Twitter

[scottish]

Apparently Mark Zuckerberg thought Elon's paid Twitter verification was such a good idea that he wants in on it too! Fascinating.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/19/meta-is-rolling-out-a-new-paid-verification-subscription-service-for-instagram-and-facebook-users.html

That is indeed interesting. Anything that breaks social media's dependence on ad revenue, and the resulting incentive to maximize user engagement vs maximize user happiness, is probably good for our country and world in the long term.

That said, facebook's program seems to be a bit different in that they'll at least require checking people's government ID. So the signal of a facebook verified badge may be worth significantly more than a twitter verified badge that just means "I payed a little money."

So you get to pay Zuckerman to give him access to your government issued credentials?     That sounds like a deal... for Facebook, not the users.

[Metalcat]

Apparently Mark Zuckerberg thought Elon's paid Twitter verification was such a good idea that he wants in on it too! Fascinating.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/19/meta-is-rolling-out-a-new-paid-verification-subscription-service-for-instagram-and-facebook-users.html

That is indeed interesting. Anything that breaks social media's dependence on ad revenue, and the resulting incentive to maximize user engagement vs maximize user happiness, is probably good for our country and world in the long term.

That said, facebook's program seems to be a bit different in that they'll at least require checking people's government ID. So the signal of a facebook verified badge may be worth significantly more than a twitter verified badge that just means "I payed a little money."

So you get to pay Zuckerman to give him access to your government issued credentials?     That sounds like a deal... for Facebook, not the users.

Can someone explain to me what the advantage of being verified on FB would be? I mean, we've all been using FB for ages without any verification.

I can't, for me, see any advantage, so I'm having a hard time seeing why droves of people would do this? And if droves don't, then wouldn't it have no value?

[LennStar]

Apparently Mark Zuckerberg thought Elon's paid Twitter verification was such a good idea that he wants in on it too! Fascinating.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/19/meta-is-rolling-out-a-new-paid-verification-subscription-service-for-instagram-and-facebook-users.html

That is indeed interesting. Anything that breaks social media's dependence on ad revenue, and the resulting incentive to maximize user engagement vs maximize user happiness, is probably good for our country and world in the long term.

That said, facebook's program seems to be a bit different in that they'll at least require checking people's government ID. So the signal of a facebook verified badge may be worth significantly more than a twitter verified badge that just means "I payed a little money."

So you get to pay Zuckerman to give him access to your government issued credentials?     That sounds like a deal... for Facebook, not the users.

It's even worse!

Now we have to throw away the sentence: If you aren't paying for it, you are the product.

I can't, for me, see any advantage, so I'm having a hard time seeing why droves of people would do this? And if droves don't, then wouldn't it have no value?

People are paying thousands for an timepiece stripped to their wrists. Or tens of thousands on trucks, and you ask for advantages?
There ARE droves of people that will pay money for everything that pats or pads their Ego.

[Metalcat]

Apparently Mark Zuckerberg thought Elon's paid Twitter verification was such a good idea that he wants in on it too! Fascinating.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/19/meta-is-rolling-out-a-new-paid-verification-subscription-service-for-instagram-and-facebook-users.html

That is indeed interesting. Anything that breaks social media's dependence on ad revenue, and the resulting incentive to maximize user engagement vs maximize user happiness, is probably good for our country and world in the long term.

That said, facebook's program seems to be a bit different in that they'll at least require checking people's government ID. So the signal of a facebook verified badge may be worth significantly more than a twitter verified badge that just means "I payed a little money."

So you get to pay Zuckerman to give him access to your government issued credentials?     That sounds like a deal... for Facebook, not the users.

It's even worse!

Now we have to throw away the sentence: If you aren't paying for it, you are the product.

I can't, for me, see any advantage, so I'm having a hard time seeing why droves of people would do this? And if droves don't, then wouldn't it have no value?

People are paying thousands for an timepiece stripped to their wrists. Or tens of thousands on trucks, and you ask for advantages?
There ARE droves of people that will pay money for everything that pats or pads their Ego.

I'm not a moron, I get that people will pay for status.

But I don't understand how this would convey status on a platform that we've all been on for ages when it's just something you can pay for. I can't see anyone being impressed by that.

Being verified on Twitter used to be a big deal because an individual had to be essentially famous to get that. That's what made it such a huge status symbol. If someone was an influencer and got verified, that was a huge deal.

Paying to have your identity confirmed isn't a symbol of status, no dude is going to have women wanting to date him because he paid $8 to have FB check his ID. But being verified on Twitter??? To a certain subset of clout chasers, that's way better than a Rolex.

That's why I'm asking what exactly is it that people are expected to pay for by having their FB account verified? As an FB user myself, I can't see any incentive for me to pay for this. So what is the appeal for people?

I don't think that's a stupid question.

[dang1]

people do use their overhyped, overpriced apple trinkets to show off

[Bateaux]

I deleted Twitter before Musk.  I deleted it because I do Facebook and TickTock.  MMM isn't as exciting as it was in years past either.  Id rather MMM just be another Facebook group in all honesty.

[Metalcat]

people do use their overhyped, overpriced apple trinkets to show off

Okay...but how would being verified on FB amount to "showing off"??

That would like showing off that you pay for a Netflix account. How would this impress anyone??

[Dictionary Time]

people do use their overhyped, overpriced apple trinkets to show off

Okay...but how would being verified on FB amount to "showing off"??

