4 ms·

How is it people are allowed to blog about company internal implementation details and numbers barely a year after they leave?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tyingq 4y ago
Seems unsurprising to me. If you, as a company, want ironclad confidentiality from people after they leave, that wouldn't be free or automatic. None of what was shared seems to qualify as a trade secret, which would have some protection.
- extr 4y ago
  I've never worked somewhere that didn't have me sign some kind of broad NDA-esque clause saying I wouldn't share proprietary or non-public info for a certain period after release (imo, completely reasonably). This blog post is literally nothing BUT non-public proprietary info. Like the parent I'm really surprised the blog author feels comfortable sharing all this. Even if it ended up being technically legal, I have to imagine this kind of thing is extremely frowned upon.
Kiro 4y ago
Why wouldn't they?
- extr 4y ago
  Have you ever read your employment contracts? I've never worked somewhere that would allow something like this to be shared so soon after departure.
  - alliao 4y ago
    meta being so big they're almost part of public institution just privately held; and public scrutiny is less frowned upon especially if many believes they do not contribute to the betterment of the republic
  - Kiro 4y ago
    In my country, unless you're compensated specifically for your silence you're free to ignore such clauses. An employment contract can be definition never restrict you from doing anything after your employment has ended. Employers try to put in nonsense such as non-compete clauses by they are always toothless.
    - extr 4y ago
      This is a little different than a noncompete though. Those are hardly enforceable in the US either. You mean to tell me in your country there is nothing to prevent you from quitting your job and then next day writing up and publishing full detail reports about internal operations?
photochemsyn 4y ago
Not to be unduly cynical, but any Public Relations 101 course will introduce the importance of third-party messaging, because statements coming from outside a company directly involved in some (apparent) scandal or other will always carry more weight with the public than an official corporate statement. Additionally, this kind of distance removes certain concerns about legal liability if more insider information is leaked later. [edit] I have no knowledge or opinion on this story, never read the Wire, and never use Meta or any of its products. It does, however, seem rather clear that governments and corporations concerned with controlling message and image do view social media platforms as the most important battleground in the information wars these days.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tyingq 4y ago

Seems unsurprising to me. If you, as a company, want ironclad confidentiality from people after they leave, that wouldn't be free or automatic. None of what was shared seems to qualify as a trade secret, which would have some protection.

extr 4y ago
I've never worked somewhere that didn't have me sign some kind of broad NDA-esque clause saying I wouldn't share proprietary or non-public info for a certain period after release (imo, completely reasonably). This blog post is literally nothing BUT non-public proprietary info. Like the parent I'm really surprised the blog author feels comfortable sharing all this. Even if it ended up being technically legal, I have to imagine this kind of thing is extremely frowned upon.

Kiro 4y ago

Why wouldn't they?

extr 4y ago
Have you ever read your employment contracts? I've never worked somewhere that would allow something like this to be shared so soon after departure.
- alliao 4y ago
  meta being so big they're almost part of public institution just privately held; and public scrutiny is less frowned upon especially if many believes they do not contribute to the betterment of the republic
- Kiro 4y ago
  In my country, unless you're compensated specifically for your silence you're free to ignore such clauses. An employment contract can be definition never restrict you from doing anything after your employment has ended. Employers try to put in nonsense such as non-compete clauses by they are always toothless.
  - extr 4y ago
    This is a little different than a noncompete though. Those are hardly enforceable in the US either. You mean to tell me in your country there is nothing to prevent you from quitting your job and then next day writing up and publishing full detail reports about internal operations?

photochemsyn 4y ago

Not to be unduly cynical, but any Public Relations 101 course will introduce the importance of third-party messaging, because statements coming from outside a company directly involved in some (apparent) scandal or other will always carry more weight with the public than an official corporate statement. Additionally, this kind of distance removes certain concerns about legal liability if more insider information is leaked later. [edit] I have no knowledge or opinion on this story, never read the Wire, and never use Meta or any of its products. It does, however, seem rather clear that governments and corporations concerned with controlling message and image do view social media platforms as the most important battleground in the information wars these days.