| ▲ | BeetleB 11 hours ago | |||||||
I doubt such clauses can prevent you from disclosing them to relevant authorities. Disclosing them to the public is a whole other matter. | ||||||||
| ▲ | ipython 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
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. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | amtamt 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
"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. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | Esophagus4 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
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 Trump’s NLRB has rescinded a bunch of that Biden-era guidance, so what is enforceable and what isn’t? Kind of hard to say at this point.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... | ||||||||