but objectively (in her own narrative, if you only take actions and ignore her own emotional justifications) that's what happened.

She didn’t set herself apart. She was fired. She was forced apart.

That’s the issue here. Is this someone who found their morals or someone who found a stick with which to strike back at those who hurt her?

One of those doesn’t require her to change at all.

The fact that someone actively worked against the welfare of society as a whole, in significant and impactful ways, _is_ a criticism of their credibility. It speaks to their morals and empathy for others.

It doesn't mean that what they're saying is a lie, but it puts them firmly in the bucket where what they say needs to be verified.

Because recognizing the author as conflicted and an unreliable narrator changes how you should weight and consider the information they are providing. It doesn't necessarily mean anything is untrue - but it does add extra, valuable information to how much you trust it.

If someone tells me something, I'm mostly likely to believe it without further investigation. But not always.

I believe what Sarah Wynn-Williams wrote in Careless People.

I also think she's shown herself to be a person I'd want to stay away from.

The reason this matters to me is because the more media attention Ms. Wynn-Williams gets, the more her ideas of what we should do about Meta will spread and be given credence. The more she will be given credence outside of simply reporting what she saw. I can both believe what she says and think it's best to stop fanning the flames and giving her personal attention.

This entire saga reads to me as intra-elite fighting: Ms. Wynn-Williams is representing the cultural/educational elite, and obviously the Meta execs are the tech elite. As an ordinary person, I'm not under any delusion that either side has my best interest in mind when they fight, or when they advance policy, regulatory, or other suggestions. The derision and disdain Ms. Wynn-Williams has for people not in her milieu throw up a lot of red flags for me.

It comes down to believing that Ms. Wynn-Williams wants to hurt Meta, not to help us.

I also believe that blindly supporting people or organizations just because they also hate people or organizations you hate is a very bad idea. The enemy of your enemy can still be your enemy. In this case, regarding technological politics, Zuck and co. want us to become braindead addicted zombies, and Ms. Wynn-Williams will want us to have no control or access at all, because we can't handle it and it's for our own good. She's from the cultural group pushing for things like age restriction and verification, devices you can't root/restricting what you can install on your own device, etc. Both are bad. One sees us as cattle and the other sees us as toddlers.

“I only make $4M/ year in RSUs and am an attorney, however will I pay for daycare for my three kids and teacher husband. I better continue acting unethically and profiting from hosing people.”

This was such a weird argument. I think the author may actually be self-deluding herself as I can’t imagine her or her editors think anyone buys this argument.

It's like saying "Today's big companies follow lots of dark patterns such as forcing customers to call them to close their accounts, which became a standard practice in banks, SaaS and other businesses." It's an observation, nothing more than that.

It's a strange outlook. How often do you still get shocked that a politician lied? Do you cultivate the surprise effect by fear of feeling complicit if your reaction instead is "what else is new?"

> Because at least someone benefits

Arguably this makes it worse, not better

It's the flipside of focus/concentration of attention. Which is the key trick underlying all science, engineering, scholarship etc. The foundation of our civilization.

So you might say that a vast ignorance is implicit to our way of life.

You don't have to agree to a disparagement clause... She accepted a lot of money to agree to it.

The reason they’re not redundant is that we, rightly, don’t allow people to sue for defamation for many kinds of unfair speech and even some kinds of untrue speech. It’s not defamatory for you to call me careless or mean or rude, even if I can produce ironclad proof that you know I’m careful and kind.

The only way these sorts of contracts can be enforced is if private parties have recourse to government powers- civil courts- to enforce them.

Governments could just not help them do that.

There are all sorts of contracts that are deemed non-enforceable. Our government should pass a law that bans non-disparagement clauses.

One of the most pressing problems of our time is that these large corporations, on balance, have too much power compared to the electorate.

I basically agree but as a civil instrument, a contract is not a law. The only consequence of violating a contract should be having to pay back whatever damages were caused. Not prohibitions on behavior or other freedoms. Enforced by whom?

Corporations will violate contracts all the time as a cost of business if the cost of the violation is less than the benefit gained.

Because it’s unbalanced. The company benefits for as long as the ex-employee is alive, the ex-employee’s trade, theoretically of a high salary and privilege for keeping shtum winds down fairly quickly.

Non-competes are, as far as I know, not enforceable either at least in some jurisdictions.

There would have been a power imbalance at the point of signing. I can well imagine that the implications of that particular clause weren't apparent at the time.

As a society (more so here in the UK than in the US, I'll grant) we have laws governing what one party may demand of the other. They don't prevent a genuine meeting of the minds, because enforcement of a contract will only be an issue if at least one party doesn't follow through. But they do limit the ability of the company to impose sanctions beyond a point.

One limitation in the UK is that penalty clauses that are "private fines", like this one, must be based on the actual damage caused.

In this case, as in the non-compete case, I would say that if a company wants to continue to influence what someone does, they should continue to pay them.

So allowing someone to sign themselves into slavery should be "legal" because it's "impinging on someone's right to enter contracts"? I get that some people balk at "morally reprehensible" as some sort of slippery slope, but c'mon we as individuals have to function somewhat coherently. As a social species reliant on some form of social cohesion (how much oil did you refine this morning?) we have to have some guidelines.

For arbitrary contracts I would agree, but I think increasing the limitations in severance agreements specifically makes sense. There are already certain requirements (at least in California) for severance agreements and I think limiting the duration of non-disparagement clauses to 1-2 years would be a positive change.