That would like showing off that you pay for a Netflix account. How would this impress anyone??

I don’t know because I’m not on FB. But I know a ton of people who buy and sell on Facebook marketplace. Is this less status and more to provide a level of security for that?  If it shows I’m buying from  a verified neighbor, I may be more willing to transact.

[Metalcat]

people do use their overhyped, overpriced apple trinkets to show off

Okay...but how would being verified on FB amount to "showing off"??

That would like showing off that you pay for a Netflix account. How would this impress anyone??

I don’t know because I’m not on FB. But I know a ton of people who buy and sell on Facebook marketplace. Is this less status and more to provide a level of security for that?  If it shows I’m buying from  a verified neighbor, I may be more willing to transact.

Thank you!!!

I can see this being a potential driver of uptake. Although it would have to be pretty widely taken up for this to make a substantial difference.

I don't really use FB marketplace much, so I don't know just how broad that incentive will be. Because it will only really have an impact of the majority of legit buyers and sellers choose to be verified. If it stays hit and miss, then there won't be enough vendors and sellers who are verified to make it realistic to really exclude doing business with non verified folks.

And unless people really actively avoid doing business with unverified folks, then there's not a large enough pressure to get verified. Being verified would have to hit a critical mass for not being verified to be any kind of deterrent.
At least I would imagine.

That's why I'm wondering what the *main* incentive will be for people wanting to be verified. Because other than the marketplace angle, from where I'm sitting someone voluntarily getting verified would just put them as a weird loser who chooses to pay for Facebook for some unknown reason.

[Fru-Gal]

I have never used FB marketplace. I like the anonymity of Craigslist. If I were to use FB for selling things I’d probably have to have a whole new profile because I don’t want strangers buying my crap from me knowing where I live and seeing all my ancient family pix and thirst traps leftover from when I used to go on FB.

Word on the investing street is this Meta move is a huge mistake. The whole website is a clusterfuck of dark patterns.

[Metalcat]

I have never used FB marketplace. I like the anonymity of Craigslist. If I were to use FB for selling things I’d probably have to have a whole new profile because I don’t want strangers buying my crap from me knowing where I live and seeing all my ancient family pix and thirst traps leftover from when I used to go on FB.

Word on the investing street is this Meta move is a huge mistake. The whole website is a clusterfuck of dark patterns.

I've never used my real name on FB, and never would. I have two profiles, one is a fake name and the other is a decoy with my real name and real photo, but virtually no content other than a few photos and few generic posts and my up to date workplace info so that patients can easily google me and find info.

Otherwise my personal one has always had a fake name. So if verification became the norm, I would just stop using FB.

[Sibley]

The funny thing is, originally FB HAD verification, they just outsourced it. You had to use a college email address to sign up. When I joined FB I had to use my college email and it was linked very specifically to my college as well. You could filter and search based on the college.

When they opened membership up to non-college students, they lost that verification. And then they lost the college demographic, because college students didn't want to use a social media platform that their parents were on.

[LennStar]

FB still has the real name policy. Which is opf course only so that they more easily combine and sell data, because for real use it's stupid on several levels.

Reminds me, I also created a fake account once with an "average" name like Michael Müller maybe.

[dang1]

it's the internet, no one really knows if one's really a dog

[Metalcat]

it's the internet, no one really knows if one's really a dog

Literally everyone knows I'm a weird looking black cat. I have always been transparent about that.

[LennStar]

it's the internet, no one really knows if one's really a dog

Literally everyone knows I'm a weird looking black cat. I have always been transparent about that.

No, your picture background is not transparent. What are you hiding behind it? That you are a frog?

[ChpBstrd]

I get the sense we're in a new golden age of false identity.

In the pre-computer era, one could forge a paper birth certificate and use that to get a driver's license and SSN. Social security numbers were not considered secret information either. There wasn't much incentive to set up a false identity, though, unless you were a spy or money launderer.

Now you can obtain credit or trade securities just by entering information into a website. The rise of the electronic economy and the seamless flow of information made new kinds of fraud possible, and therefore was accompanied by increasingly-strict controls on identity verification.

There were lags between the moment of technical possibility and the introduction of regulations, and that was a golden age of fraud. Recall how people would at one time read their SSN to anyone on the phone with a plausible excuse to need it.

Today, a person can set up an entirely fictitious "identity" on any social media site - even accounts that pretend to be other people. As more and more people find ways to commit acts of deception using social media, the corporations will start to regulate identity, just as governments had previously been forced to do. The alternative for Meta, Google, Twitter, Snap, TikTok, etc. is to face government regulation and also to develop a reputation for being a hotbed of fraud.

Maybe "verified" accounts will be first, then we'll be asked to pay a subscription fee to have a verified account, and then all the non-verified accounts will be silenced or phased out in some way over the years. This would probably all be an improvement, which is why I'm skeptical it will go exactly this way.

[Sibley]

There wasn't much incentive to set up a false identity, though, unless you were a spy or money launderer.

You are vastly underestimating the breadth of reasons why someone might wish to become someone else. Spies and money launderers are likely the minority.

If you do genealogy research, you will periodically come across men who were married and had children in some east coast state. Then they went west, leaving said wife and children back home. And they were never heard from again. Except now, researchers can find these men. They stayed out west, married, and had children. They didn't need to change their names and identities because the technology of the day meant that they could easily and effectively disappear with no consequences.

