3 ms·

> a popular new game by Valve is properly newsworthy to report upon If you've been explicitly asked to not report on a thing, and then you do. That's a jerk mo

by bisby 2y ago

> a popular new game by Valve is properly newsworthy to report upon If you've been explicitly asked to not report on a thing, and then you do. That's a jerk move. There shouldn't have to be legal incentive to do the right thing. > a big enough company to be able to require and enforce binding NDAs and they chose not to in this instance Valve isn't Nintendo. Their goal isn't to lawsuit their fans into submission. The splash screen saying "Don't share stuff" that the Verge clicked "OK" on is not necessarily a legally binding NDA, but it was clear what was being asked, and the Verge broke that contract (even if it was just a social contract). And Valve enforced the contract by banning them. No legal repercussions, just "you didn't hold up your end of the deal, so we're removing you from the deal" (and now Valve knows for the future that the Verge and this author in particular are the type to not follow simple instructions). Access to the game is pretty readily available. If you want in, you can get in. People playing have to agree to the "Don't share stuff, this is just alpha" screen, and they know they are playing alpha software. People reading (or more likely, skimming) an article, don't have to agree to "I realize this isn't final software." So while nothing is so secret that it needs legal enforcement, different circumstances of how you discover something may affect your view on it.

lylejantzi3rd 2y ago
> If you've been explicitly asked to not report on a thing, and then you do. That's a jerk move. There shouldn't have to be legal incentive to do the right thing. NDAs are the way companies ask a reporter not to report on a thing. It's a valid agreement between two parties. The jerk move is expecting people to adhere to your version of what "the right thing" is. Not everybody shares your opinion on the matter, hence the existence of NDAs.
- bisby 2y ago
  NDAs are the way companies DEMAND a reporter not to report on a thing. Again, Valve is not trying to turn this into a legal mess. There were no repercussions to the Verge other than losing access to the beta. I don't think that companies being rigid soulless entities is a good thing. If this is the kind of thing that makes Valve go "I guess we need to invite fewer people and make everyone sign an NDA" then the world is robbed of just a bit of fun. And that makes the Verge's actions a jerk move at an even deeper level. The actual prompt that shows up when you launch the game says: > Early Development Build > Deadlock is still early in development, with a lot of temporary art and experimental gameplay. Do not share anything about the game with anyone. > [ OK ] They make it pretty clear what they want in exchange for playing the game. > Expecting people to adhere to your version of what the right thing is. You think that asking people to do something as a human, instead of sterilizing the interaction and bringing lawyers into it... that's the jerk move. There isn't much wiggle room on what is right here. If the Verge didn't want to adhere to the agreement, they could have just closed the game. So they agreed to not share the information, and then did anyway. That's dishonest, and a jerk move. They weren't being dishonest to expose a larger crime (this wasn't whistleblowing), they were just dishonest for their own benefit. I would hope you're not the type of person who shares other people's secrets, because you're not legally obligated to since you never signed an NDA.

by bisby 2y ago

lylejantzi3rd 2y ago

> If you've been explicitly asked to not report on a thing, and then you do. That's a jerk move. There shouldn't have to be legal incentive to do the right thing. NDAs are the way companies ask a reporter not to report on a thing. It's a valid agreement between two parties. The jerk move is expecting people to adhere to your version of what "the right thing" is. Not everybody shares your opinion on the matter, hence the existence of NDAs.

bisby 2y ago
NDAs are the way companies DEMAND a reporter not to report on a thing. Again, Valve is not trying to turn this into a legal mess. There were no repercussions to the Verge other than losing access to the beta. I don't think that companies being rigid soulless entities is a good thing. If this is the kind of thing that makes Valve go "I guess we need to invite fewer people and make everyone sign an NDA" then the world is robbed of just a bit of fun. And that makes the Verge's actions a jerk move at an even deeper level. The actual prompt that shows up when you launch the game says: > Early Development Build > Deadlock is still early in development, with a lot of temporary art and experimental gameplay. Do not share anything about the game with anyone. > [ OK ] They make it pretty clear what they want in exchange for playing the game. > Expecting people to adhere to your version of what the right thing is. You think that asking people to do something as a human, instead of sterilizing the interaction and bringing lawyers into it... that's the jerk move. There isn't much wiggle room on what is right here. If the Verge didn't want to adhere to the agreement, they could have just closed the game. So they agreed to not share the information, and then did anyway. That's dishonest, and a jerk move. They weren't being dishonest to expose a larger crime (this wasn't whistleblowing), they were just dishonest for their own benefit. I would hope you're not the type of person who shares other people's secrets, because you're not legally obligated to since you never signed an NDA.