Because a promise that imprisons knowledge indefinitely has no integrity. To me, it's clear that it is absolutely in the public interest to - perhaps not go out

Because a promise that imprisons knowledge indefinitely has no integrity. To me, it's clear that it is absolutely in the public interest to - perhaps not go out of one's way to spread, but at least feel free to - explain the conditions and inner workings of large and impactful organizations. We're all thinkers who are asked to apply our minds in exchange for money, not slaves whose brain is leased to or owned by our employers for the duration of our tenure. Even when asked to keep things secret, there's still no way for a company to own every last vestige of knowledge or understanding retained in our minds, and there's still an overwhelming public interest in building on and preserving knowledge, to the point that, in my opinion, nearly any piece of human knowledge short of trade secrets should eventually be owned by humanity as a whole. (and there's even some moral arguments to be made about some trade secrets, but that's a much deeper discussion) I personally find that people who are overly concerned with secrecy view their integrity from the lens of their employer, but not at a human interest level. To be clear, there are still times for secrecy or the security or integrity of information to be respected, but it's nuanced and generally narrower than people expect.