It’s not blackmail to want the opportunity to be able to tell the truth in the future. Jennette McCurdy recently wrote a memoir and mentions that Nickelodeon offered her $300k to sign an NDA about her time as a child actor there. She declined their offer. She didn’t blackmail Nickelodeon but it was absolutely the right decision for her since she’s more than made up the $300k on the sales of her book. And for the public, who got to read her excellent book.
I get not signing NDAs in general because you want to be able to tell the truth. This whole thread is an example!
It's the "if we end up disagreeing part" that seems like blackmail. And, hey, maybe that's what they're going for! Could say "yep, I want to be able to blackmail them if I need to." But the comment I replied to wasn't that explicit.
> how else are you getting leverage from a story in disagreement?
It’s leverage held in reserve, not planned for immediate exploit. If we part ways and all is hunky dory, it sits stale. But if e.g. the firm gets bought by an asshole and he frivolously pursues ex employees for dumb reasons, e.g. deciding a non-compete covers everything from finance to gardening, I have something to fight back with. (One can similarly ask why the company needs non-disparagement protection.)
Employers and former employees get in stupid tiffs all the time.
It's not blackmail. You're taking $40k in exchange for an unbounded number of problems. Maybe someday some exec will come up with "Oh, we used C++ at Twitter, so answering that question on StackOverflow is a violation of your NDA, please return the $40k immediately." Now you're on the hook for either $40k of court costs, or writing them a $40k check. (I don't think you get the $15k you paid in taxes, either.)
For a few million dollars for a bounded period of time, sure, disconnect yourself from the Internet for that bounded period of time. For $40k, you're just taking on unnecessary problems that you don't actually have the resources to solve.
(I was offered $0 to sign an NDA after leaving my last job. I did not sign it.)
I think that violating a contract using a fake name is pretty risky. If you're going to do it on I2P-only services or something like that, maybe you'll get away with it, but the best way to avoid getting caught for a crime or contract violation is to not commit it in the first place.
I read sagas about people getting doxxed every day, even children. You may trust your opsec, but it only takes one slip-up to be out a large quantity of money. I wouldn't risk it.
What if you're already using your real name on stackoverflow? Then part of that money is to compensate changing names on various sites and perhaps losing history and it in general restricts things you can do for life.
Leverage comes from having something that someone else cares about. You have the ability to talk about and disparage the company. The company wants you to not have that ability. They want this so much that they're willing to pay you even if you don't have immediate plans to do anything. That's leverage.
How is it blackmail if the company is the one offering the money?
Offering to pay someone for their silence sounds like bribery. Not accepting it, or otherwise ensuring that you're compensated properly for what that silence is going to cost you, doesn't turn that into blackmail. Twitter approached op, so to speak, not the other way around.