Prostitutes. Trans people. Criminals such as thieves and murderers. People with toxic, abusive, or overbearing family.  People who significantly angered powerful people. The list goes on - there were a lot of people who for some reason or another wanted a new identity. It used to be fairly easy to disappear and become someone else.

[ChpBstrd]

There wasn't much incentive to set up a false identity, though, unless you were a spy or money launderer.

You are vastly underestimating the breadth of reasons why someone might wish to become someone else. Spies and money launderers are likely the minority.

If you do genealogy research, you will periodically come across men who were married and had children in some east coast state. Then they went west, leaving said wife and children back home. And they were never heard from again. Except now, researchers can find these men. They stayed out west, married, and had children. They didn't need to change their names and identities because the technology of the day meant that they could easily and effectively disappear with no consequences.

Prostitutes. Trans people. Criminals such as thieves and murderers. People with toxic, abusive, or overbearing family.  People who significantly angered powerful people. The list goes on - there were a lot of people who for some reason or another wanted a new identity. It used to be fairly easy to disappear and become someone else.

I suppose I can combine our statements and say something like "back in the day, the people creating aliases for themselves were not using those aliases for fraud, slander, etc. that would piss off powerful policymakers."

[Sibley]

There wasn't much incentive to set up a false identity, though, unless you were a spy or money launderer.

You are vastly underestimating the breadth of reasons why someone might wish to become someone else. Spies and money launderers are likely the minority.

If you do genealogy research, you will periodically come across men who were married and had children in some east coast state. Then they went west, leaving said wife and children back home. And they were never heard from again. Except now, researchers can find these men. They stayed out west, married, and had children. They didn't need to change their names and identities because the technology of the day meant that they could easily and effectively disappear with no consequences.

Prostitutes. Trans people. Criminals such as thieves and murderers. People with toxic, abusive, or overbearing family.  People who significantly angered powerful people. The list goes on - there were a lot of people who for some reason or another wanted a new identity. It used to be fairly easy to disappear and become someone else.

I suppose I can combine our statements and say something like "back in the day, the people creating aliases for themselves were not using those aliases for fraud, slander, etc. that would piss off powerful policymakers."

That would be a minority, yes.

----
On topic - Twitter suspended the accounts of some German journalists. https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/germany-on-twitter-suspensions-we-have-a-problem-twitter-71671185813312.html

The context I saw, but can not confirm, is that these accounts had posted about Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children prior to the suspension.

Regardless, I seem to remember that Musk tried to fire employees in Germany and was unsuccessful due to German labor laws. So I can't imagine that Musk is going to get the benefit of the doubt from German authorities. It'll be interesting if they take action.

[GuitarStv]

There wasn't much incentive to set up a false identity, though, unless you were a spy or money launderer.

You are vastly underestimating the breadth of reasons why someone might wish to become someone else. Spies and money launderers are likely the minority.

If you do genealogy research, you will periodically come across men who were married and had children in some east coast state. Then they went west, leaving said wife and children back home. And they were never heard from again. Except now, researchers can find these men. They stayed out west, married, and had children. They didn't need to change their names and identities because the technology of the day meant that they could easily and effectively disappear with no consequences.

Prostitutes. Trans people. Criminals such as thieves and murderers. People with toxic, abusive, or overbearing family.  People who significantly angered powerful people. The list goes on - there were a lot of people who for some reason or another wanted a new identity. It used to be fairly easy to disappear and become someone else.

I suppose I can combine our statements and say something like "back in the day, the people creating aliases for themselves were not using those aliases for fraud, slander, etc. that would piss off powerful policymakers."

That would be a minority, yes.

----
On topic - Twitter suspended the accounts of some German journalists. https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/germany-on-twitter-suspensions-we-have-a-problem-twitter-71671185813312.html

The context I saw, but can not confirm, is that these accounts had posted about Russia's abduction of Ukrainian children prior to the suspension.

Regardless, I seem to remember that Musk tried to fire employees in Germany and was unsuccessful due to German labor laws. So I can't imagine that Musk is going to get the benefit of the doubt from German authorities. It'll be interesting if they take action.

Hmm.  Looks like the main common denominator is that the journalists criticized Musk.  https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-suspends-multiple-journalists-whod-been-covering-elon-musk-2022-12

Musk is turning out to be quite a stalwart defender of free speech.  :P

[LennStar]

And the official account of a ZDF show (second TV station in Germany - Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen) was blocked also, officially because an automated test found that the birth day was wrong.

[Metalcat]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

[GuitarStv]

But preventing workers from being able to speak is an important part of protecting free speech. . .

[Captain FIRE]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

[Metalcat]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

Hmm, good point. The article certainly implies that it would apply to a lot of Twitter folks, but articles tend to be sloppy and misleading.

[LennStar]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

How can it be even possible to think you could do that? Forbid people to say something about a company?
Either they lie, then you can sue them. Or they don't lie, in which case...????????

[Villanelle]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

How can it be even possible to think you could do that? Forbid people to say something about a company?
Either they lie, then you can sue them. Or they don't lie, in which case...????????

Except Non-Disclosure Agreements are pretty common, so I'm having trouble figuring out how this is different.  Is it just because there is a quid pro quo?  Because many NDAs seem to include that and seem to be legal.  As part of a sexual assault civil settlement, for example, the party agrees to not speak out, and also gets eleventy million dollars. So as part of a settlement, why can't the party agrees to not speak out, and also get 6 months pay?

