Linus claims on twitter that he supports the freedom of employees talking against him on LTT but at the same time he puts fired employees under a NDA

[Watanabe]

Recently @LinusTech tweeted this:

 

While when people like Madison was fired, he put she under a NDA where she couldn't tell anything about it or the company. So Linus basically follows the "Rules for thee but not for me"

[Middcore]

So are you interested in actually having a discussion this time, or are you just going to declare anybody who has a different opinion than you "Linus fanboys" and ignore them and then disappear like the last time you started a thread? 

[solado]

8 minutes ago, Watanabe said:

So Linus basically follows the "Rules for thee but not for me"

Name me someone who doesn't before we get this party started.

[ToboRobot]

17 minutes ago, Watanabe said:

Recently @LinusTech tweeted this:

he put [her] under a NDA

You don't "put someone under a NDA" they voluntarily sign them.

[Holmes108]

Pretty sure there are valid reasons to have an NDA in business that have nothing to do with general criticisms.

[SkilledRebuilds]

1 hour ago, Watanabe said:

Recently @LinusTech tweeted this:

 

While when people like Madison was fired, he put she under a NDA where she couldn't tell anything about it or the company. So Linus basically follows the "Rules for thee but not for me"

What makes you think the NDA was even somewhat nefarious in the first place...?

This is likely the worlds average nothing-burger, realized on a daily basis.

[dogwitch]

46 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

Pretty sure there are valid reasons to have an NDA in business that have nothing to do with general criticisms.

correct. hell am under a nda for a testing a product atm.

that all i can say atm!!!!

[Neroon]

1 hour ago, Watanabe said:

Recently @LinusTech tweeted this:

 

While when people like Madison was fired, he put she under a NDA where she couldn't tell anything about it or the company. So Linus basically follows the "Rules for thee but not for me"

As if you know why she was let go. Don't assume stuff.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Watanabe said:

Recently @LinusTech

 

While when people like Madison was fired, he put she under a NDA where she couldn't tell anything about it or the company. So Linus basically follows the "Rules for thee but not for me"

Probably for her protection. 

 

Young people don't always make the best decisions when losing jobs or taking criticism. 

Not to defame her character, I'm just saying young people sometimes do dumb stuff and he probably had a serious discussion with her to say "don't talk about it so you can get a new job." Presuming it was lmg saying goodbye and not the other way around. 

 

I know nothing realistic about her. Nor her employment day to day activity

 

2 hours ago, Middcore said:

So are you interested in actually having a discussion this time, or are you just going to declare anybody who has a different opinion than you "Linus fanboys" and ignore them and then disappear like the last time you started a thread? 

Gotta link?

Maybe just lock this potential bait thread if it's not real discussion. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dogwitch said:

correct. hell am under a nda for a testing a product atm.

that all i can say atm!!!!

Double check your agreement!

Just to be safe lol

[dogwitch]

42 minutes ago, fpo said:

Double check your agreement!

Just to be safe lol

i always do. i learn the hard way yars ago.

[Middcore]

48 minutes ago, fpo said:

Probably for her protection. 

 

Young people don't always make the best decisions when losing jobs or taking criticism. 

Not to defame her character, I'm just saying young people sometimes do dumb stuff and he probably had a serious discussion with her to say "don't talk about it so you can get a new job." Presuming it was lmg saying goodbye and not the other way around. 

 

I know nothing realistic about her. Nor her employment day to day activity

 

Gotta link?

Maybe just lock this potential bait thread if it's not real discussion. 

https://linustechtips.com/topic/1459074-a-case-against-clickbait-titles-that-linus-uses/

[Neroon]

48 minutes ago, fpo said:

Probably for her protection. 

We will never know. There could be so many reasons, she could have been a lazy worker, her co-workers might not have liked her without her being at fault, she could have just not fit in, it could've been personal from LTT management side etc etc.

 

I get the NDA from the point of view where if she were to badmouth LMG, they would still have to stay silent, as they cannot spill the beans, they could only deny claims, but that would be it. This simply keeps things private, and prevents extra mess.

 

To be clear, things like sexual harassment does not fall under an NDA, even if your country has laws that would in theory have it fall under an NDA, this would not stay that way once you taking legal steps, since NDA's are not supposed to be used for that purpose.

[LinusTech]

Any responsible business has an employee NDA. It's for the protection of the business, its partners, and its employees.

 

Regardless of the exact terms, if there was anything bad happening here, you'd already know about it anyway because in Canada no NDA can restrict a complaint about unlawful behavior.

 

So the simple answer is that the law is working both ways as intended. It's preventing me from muzzling anyone with a real problem, and it's preventing anyone without a real problem from defaming me for lulz.

[Neroon]

8 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Any responsible business has an employee NDA. It's for the protection of the business, its partners, and its employees.

 

Regardless of the exact terms, if there was anything bad happening here, you'd already know about it anyway because in Canada no NDA can restrict a complaint about unlawful behavior.

 

So the simple answer is that the law is working both ways as intended. It's preventing me from muzzling anyone with a real problem, and it's preventing anyone without a real problem from defaming me for lulz.

Yeah this is the same as we have here (Netherlands).

 

How much can a person still say with an NDA in place? I've always had NDA's in my work (social/youth work), but mine have always been about protecting the privacy of my clients, they don't restrict me to talk about work environment etc, obviously defamation without being able to back it up, will get me in hot water.
To be clear, I get why different companies keep different NDA's for obvious reasons.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Any responsible business has an employee NDA. It's for the protection of the business, its partners, and its employees.

