upvote
In the US, a contract can’t supersede laws like those that protect whistleblowers. (I think this is part of how Harvey Weinstein was prosecuted because his NDAs were found invalid)

The author didnt disclose any illegal activities in her book. And she didnt claim whistleblower status.

reply
Not in the book directly, but she did accuse them of securities fraud prior to publication: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/15/whistl...
reply
> The author didnt disclose any illegal activities in her book. And she didnt claim whistleblower status.

Both statements are factually incorrect.

> Wynn-William filed a whistleblower complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April 2024 and with the Department of Justice in 2025, according to her filing.

Also, here's a short but not comprehensive (read the book when it came out and I forget things) list of the sledged illegal activities described in the book:

- Collusion with the chinese authorities

- Securities fraud

- Illegal foreign political contributions

- Sexual harassment and workplace retaliation

I don't know the reasons for why there has been no enforcement/further investigations aside from some congressional circus, especially when Zuck was caught lying to Congress. But I would be willing to bet that they involve money in politics.

reply
I doubt such clauses can prevent you from disclosing them to relevant authorities. Disclosing them to the public is a whole other matter.
reply
It’s funny as I see this argument from people who at the same time excuse Snowden for publicly exposing government surveillance overreach when he had similar tools (disclosure to relevant authorities) available to him.
reply
Legitimate whistleblowing has rules. I doubt publishing a book counts as whistleblowing.
reply
"disclosing them to relevant authorities" would not bring the message to those affected by such carelessness. I would think "Disclosing them to the public" brings more awareness in the public, and though might be illegal, serves better for public good. Legal is not always just or moral.
reply
This whole thread is about legality. Nondisclosure clauses are purely a legal construct, not a moral one.
reply
It’s kind of murky.

NLRB under Biden seemed to say that yeah you can disclose this to the media, and broad non-disparagements are unenforceable. But it’s also kind of a toss up depending on the NLRB, courts, administration, etc.

Trump’s NLRB has rescinded a bunch of that Biden-era guidance, so what is enforceable and what isn’t? Kind of hard to say at this point.

Arbitration agreed with Meta, but who knows what courts would say.

https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/nlrb-requires-change...

https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2226/2025-0...

reply
Well, the whole point is that courts won't weigh in, because of the arbitration agreement.

I took a negotiations course at university, and there was a section on arbitration vs the courts. There are plenty of good reasons to go with arbitration (employment contracts are not amongst them, though).

The one thing the professor highlighted was that if the arbiter was fundamentally unfair (e.g. civil rights violation), you're screwed. You can't then go to the court and make your case. There's no appeals process, etc.

I'm guessing there is no notion of "precedence" with arbitration, this being one of the reasons.

reply
I don't think such clauses have ever been held to prevent people from testifying in criminal trials. Signing book deals on the other hand...

If it's true that she signed a severance deal, e.g. signed this when she was leaving and therefore already knew she was agreeing to protect a bunch of snakes.. Well she fucked up. At the point when she signed that agreement she was already informed and aware of what kind of people she was agreeing to not disparage.

reply
Still looking for the part where, in acknowledgement of her own culpability, she assigns all book royalties to some charity that, say, provides counseling to troubled teenagers ...
reply
So she’s expected to not only put her own financial life in jeopardy to publish this information, but then to take the money that she does have and donate it all to charity?

One has to live. And there are not a lot of commercial enterprises that pay well that will hire someone who publicly flaunts an employment or severance contract.

Give her a break. It’s amazing how many nits we have to pick with those with little power when they choose to exercise it, that we end up excusing wholesale abuses of power by those who actually monopolize it.

reply
There are a lot of defenders of capital on hn, which is expected, that's totally fine. But I think we should all have a bit of admiration for someone who risked her life to shed light into the internals of an arguably sick business entity.
reply
At the end the book is published.
reply
I do. Illegal activities can be dealt with by the legal system without needing to be publicized first.
reply
The legal system makes illegal activities part of the public record.
reply