Or is it because these are right to which the workers are legally entitled regardless, so you can't then try to use that as leverage for an NDA. Like, you can't say, "hey, we will pay you minimum wage and not subject you to unsafe working conditions forbidden by law, but only is you sign this NDA," because you already have to do those things? 

[Metalcat]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

How can it be even possible to think you could do that? Forbid people to say something about a company?
Either they lie, then you can sue them. Or they don't lie, in which case...????????

Except Non-Disclosure Agreements are pretty common, so I'm having trouble figuring out how this is different.  Is it just because there is a quid pro quo?  Because many NDAs seem to include that and seem to be legal.  As part of a sexual assault civil settlement, for example, the party agrees to not speak out, and also gets eleventy million dollars. So as part of a settlement, why can't the party agrees to not speak out, and also get 6 months pay?

Or is it because these are right to which the workers are legally entitled regardless, so you can't then try to use that as leverage for an NDA. Like, you can't say, "hey, we will pay you minimum wage and not subject you to unsafe working conditions forbidden by law, but only is you sign this NDA," because you already have to do those things?

That's different though. Workers are entitled to severance, so tagging an NDA onto it is probably why it's illegal.

If someone settles, they are not admitting to owing that person anything. They aren't paying them for the offense committed, they are paying for the case to be dropped and not talked about. They are literally buying silence and innocence. The person they pay isn't legally entitled to that particular money otherwise.

Severance is an entitlement based on their work history with the company, so I can see why in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to tether silence to that unless they signed a contract in the first place that commits everyone to an NDA when they leave. Assuming of course that that's even legal in that jurisdiction.

[Villanelle]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

How can it be even possible to think you could do that? Forbid people to say something about a company?
Either they lie, then you can sue them. Or they don't lie, in which case...????????

Except Non-Disclosure Agreements are pretty common, so I'm having trouble figuring out how this is different.  Is it just because there is a quid pro quo?  Because many NDAs seem to include that and seem to be legal.  As part of a sexual assault civil settlement, for example, the party agrees to not speak out, and also gets eleventy million dollars. So as part of a settlement, why can't the party agrees to not speak out, and also get 6 months pay?

Or is it because these are right to which the workers are legally entitled regardless, so you can't then try to use that as leverage for an NDA. Like, you can't say, "hey, we will pay you minimum wage and not subject you to unsafe working conditions forbidden by law, but only is you sign this NDA," because you already have to do those things?

That's different though. Workers are entitled to severance, so tagging an NDA onto it is probably why it's illegal.

If someone settles, they are not admitting to owing that person anything. They aren't paying them for the offense committed, they are paying for the case to be dropped and not talked about. They are literally buying silence and innocence. The person they pay isn't legally entitled to that particular money otherwise.

Severance is an entitlement based on their work history with the company, so I can see why in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to tether silence to that unless they signed a contract in the first place that commits everyone to an NDA when they leave. Assuming of course that that's even legal in that jurisdiction.

Yes, if these settlements are simply applying a legal minimum, the ruling makes sense.  I'm not super familiar with employment law, but I think in most cases in the US, severance isn't legally required, which is why I'm having trouble understanding the ruling.  Now, maybe it isn't legally required, but because it was company policy when they signed their employment contract, that amounts to about the same things--I can't tack on additional requirements for you to get that to which you are already entitled (whether it is employment law or our contract or current company policy that create that entitlement).

[Captain FIRE]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

How can it be even possible to think you could do that? Forbid people to say something about a company?
Either they lie, then you can sue them. Or they don't lie, in which case...????????

Except Non-Disclosure Agreements are pretty common, so I'm having trouble figuring out how this is different.  Is it just because there is a quid pro quo?  Because many NDAs seem to include that and seem to be legal.  As part of a sexual assault civil settlement, for example, the party agrees to not speak out, and also gets eleventy million dollars. So as part of a settlement, why can't the party agrees to not speak out, and also get 6 months pay?

Or is it because these are right to which the workers are legally entitled regardless, so you can't then try to use that as leverage for an NDA. Like, you can't say, "hey, we will pay you minimum wage and not subject you to unsafe working conditions forbidden by law, but only is you sign this NDA," because you already have to do those things?

That's different though. Workers are entitled to severance, so tagging an NDA onto it is probably why it's illegal.

If someone settles, they are not admitting to owing that person anything. They aren't paying them for the offense committed, they are paying for the case to be dropped and not talked about. They are literally buying silence and innocence. The person they pay isn't legally entitled to that particular money otherwise.

Severance is an entitlement based on their work history with the company, so I can see why in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to tether silence to that unless they signed a contract in the first place that commits everyone to an NDA when they leave. Assuming of course that that's even legal in that jurisdiction.

@Villanelle, companies very frequently include "gag" or non-disparagement clauses into severance or other types of settlement agreements with employees or former employees in order to prevent skeletons from coming out/bad PR or encouraging other employees to sue as well (copycat), etc. Companies also don't want employees from knowing exactly how much money they've offered, as that could impact negotiations in future cases.

Yes, the argument is that you can't deter employees from giving up statutorily protected rights under NLRA by offering money: https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-that-employers-may-not-offer-severance-agreements-requiring

[Metalcat]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

How can it be even possible to think you could do that? Forbid people to say something about a company?
Either they lie, then you can sue them. Or they don't lie, in which case...????????

