This is so sad to see. It makes me lose respect for the legal system when the people with the most expensive lawyers automatically win. Luckily I'm not in the US but even here meta gets away with a lot (especially because they have the Irish privacy regulator in their pocket)
Yes, it should. That doesn't mean that it isn't "sad to see" a lack of transparency in our society surrounding the misdeeds of mega corporations with their hands all over the levers of power.
No but she lives in America (she's from New Zealand but I think her partner and kids are American). She'll go back there and could get arrested or her assets confiscated.
It would be a big problem if you ever need to go there. Which at least for me is of course a lot less likely in this day and age. If my job asks me to go I'll refuse. Even though I don't have any legal issues there, I just don't feel safe anymore especially being an outspoken LGBT advocate. And I understand giving them social media accounts will be mandatory soon which is a dealbreaker for me also, again nothing to hide but I just don't want to.
Freedom of speech exists to protect politically useful tools. That means the nazis and the Klan so long as they remain such. When they are no longer useful, the protection will pass to another useful tool.
"I'm here today because I believe that we must continue to stand for free expression," he said. "You should be able to say things that other people don't like, but you shouldn't be able to say things that put people in danger."
What kind of a very sad human being must one be when you have almost all the money in the world and continue to do very stupid things with it. In my experience the people who scream and threaten the loudest kinda acknowledge the problems.
When I worked there a few years back, my eyes rolled hard without VR at $22B of CapEx being spent without clearly-established market demand. They should've spent $1B at least on marketing Workplace and that home assistant box, whatever it was called.
I can understand the passion and research for innovation and improvement.
I can understand trying to earn even more money with your research and investment.
I cannot understand that when there is SO much suffering in the world that can relatively easy be solved by throwing a few billion dollars in it that one can justify spending billions in things people do not want.
The man can be the best inhabitant earth has ever known by massively funding research for good clean water, correct waste disposal, clean energy and good food for all of us. Maybe even make a profit of it! But he decides to put his massive resources in virtual reality...
At least spend a fraction of your money to give every poor woman a Divya Washing Machine[1] so that they have more time to do other things, perhaps even improving your stupid Metaverse for you.
Note that she was following her lawyers advice. Not a gag order from Meta. This advice l is standard practice when you have an active litigation against you (everything you say can and will be used against you).
"Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, secured an emergency legal order on the eve of publication preventing her from publicly discussing aspects of the book, and she faces fines of $50,000 (£37,000) each time she breaches the order."
One who understands the power of nondisclosure agreements.
You might find it surprising that an executive signed a long-lasting non-disparagement agreement, but obviously they wouldn't have got the job otherwise. These are a very real problem. Especially the use of NDAs to cover up gross misconduct.
> One who understands the power of nondisclosure agreements.
Why would a judge pre-decide that any possible word or nod from the author would break an agreement, and consider that valid enough to remove someone's freedom of speech?
[meta] I was surprised this fell off the front page. The post has "131 points, 3 hours ago, 39 comments" and sits at rank 55. Number 2 on front page has "41 points, 4 hours ago, 0 comments". I don't want to assume something nefarious without reason, but that seems counterintuitive. Are there other parameters that can explain this ranking?
This has happened to a lot of stuff in the last couple months I've noticed. For me it's been mostly on bad news for Apple. I suspect it's something changed in the algorithm or people flagging rather than nefarious, but that's just my guess
If it's the algorithm, I'd be curious what other parameter it could be.
If it's people flagging, is there a good reason to do that? Otherwise, I would still call it nefarious behavior by people abusing the flagging mechanism in order to bury this story.