this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
750 points (99.3% liked)
Videos
18467 readers
985 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, if that were the case, companies wouldn't insist on NDAs, would they?
I also don't quite understand how you came to the conclusion that NDAs have nothing to do with the fact that any kind of legal dispute in the U.S. costs a lot of money.
Just to be clear: I am fully aware that NDAs can certainly serve a legitimate purpose when it comes to protecting trade secrets, which can of course be necessary and sensible. In practice, however, they are unfortunately all too often used to hide illegitimate activities from the public, as this post here demonstrates quite impressively. It is simply absurd that elected officials can sign an NDA and then, citing it, withhold information from the public about an obvious conflict of interest.
Have they signed NDAs?
They obviously don't want to say what might be part of such an agreement.