Except Non-Disclosure Agreements are pretty common, so I'm having trouble figuring out how this is different.  Is it just because there is a quid pro quo?  Because many NDAs seem to include that and seem to be legal.  As part of a sexual assault civil settlement, for example, the party agrees to not speak out, and also gets eleventy million dollars. So as part of a settlement, why can't the party agrees to not speak out, and also get 6 months pay?

Or is it because these are right to which the workers are legally entitled regardless, so you can't then try to use that as leverage for an NDA. Like, you can't say, "hey, we will pay you minimum wage and not subject you to unsafe working conditions forbidden by law, but only is you sign this NDA," because you already have to do those things?

That's different though. Workers are entitled to severance, so tagging an NDA onto it is probably why it's illegal.

If someone settles, they are not admitting to owing that person anything. They aren't paying them for the offense committed, they are paying for the case to be dropped and not talked about. They are literally buying silence and innocence. The person they pay isn't legally entitled to that particular money otherwise.

Severance is an entitlement based on their work history with the company, so I can see why in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to tether silence to that unless they signed a contract in the first place that commits everyone to an NDA when they leave. Assuming of course that that's even legal in that jurisdiction.

@Villanelle, companies very frequently include "gag" or non-disparagement clauses into severance or other types of settlement agreements with employees or former employees in order to prevent skeletons from coming out/bad PR or encouraging other employees to sue as well (copycat), etc. Companies also don't want employees from knowing exactly how much money they've offered, as that could impact negotiations in future cases.

Yes, the argument is that you can't deter employees from giving up statutorily protected rights under NLRA by offering money: https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-that-employers-may-not-offer-severance-agreements-requiring

I wonder how this would apply to mass layoffs, if that somehow makes a difference.

I know in a lot of cases where someone gets a settlement because something awful happened to them at a company that it's not actually severance, it's a full on separate settlement. But that's in my jurisdiction where settlements are heavily governed by intense labour laws.

We're not even allowed to prohibit staff here talking about their salaries. So I'm understanding this from the biased perspective of living in a jurisdiction with a lot of employee protections. So I can't intuit what might be reasonable with US laws.

[Villanelle]

I guess we might be hearing A LOT more details about what's actually happened at Twitter soon

https://fortune.com/2023/02/23/elon-musk-labor-unions-nlrb-biden-administration-severance-benefits-non-disparagement-gag-rule/

I heard about that decision yesterday, but wasn't clear if it only applied to union members or all employees. If just union members, it may not impact Musk all that much as I imagine he doesn't have any/many union employees at Twitter. Haven't read the actual opinion.

How can it be even possible to think you could do that? Forbid people to say something about a company?
Either they lie, then you can sue them. Or they don't lie, in which case...????????

Except Non-Disclosure Agreements are pretty common, so I'm having trouble figuring out how this is different.  Is it just because there is a quid pro quo?  Because many NDAs seem to include that and seem to be legal.  As part of a sexual assault civil settlement, for example, the party agrees to not speak out, and also gets eleventy million dollars. So as part of a settlement, why can't the party agrees to not speak out, and also get 6 months pay?

Or is it because these are right to which the workers are legally entitled regardless, so you can't then try to use that as leverage for an NDA. Like, you can't say, "hey, we will pay you minimum wage and not subject you to unsafe working conditions forbidden by law, but only is you sign this NDA," because you already have to do those things?

That's different though. Workers are entitled to severance, so tagging an NDA onto it is probably why it's illegal.

If someone settles, they are not admitting to owing that person anything. They aren't paying them for the offense committed, they are paying for the case to be dropped and not talked about. They are literally buying silence and innocence. The person they pay isn't legally entitled to that particular money otherwise.

Severance is an entitlement based on their work history with the company, so I can see why in some jurisdictions it would be illegal to tether silence to that unless they signed a contract in the first place that commits everyone to an NDA when they leave. Assuming of course that that's even legal in that jurisdiction.

@Villanelle, companies very frequently include "gag" or non-disparagement clauses into severance or other types of settlement agreements with employees or former employees in order to prevent skeletons from coming out/bad PR or encouraging other employees to sue as well (copycat), etc. Companies also don't want employees from knowing exactly how much money they've offered, as that could impact negotiations in future cases.

Yes, the argument is that you can't deter employees from giving up statutorily protected rights under NLRA by offering money: https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-that-employers-may-not-offer-severance-agreements-requiring

Yes, what I'm having trouble understanding is why a civil settlement can include an NDA or "gag", but a severance offer can't.

[Metalcat]

Yes, what I'm having trouble understanding is why a civil settlement can include an NDA or "gag", but a severance offer can't.

I would imagine it's because as I said earlier. The specific purpose of a civil settlement is an agreement to pretend as if the matter never existed. The party getting the money for that settlement is theoretically entitled to nothing unless they go to court and prove their case. They aren't being paid for what was done to them, they are being paid to essentially agree that nothing is worth litigating.

Legally, a settlement amounts to a good will gesture, there is no legal obligation to give that money.

But a severance is an entitlement in a lot of places, especially if this applies specifically to union jobs. Severance is an exchange for leaving a job without cause. If the employee is entitled to severance, then you can't just throw on additional requirements to what they're already entitled to.

Like, could I start throwing in clauses that people can only get their severance if they agree to paint my house? I can't make their receipt of something their entitled to contingent on my wants as their soon-to-be former employer.

