3 ms·

If the employee entered into a legal contract that limits their speech, then they, of course, should face consequences if they breach said contract. Such contra

If the employee entered into a legal contract that limits their speech, then they, of course, should face consequences if they breach said contract. Such contracts may be crap, Facebook may be horrible, Zuck may be whatever C word you think rhymes with his name, but a contract should be kept.

ghaff 2y ago
Per some of the discussion in earlier thread related to this, I don't know what NDA/severance agreement provisions were violated in the writing of this book. I do know that absent some compelling public interest, I'd let bygones be bygones and maybe just something to tell friends over drinks. I wouldn't have anything particularly interesting to dish about any former employer that the public would care about. I have some historical knowledge--not all of which I can technically fully share--and am pretty circumspect about doing so. But nothing here is whistleblowing as far as I'm aware.
WeylandYutani 2y ago
That is bullshit. With that kind of thinking there would never be a whistleblower or political scandal. Everything can be swept under the carpet because someone signed an NDA.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  Writing a book is not the same as being a whistleblower[1] so whistleblower protection would not apply here. [1]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topics/whistleblower https://www.dol.gov/general/topics/whistleblower
- Aurornis 2y ago
  This is one of those gossipy, salacious memoirs. It’s not an explosive political revelation or a whistleblowing mission. This person is publishing a book for fame and money. The only reason it’s being interpreted as a noble act is because it appeals to people who dislike Facebook, but even those people are missing the obvious problem that the only reason she can write this memoir is because she was deeply involved with creating and running the company they dislike.

ghaff 2y ago

Per some of the discussion in earlier thread related to this, I don't know what NDA/severance agreement provisions were violated in the writing of this book. I do know that absent some compelling public interest, I'd let bygones be bygones and maybe just something to tell friends over drinks. I wouldn't have anything particularly interesting to dish about any former employer that the public would care about. I have some historical knowledge--not all of which I can technically fully share--and am pretty circumspect about doing so. But nothing here is whistleblowing as far as I'm aware.

WeylandYutani 2y ago

That is bullshit. With that kind of thinking there would never be a whistleblower or political scandal. Everything can be swept under the carpet because someone signed an NDA.

flanked-evergl 2y ago
Writing a book is not the same as being a whistleblower[1] so whistleblower protection would not apply here. [1]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topics/whistleblower https://www.dol.gov/general/topics/whistleblower
Aurornis 2y ago
This is one of those gossipy, salacious memoirs. It’s not an explosive political revelation or a whistleblowing mission. This person is publishing a book for fame and money. The only reason it’s being interpreted as a noble act is because it appeals to people who dislike Facebook, but even those people are missing the obvious problem that the only reason she can write this memoir is because she was deeply involved with creating and running the company they dislike.