• anaximander
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    From his own comment, he’s signing the NDA because it’s the only way to find out what Meta want, and he figures knowing is better than not knowing. At no point has he indicated that he’s going to work with them at all, and an NDA doesn’t give them control or any guarantee of cooperation.

    £5 says he comes back and says “I can’t discuss details because of the NDA, but… no” and it goes no further.

    • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was not the only way, he could have said no

      There is always a choice, and you won’t understand why making the right one is important until the court cases start

      • anaximander
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you don’t hear what they want to say, then you find out what they’re planning when they start doing it to you. Signing the NDA imposes no obligation to agree or cooperate. There’s nothing to stop you from signing, listening, saying no, and walking away. I don’t know for sure that’s what’s happening, but we also don’t know that it’s not what’s happening.

        Refusing to even talk to them does send a message, I agree, and listening gives them a chance to convince you. Still, I can understand that some would rather take the risk in exchange for a little advance warning of whatever it is.

        • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Listening also gives them a chance to lie, which he then can’t call them out on because the lie happened during an NDA’d meeting