But I don't know about jurisdictions that don't require any severance. That's why some clarify about the whole union thing is important. Unions usually negotiate mandatory severance, so that would make perfect sense that nothing could be added on for union job severance.

As for places that don't require severance, why do any companies pay it then?

[Captain FIRE]

I agree on settlements not being legally required so they should still be able to be included in them. It'd have a huge chilling impact on people being willing to settle otherwise.

More specifically though, I think it's as I mentioned before, that the workers have statutorily mandated rights set out in the National Labor Relations Act. The judges are saying companies can't negotiate away these statutorily protected rights whether through severance payments or otherwise (otherwise what's the point of the statute if you can buy your way out of it is I think their argument). From what I've read in the articles (which as we agreed are not robust explanations so we might be missing huge parts of the picture), I don't think that it's that it's that's it's the fact it's severance specifically because:
1.  (Google tells me) that no state or federal law requires paying severance. Severance is only required if it were a part of a contract with an employer - e.g. employment contract (rare to have unless higher level employee), union collective bargaining agreement, employee handbook, etc. Note that the union contracts I worked with didn't have severance guaranteed, so it's not even standard in all of them.
2. The Act is mentioned in the articles I read rather than focusing on the fact that it's severance.

From the article I linked above: "Today’s decision, in contrast, explains that simply offering employees a severance agreement that requires them to broadly give up their rights under Section 7 of the Act violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Board observed that the employer’s offer is itself an attempt to deter employees from exercising their statutory rights, at a time when employees may feel they must give up their rights in order to get the benefits provided in the agreement."

Section 8(a) states: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--
 (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];..."

Section 7 states:  RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

"Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]."

I really should find a copy of the decision. Now I'm curious.

Disclaimer: Even though I've worked with unions, I am not an employment/labor attorney, I am not your attorney, nor am I providing legal advice.

[Villanelle]

Yes, what I'm having trouble understanding is why a civil settlement can include an NDA or "gag", but a severance offer can't.

I would imagine it's because as I said earlier. The specific purpose of a civil settlement is an agreement to pretend as if the matter never existed. The party getting the money for that settlement is theoretically entitled to nothing unless they go to court and prove their case. They aren't being paid for what was done to them, they are being paid to essentially agree that nothing is worth litigating.

Legally, a settlement amounts to a good will gesture, there is no legal obligation to give that money.

But a severance is an entitlement in a lot of places, especially if this applies specifically to union jobs. Severance is an exchange for leaving a job without cause. If the employee is entitled to severance, then you can't just throw on additional requirements to what they're already entitled to.

Like, could I start throwing in clauses that people can only get their severance if they agree to paint my house? I can't make their receipt of something their entitled to contingent on my wants as their soon-to-be former employer.

But I don't know about jurisdictions that don't require any severance. That's why some clarify about the whole union thing is important. Unions usually negotiate mandatory severance, so that would make perfect sense that nothing could be added on for union job severance.

As for places that don't require severance, why do any companies pay it then?

Yes. I agree with all that.  I think what I'm not getting across clearly is that, as far as I know, severance isn't a legal requirement in most cases in the US.  That's what UI (aka Unemployment) is for.  But maybe I'm completely off base with that.  It may be legally required by a union contract, but I don't think most Twitter employees were unionized.  So we are back to the question of whether this ruling only applies to unions (because their contracts already say they are entitled to severance and therefore severance money can't be conditional on silence), or if this applies to everyone. 

I get why, if your contract (union or not) says you get severance if specific conditions are met, they can't then try to add additional NDA-y restrictions. Or house painting restrictions, or anything else.  That article is entirely unclear, and maybe this only applies to unions.  Or maybe it only applies to unions or anyone with a contract that already guarantees a severance.  In which case I completely understand it and of course they can't just try to add additional stipulations.  But if it applies to everyone, I don't understand it because  in most places in the US, no, severance is not required. 

CA has some of the most liberal employment laws in the country, as I understand it.  Yet they do not require severance. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/finalpay.pdf  (You'd think after all these years, I'd have figured out how to hyperlink on these boards.  You'd be wrong.)   As for why they still pay it, I have no idea.  I guess it's probably in the employment contract (which they goes back to why it can't be withheld based on an NDA, unless maybe that NDA language is also in the contract?).  Why they include it in the contract--or to answer you question why they offer it if it isn't required, I don't know. It seems somewhat unlikely that's the thing that would attract or turn away new recruits, but maybe it is.

So it's still unclear to me: is this union only (because severance is in their contracts), or union plus anyone who already has severance in their contracts, or does this actually apply to anyone? 

[Metalcat]

This article is a bit clearer and seems to imply across the board illegality. It talks about how this could seriously impact severance negotiations in the future.

Which makes sense if the main incentive for a lot of these companies to even offer severance is to silence people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html

I wanted to make one comment though about not needing severance because of unemployment benefits being available. We have both unemployement benefits here AND legal obligations for severance. Severance is primarily a deterrent for employers not firing staff without cause, and we have very strict laws about firing for cause here.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when employers can just leave people jobless at will with no consequences.

[seattlecyclone]

Yeah even though severance is officially optional, they can't make just anything be a condition of receiving a severance payment. Certain rights are protected strongly enough that the employer and employee are prohibited from negotiating them away. Minimum wage is an example: the law would be pointless if an employee could agree to receive a sub-minimum wage. The ruling here seems to say that non-disparagement clauses fall into the same general category.

