this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
609 points (99.2% liked)

Videos

18469 readers
529 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed
  9. AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

How the fuck is it even remotely legal for a politician to sign an NDA with a corporation to hide information from their constituents?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 48 points 1 day ago (4 children)

PSA most NDAs are unenforceable BS. Same with non-competes. You can't prevent a person from making a living. The only thing NDAs can really cover are true trade secrets that could cause actual damages to the company. Otherwise in the US a company can't make you sign your right to free speech away.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

PSA most NDAs are unenforceable BS.

They expose you to vexation litigation within the same public bureaucracy that these companies are buying up.

If you want to see what a private industry can do to fuck over an attorney with a spine and a bit of skill, just check out the history of Steven Donzinger.

[–] Sirdubdee@piefed.social 16 points 20 hours ago

And as an elected official, you should not be able to sign away your constituents’ ability to have a transparent government.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The only thing NDAs can really cover are true trade secrets that could cause actual damages to the company.

Isn't it very easy for companies to argue any confidential information/agreement would damage them?

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It has to be a specific trade secret AND cause actual damages.

If you leaked the secret recipe to coca cola and now competitors don't just make cokealikes, but literal coke for half the price, you get nuked from orbit.

If I help a company develop machine learning I can talk about my implementation, the problems I solved, how I did it, what design decisions I made .etc because all of that is reasonable to an experienced software engineer. If I had some novel idea nobody else had that company would have patented it, or specifically named it as a trade secret and not just "it's all a trade secret plz don't talk or we SLAPP you with a dumb lawsuit"

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you can't afford the time or money to defend yourself from a SLAPP lawsuit, the legality doesn't matter much anymore. It is unfortunately in most peoples best financial interests to not personally test the legality of unenforceable BS.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago

Exactly, corporations care not for the legality. It's just that the very existence of a signed NDA opens up the power to suit, countersuit or in general drown a person in so many administrative fees that they are condemned to eternal poverty anyway. Whether the actual text is legal or not is irrelevant. An NDA is a weapon in many other ways.