CALLED IT!!

 

swag

Spoiler

Sorry for disrespect

 

[SansVarnic]

You cannot make a thread in this fashion to make a claim of this nature if you do not understand how an NDA works, shows your ignorance.

 

NDA's do not stop employees from speaking out against their company for poor treatment or unlawful practices. NDA are there to stop employees from giving out trade secrets, business contact that wish to remain anonymous and about a hundred other reasons. For example, I still have NDA's from previous employers that are still in effect, a few of them are good until the day I die. Some things are considered to be confidential and are expected to remain that way.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

NDA's do not stop employees from speaking out against their company for poor treatment or unlawful practices

I think the poor treatment bit might depend where you live, and NDA can cover pretty much anything that was done lawfully.  NDA's (not employees) against unlawful practices could be a bit of a sketchy area, an example I can think of is the families that signed NDA's regarding some of the out of court settlements with car companies that effectively covered stuff up...but that's a very stretched case.

 

I do agree though, the original poster doesn't really know what a NDA is.

 

 

If anything, instead of going after things like NDA's which have no argument, I think a better approach would have been trying to argue the limits of free speech.  In general I always think of free speech when talked about by Musk as a way of censorship.  Not necessarily speaking without fear of retaliation, but rather that if you want to speak your voice should not be gagged.

 

e.g. I do think that there shouldn't be full censorship of material just because a party doesn't like it, but also recognizing there must be limits to such a thing.

 

Just in regards to the tweet itself, the guy literally painted a target on his back.  You don't go talking to the exec like that, especially when you are claiming to be part of the group of people who made the App that is being complained about.  You also don't just say, "You're wrong", you say "no you're wrong because xyz".  Also keep in mind that the team had told Elon the number that was wrong.

 

The simpler way of putting it:

Elon: Complains about Twitter App being slow when having high latency, people tell him a reason (which might have slightly been miscommunicated...but it still seems as the heart of the issue was all those sub-calls)

Person B: Claims they are wrong, because they have 6 years of experience (working on the App that is being criticized).

Elon: Asks for the right number

Person B: "Gives a number"...but also talks about having worked on improving the performance

 

In general it's never a good thing to tell someone their wrong, when they are criticizing the performance of the app (especially if there are other engineers signing a different tune) and if you claim you were on a team trying to improve performance.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

12 hours ago, Watanabe said:

Recently @LinusTech tweeted this:

 

While when people like Madison was fired, he put she under a NDA where she couldn't tell anything about it or the company. So Linus basically follows the "Rules for thee but not for me"

That's standard protocol when leaving positions for most workplaces in private and public. You can't go around disclosing workflows, procedures, any internal workplace information of your former workplaces after leaving. But as far as general experiences and not specifics, that's up to the individual to device if they want to share. 

[Poinkachu]

@Middcore.... I think you made the OP ran..., again :<

[RasmusDC]

now i know i work in a big company and NDA´s is part of normal work culture, so i don´t see the problem with an NDA..

 

So you run a company, you run it with a LOT of business partners, that shares with you technology and information before launch, which also is trusted to you (with NDA of their own) because your company or your employees leaking this information will create ripples..

 

For instance if Linus fired an employee that got mad, and leaked ATI benchmarks of the new GPU 2 weeks ahead of time, then suddenly ATI would not trust you anymore, and they could sue you for loss of control, and also all the other Hardware sites will be mad at you, because you "removed" the agreement of a shared scoop.

 

even inside product development ideas, some might never become something, angry employees tend to "be a bit loose" with information..

 

Se the large SLEW of information being shared by former and even current twitter engineers, and the giant backlash it actually has. an NDA is not a solution, but it is the only containment solution you have, trust of course is another, we can trust people with information however it can be a weak link. 

 

Of course companies also use this to get out of tough spots, that are ethically wrong, as you can see in the giant incidents in the gaming industry, where lots of "ugly cases" has been paid off, with a NDA as an outcome..

 

so yes it can be a "good" and a "bad" tool, but for many businesses it is the only "protection" you have when sharing critical information, with people that you have not yet had the time to either build enough trust with, or at least you can use it towards the people that has been hurt by a leak and say.. "hey we did sign an NDA with that person, we as a company did ALL we could do to NOT leak information, that would create issues for you" and then you have a case towards a person, and the company is fairly free from accusations.

[RoseLuck462]

This is not the same thing at all, lol

[Middcore]

OP hasn't visited the forum since he posted this yesterday, surprising nobody.

 

Will we ever see him again? Not until the next time he comes up with an ill-informed idea for a drive-by attack on Linus, I expect. 

[Majinhoju]

I'm sure there's a big difference between publicly disagreeing on something and publicly sharing confidential information. If I worked for Nintendo or any other game developer and my employment ended before the release of the game, I'm pretty sure I'd still be under the NDA.

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, Majinhoju said:

I'm sure there's a big difference between publicly disagreeing on something and publicly sharing confidential information. If I worked for Nintendo or any other game developer and my employment ended before the release of the game, I'm pretty sure I'd still be under the NDA.

Agreed, although I do think there is also a difference between "disagreeing"/"correcting" and being fired (which people act like it's the full story)

and

painting a target on your back by disagreeing and subsequently stating you were one of the people who tried improving performance (when the thing you are "correcting" is a criticism of the app's performance).