“Sign this or starve” isn’t much of a stretch when you think about it
replyAs if Meta employees live on the cusp of starving.
replyhttps://www.npr.org/2020/05/12/854998616/in-settlement-faceb...
reply> Some of the content moderators were earning $28,800 a year, the technology news site The Verge found last year.
In this particular case, the legal costs are probably pretty ruinous.
I think you'll find the person in question's title is quite far from content moderator.
replyI think you'll find that's why the "in this particular case" line is there.
replyNobody forced her to break her contract and thus come up against that. She would have been perfectly fine on the leftovers from ~$500k/y while searching for her next job. The parent makes out like she simply had to get the extra money, lest she starve to death. Which is patently ridiculous.
replyIt's called a Hobson's choice.
reply[flagged]
reply"Yes, sometimes."
reply— the law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability)
[flagged]
replyIt's Hacker News, not I'm Thirteen And Just Discovered Anarchism And It Sounds Cool Because Now My Parents Can't Tell Me To Brush My Teeth Before Bed News.
reply[flagged]
replyHackers should absolutely oppose unconscionable contracts, yes.
replyAs we should and do oppose unconscionable punishments like jail for marijuana or the current copyright setup. Because they're wrong.
You understand that this is an entirely different form of argument than just linking to statute or case law.
replyI have consistently said "should be illegal", not "is currently illegal".
replyI'm entirely aware that these sorts of contracts are legal in US law. They should not be.
But your glib response above was just to quote "the law", like this was a sufficient justification. If merely quoting the law is enough, then great, we already justified perfectly the copyright and jailing weed smokers stuff. It's only now that you changed tack to make a different argument, which... I mean I might disagree with or not, but it's not what I took issue with above.
reply> But your glib response above was just to quote "the law", like this was a sufficient justification.
replyAnd this is not true for your (false!) cite of "Hacker News"?
At least my quote from the law was accurate.