[Villanelle]

This article is a bit clearer and seems to imply across the board illegality. It talks about how this could seriously impact severance negotiations in the future.

Which makes sense if the main incentive for a lot of these companies to even offer severance is to silence people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html

I wanted to make one comment though about not needing severance because of unemployment benefits being available. We have both unemployement benefits here AND legal obligations for severance. Severance is primarily a deterrent for employers not firing staff without cause, and we have very strict laws about firing for cause here.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when employers can just leave people jobless at will with no consequences.

I'm not following this.  Can you elaborate?

UI in the USA kind of is the consequence to an employer for just leaving people jobless with no consequences.  Their UI insurance rates  increase.  It's not a huge consequence, but it's something.  To be clear, I recognize that severance is usually much more generous that UI payments.  It's also something that goes largely to  high wage earns.  McDonald's franchise or the corner flower shop likely gives a couple week's notice, if the employees are lucky, and that's it.   

Yes, it's not the best system for workers, and unsurprisingly the US's "free market" has some downsides.  Go figure. 

[ChpBstrd]

In my state UI maxes out at $451/week, taxable, for 26 weeks in my state.

What’s interesting about these tech layoffs is that the employees were going from six figure salaries in some cases to the equivalent of a low-wage job. The “insurance” is not going to cover their mortgage, much less their luxury SUV payments.

[Metalcat]

This article is a bit clearer and seems to imply across the board illegality. It talks about how this could seriously impact severance negotiations in the future.

Which makes sense if the main incentive for a lot of these companies to even offer severance is to silence people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html

I wanted to make one comment though about not needing severance because of unemployment benefits being available. We have both unemployement benefits here AND legal obligations for severance. Severance is primarily a deterrent for employers not firing staff without cause, and we have very strict laws about firing for cause here.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when employers can just leave people jobless at will with no consequences.

I'm not following this.  Can you elaborate?

UI in the USA kind of is the consequence to an employer for just leaving people jobless with no consequences.  Their UI insurance rates  increase.  It's not a huge consequence, but it's something.  To be clear, I recognize that severance is usually much more generous that UI payments.  It's also something that goes largely to  high wage earns.  McDonald's franchise or the corner flower shop likely gives a couple week's notice, if the employees are lucky, and that's it.   

Yes, it's not the best system for workers, and unsurprisingly the US's "free market" has some downsides.  Go figure.

I'm not sure what to elaborate. Our systems might be a little different in terms of (un)employment insurance premiums for the employer. We call it EI not UI up here.

My point was that it was earlier said that severance wasn't needed because there's unemployment insurance. I was saying that up here we don't have severance in lieu of (un)employment insurance, we have both. So for me, it doesn't necessarily follow that having one means the other isn't needed, because in my world it's never been an either or.

[maizefolk]

In my state UI maxes out at $451/week, taxable, for 26 weeks in my state.

What’s interesting about these tech layoffs is that the employees were going from six figure salaries in some cases to the equivalent of a low-wage job. The “insurance” is not going to cover their mortgage, much less their luxury SUV payments.

This is true for twitter but looking at big tech layovers many were much more generous. A googler laid off after a week on the job got 16 weeks at their full salary. One laid off after five years on the job got 26 weeks at their full salary. Meta's severance followed the same structure.

[Captain FIRE]

This article is a bit clearer and seems to imply across the board illegality. It talks about how this could seriously impact severance negotiations in the future.

Which makes sense if the main incentive for a lot of these companies to even offer severance is to silence people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html

I wanted to make one comment though about not needing severance because of unemployment benefits being available. We have both unemployement benefits here AND legal obligations for severance. Severance is primarily a deterrent for employers not firing staff without cause, and we have very strict laws about firing for cause here.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when employers can just leave people jobless at will with no consequences.

Yep, so the language I quoted above from Section 7 of the NLRA that is applicable in this situation is about the right to join a union, collectively bargain, etc.  So it'd make sense that it would apply to all employers, rather than just unionized employees, because any employee could want to create a union and they don't want a chilling effect on it.

And yes, the US sucks in that it's largely at-will employment so companies can and do fire people for no reason at all as long as it's not an illegal reason such as discrimination. There are minimal consequences for that behavior (current employees may be distressed by the tactic and quicker to go, unemployment rates will go up if it happens often, bad PR on job sites such as glassdoor).

[Metalcat]

This article is a bit clearer and seems to imply across the board illegality. It talks about how this could seriously impact severance negotiations in the future.

Which makes sense if the main incentive for a lot of these companies to even offer severance is to silence people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html

I wanted to make one comment though about not needing severance because of unemployment benefits being available. We have both unemployement benefits here AND legal obligations for severance. Severance is primarily a deterrent for employers not firing staff without cause, and we have very strict laws about firing for cause here.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when employers can just leave people jobless at will with no consequences.

Yep, so the language I quoted above from Section 7 of the NLRA that is applicable in this situation is about the right to join a union, collectively bargain, etc.  So it'd make sense that it would apply to all employers, rather than just unionized employees, because any employee could want to create a union and they don't want a chilling effect on it.

And yes, the US sucks in that it's largely at-will employment so companies can and do fire people for no reason at all as long as it's not an illegal reason such as discrimination. There are minimal consequences for that behavior (current employees may be distressed by the tactic and quicker to go, unemployment rates will go up if it happens often, bad PR on job sites such as glassdoor).