IMO, "freedom to enter into contracts" isn't actual freedom, for the same reason that the MIT license isn't more free than the GPL despite it allowing more behaviors: in both cases, it's basically "permission to have your freedom taken away".

The government enforces contracts, so it gets to choose which contracts it enforces. Without a functioning judicial system (and a law enforcement system to enforce its verdicts), a contract is a piece of paper.

Plenty of contracts benefit both parties but are bad for society as a whole, and if the government pre-signals which sorts of those contracts it will refuse to enforce, this is good for society.

The law (OK, well, British law) does recognise that many terms can be Unfair especially when one of the parties is an individual, and especially when it relates to employment. They can nullify them on that basis.

Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

This doesn’t limit the Feds. Also, a state can prohibit non-compete. Etc. Basically, the freedom to enter into a contract is not one of the four corndogs of freedom.

This sort of ridiculous “criticism” is why I have a hard time taking libertarians seriously.

You're invoking a common "libertarian" trope, so I'm going to address that larger topic. Right-fundamentalist (ie axiomatic) "libertarianism" is fallacious. Logically, by asserting an unlimited "right" to contract, one can straightforwardly reframe any totalitarian state as merely being contracts between the state and its citizens/subjects/victims. And simply renaming things clearly does not make for a society that respects individual liberty!

The only sensible way to approach libertarianism is to qualitatively evaluate individual liberty. And being prohibited from speaking 8 years after the fact, especially when there is a compelling public interest, is in no way equitable. If they want her continued silence, they should have to buy that on the order of year to year.

Not in the book directly, but she did accuse them of securities fraud prior to publication: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/15/whistl...

> The author didnt disclose any illegal activities in her book. And she didnt claim whistleblower status.

Both statements are factually incorrect.

> Wynn-William filed a whistleblower complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April 2024 and with the Department of Justice in 2025, according to her filing.

Also, here's a short but not comprehensive (read the book when it came out and I forget things) list of the sledged illegal activities described in the book:

- Collusion with the chinese authorities

- Securities fraud

- Illegal foreign political contributions

- Sexual harassment and workplace retaliation

I don't know the reasons for why there has been no enforcement/further investigations aside from some congressional circus, especially when Zuck was caught lying to Congress. But I would be willing to bet that they involve money in politics.

It’s funny as I see this argument from people who at the same time excuse Snowden for publicly exposing government surveillance overreach when he had similar tools (disclosure to relevant authorities) available to him.

"disclosing them to relevant authorities" would not bring the message to those affected by such carelessness. I would think "Disclosing them to the public" brings more awareness in the public, and though might be illegal, serves better for public good. Legal is not always just or moral.

It’s kind of murky.

NLRB under Biden seemed to say that yeah you can disclose this to the media, and broad non-disparagements are unenforceable. But it’s also kind of a toss up depending on the NLRB, courts, administration, etc.

Trump’s NLRB has rescinded a bunch of that Biden-era guidance, so what is enforceable and what isn’t? Kind of hard to say at this point.

Arbitration agreed with Meta, but who knows what courts would say.

https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/nlrb-requires-change...

https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2226/2025-0...

Still looking for the part where, in acknowledgement of her own culpability, she assigns all book royalties to some charity that, say, provides counseling to troubled teenagers ...

The legal system makes illegal activities part of the public record.

But how are supposed to know in that moment that's what you wanna do? Aren't there different ways to be principled?

I understand freedom of speech and I understand she's free to speak but there may be consequences. I understand that there are huge complexities in the legal system. I understand you can enter into agreements (part of your speech) that effectively gives away your speech. But if you step back and look at this situation, it's just fucked up that a corporation can do this to you. If freedom of speech is supposed to be inalienable, these types of agreements should not be legal.

disclaimer: She lives in the UK and I'm speaking from a US perspective.

Is it freedom if you can't make an informed choice to sell it?

In Germany, this sort of thinking is the reason you can't release anything into the public domain. People are presumed to be too stupid to be trusted with the decision to renounce their copyright and so they are "protected" from this possibility.

Which means it’s not a right

In a normal society courts should be protecting from signing away basic freedoms

That would be up to her, wouldn’t it?

And she signed it, so presumably it was for her.

Maybe? Is your argument that there is no fair price, or that it wasn’t enough? The former makes NDAs unenforceable.

Yes?

Writing a book isn't covered whistleblowing. If she wants to go to the FBI or whatever, no one can stop her.

> Sure, as long as it is within the framework of the law.

You mean, like the one in the article the GP is pretending not to understand?

The US has limits on contracts as well, and courts can and will invalidate clauses or entire contracts for a variety of reasons. Read any of your terms and conditions, there is almost always a clause in there saying that if a clause is found to be unenforceable, you agree that the rest of the contract is still valid. The bar is a lot lower in the states, but it’s still there.

E.g. You can sign a contract to work for less than minimum wage, it will be entirely thrown out in court.

Oh no, I wasn't clear: I am sure people read these agreements. I think most of the time, they don't understand them. Also, we can't always understand how these agreements might be applied even if we do think that we understand them.

I don't think we can hold people responsible for these types of contracts if they are under duress, for instance, under threat of the loss of their job. In this case the person signed in order to get the promised severance package, without which they wouldn't be able to continue with life-saving medical coverage, in my opinion that would also be under duress.

>Arbitration does help with the problem of overwhelmed and expensive courts. What is needed is fair arbitration.

That sounds like you want all the benefits of an actual court without all the costs of an actual court?