> without being coerced
> you know like you're at gunpoint
I think this is the other part where people are using wildly different bars. It seems like you're in the camp that since no one put a gun to her head that she wasn't coerced.
Legally speaking, coercion doesn't require threats of physical harm, it also covers threats of financial or legal harm as well. So your interpretation is clearly too extreme.
There's a lot of gray area here and these non disparaging agreements are without a doubt in them. If you have an expectation of getting a severance package, like many companies offer as incentive programs (much like they used to offer pensions) and you later learn that you only get it on the condition of a non disparaging agreement, that can be reasonably interpreted as coercion. Is it or is it not is up to the lawyers, but let's not act like a situation like that is not in the gray area.
You keep mentioning her salary. Does anyone have actual numbers? We see people who read her book saying she was living paycheck to paycheck, so what's the argument? She's bad with money? Okay? So what? What difference does that actually make? It anything her lack of good financial planning (a thing most people aren't good at, regardless of income level) makes it easier to strong arm her. Again, is that coercion in the legal sense? Let's let the lawyers figure that out because we're just two idiots talking on the internet who don't have nearly enough information to make good conclusions.
But honestly, I'm more curious why you're so invested in this and quick to vilify her. We've had a lot of conversations over the years and I don't recall you ever being so quick to judge. Why is it that we're talking about her legal authorization to discuss Meta executives and not she claimed they did. Shouldn't that be our main concern? We shouldn't believe her outright but we'll have to make our own judgements on that, but isn't that the real story here? I care more about that than if she changed her mind and is now facing legal troubles. The answers to the truth of what she claims is critical to determining if her non disparaging contract was even legal and if she can be prosecuted for violating it. If she's a true whistleblower then it doesn't matter what she signed because the contract wouldn't legally be able to cover such things.
So at the end of the day, why does it matter. Right or wrong we're concentrating all our efforts on the wrong discussion. We're idiots in the Internet, not lawyers. But we are also Internet users and her claims have implications for all of us. So who fucking cares if she violated her contract or if the contract is invalid, what matters most is the validity of her claims. Why are we all acting like the validity of the contract has any influence on the validity of her claims. We're being fucking insane right now
Legally speaking, coercion doesn't require threats of physical harm, it also covers threats of financial or legal harm as well. So your interpretation is clearly too extreme.
There's a lot of gray area here and these non disparaging agreements are without a doubt in them. If you have an expectation of getting a severance package, like many companies offer as incentive programs (much like they used to offer pensions) and you later learn that you only get it on the condition of a non disparaging agreement, that can be reasonably interpreted as coercion. Is it or is it not is up to the lawyers, but let's not act like a situation like that is not in the gray area.
You keep mentioning her salary. Does anyone have actual numbers? We see people who read her book saying she was living paycheck to paycheck, so what's the argument? She's bad with money? Okay? So what? What difference does that actually make? It anything her lack of good financial planning (a thing most people aren't good at, regardless of income level) makes it easier to strong arm her. Again, is that coercion in the legal sense? Let's let the lawyers figure that out because we're just two idiots talking on the internet who don't have nearly enough information to make good conclusions.
But honestly, I'm more curious why you're so invested in this and quick to vilify her. We've had a lot of conversations over the years and I don't recall you ever being so quick to judge. Why is it that we're talking about her legal authorization to discuss Meta executives and not she claimed they did. Shouldn't that be our main concern? We shouldn't believe her outright but we'll have to make our own judgements on that, but isn't that the real story here? I care more about that than if she changed her mind and is now facing legal troubles. The answers to the truth of what she claims is critical to determining if her non disparaging contract was even legal and if she can be prosecuted for violating it. If she's a true whistleblower then it doesn't matter what she signed because the contract wouldn't legally be able to cover such things.
So at the end of the day, why does it matter. Right or wrong we're concentrating all our efforts on the wrong discussion. We're idiots in the Internet, not lawyers. But we are also Internet users and her claims have implications for all of us. So who fucking cares if she violated her contract or if the contract is invalid, what matters most is the validity of her claims. Why are we all acting like the validity of the contract has any influence on the validity of her claims. We're being fucking insane right now