The combo of at-will employment and being dependent on keeping your job to have health insurance is a fucking insane combo.

[Captain FIRE]

The combo of at-will employment and being dependent on keeping your job to have health insurance is a fucking insane combo.

Yes.

Health insurance arose as a way to give a benefit when income taxes were sky high. Luckily the ACA has made some strives in improving access by creating a marketplace to buy more affordable individual plans and prohibiting exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. It seemed like Republicans (or SCOTUS) might strike that down, but it survived Trump so I think some incarnation is around to stay.

[Villanelle]

This article is a bit clearer and seems to imply across the board illegality. It talks about how this could seriously impact severance negotiations in the future.

Which makes sense if the main incentive for a lot of these companies to even offer severance is to silence people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html

I wanted to make one comment though about not needing severance because of unemployment benefits being available. We have both unemployement benefits here AND legal obligations for severance. Severance is primarily a deterrent for employers not firing staff without cause, and we have very strict laws about firing for cause here.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when employers can just leave people jobless at will with no consequences.

I'm not following this.  Can you elaborate?

UI in the USA kind of is the consequence to an employer for just leaving people jobless with no consequences.  Their UI insurance rates  increase.  It's not a huge consequence, but it's something.  To be clear, I recognize that severance is usually much more generous that UI payments.  It's also something that goes largely to  high wage earns.  McDonald's franchise or the corner flower shop likely gives a couple week's notice, if the employees are lucky, and that's it.   

Yes, it's not the best system for workers, and unsurprisingly the US's "free market" has some downsides.  Go figure.

I'm not sure what to elaborate. Our systems might be a little different in terms of (un)employment insurance premiums for the employer. We call it EI not UI up here.

My point was that it was earlier said that severance wasn't needed because there's unemployment insurance. I was saying that up here we don't have severance in lieu of (un)employment insurance, we have both. So for me, it doesn't necessarily follow that having one means the other isn't needed, because in my world it's never been an either or.

Ah, got it.

Yes, in the US, someone who gets both is certainly better off and severance is almost always more generous than Unemployment.  My earlier comment was just saying that the form of guaranteed assistance when you lose your job in the US is the UI system, and severance is not legally required and is entirely optional.  (Optional to offer, but of course if it is in a legally binding contract, it  is no longer optional.) 

[ChpBstrd]

This article is a bit clearer and seems to imply across the board illegality. It talks about how this could seriously impact severance negotiations in the future.

Which makes sense if the main incentive for a lot of these companies to even offer severance is to silence people.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/success/severance-agreements-rule-change-from-nlrb/index.html

I wanted to make one comment though about not needing severance because of unemployment benefits being available. We have both unemployement benefits here AND legal obligations for severance. Severance is primarily a deterrent for employers not firing staff without cause, and we have very strict laws about firing for cause here.

It's a whole different kettle of fish when employers can just leave people jobless at will with no consequences.

I'm not following this.  Can you elaborate?

UI in the USA kind of is the consequence to an employer for just leaving people jobless with no consequences.  Their UI insurance rates  increase.  It's not a huge consequence, but it's something.  To be clear, I recognize that severance is usually much more generous that UI payments.  It's also something that goes largely to  high wage earns.  McDonald's franchise or the corner flower shop likely gives a couple week's notice, if the employees are lucky, and that's it.   

Yes, it's not the best system for workers, and unsurprisingly the US's "free market" has some downsides.  Go figure.

I'm not sure what to elaborate. Our systems might be a little different in terms of (un)employment insurance premiums for the employer. We call it EI not UI up here.

My point was that it was earlier said that severance wasn't needed because there's unemployment insurance. I was saying that up here we don't have severance in lieu of (un)employment insurance, we have both. So for me, it doesn't necessarily follow that having one means the other isn't needed, because in my world it's never been an either or.

Ah, got it.

Yes, in the US, someone who gets both is certainly better off and severance is almost always more generous than Unemployment.  My earlier comment was just saying that the form of guaranteed assistance when you lose your job in the US is the UI system, and severance is not legally required and is entirely optional.  (Optional to offer, but of course if it is in a legally binding contract, it  is no longer optional.)

An important little detail:

In my state, one cannot receive both UI and severance at the same time. While this means one's UI period starts later and ends later, it also means one cannot live off of both sources of income at the same time.

Thus, by offering a severance package, employers can deter their former employees from making a UI claim for a while - possibly enough time so they find another job and never file a UI claim. If they never file a UI claim, the employer's UI premiums don't go up.

[Metalcat]

An important little detail:

In my state, one cannot receive both UI and severance at the same time. While this means one's UI period starts later and ends later, it also means one cannot live off of both sources of income at the same time.

Thus, by offering a severance package, employers can deter their former employees from making a UI claim for a while - possibly enough time so they find another job and never file a UI claim. If they never file a UI claim, the employer's UI premiums don't go up.

Ahhh, this makes sense. Yeah, that would be a substantial motivator for giving severance.

[bacchi]

In a bid to cut costs, Twitter cut off Slack. Or maybe the accounts payable person was fired because Jira was yanked too.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/24/23613288/twitter-slack-jira-outages-performance-degradation

Someone realized that bug and feature tracking was essential for a company developing software; Jira was restored.

[LennStar]

Msuk probably thought his programmers would be slacking off too much with a tool named slack.