Blaglash.com

The code of transparency in Silicon Valley can get ridiculous. We all know this.

Company x announces a great idea, tries to get funding to create said idea, and bigger/faster company y steps up to the plate and kills them dead.

Sharing of information and progress makes things move faster and is better for the consumer, but at the end of the day we’re all out for money (blood).

That goes without saying.

However, it becomes easy to forget (at least for me) that the ideals of transparency aren’t completely concocted by post-hippies in California for the sake of “creating a better world” as is often said.

The real reason is logic.

I now have at my fingertips the ability to spread information to such ridiculous lengths with such a high amount of visibility, that little ol’ me’s words can make or break just about anybody.

And so can theirs.

So why, then, when picking up the paycheck (that I had to wage war for) from a former employer, was I forced to sign what really amounted to a “Non-transparency agreement?”

Again, a logical perspective on their end. They hired me to build and destroy, and a little piece of them probably still acknowledges this power.

But let’s talk real-world logic. The non-paranoid kind.

Why would you have me sign an agreement to not speak ill of your company?

Shouldn’t I only have good things to say? Success stories, great memories, and if you were a startup, my pockets lined with the cash of equity?

Shouldn’t I have not wanted to leave in the first place?

Since the issue here isn’t trade secrets (there really are none), why are you worried about a smear campaign?

I’ve never had to sign such an agreement with any other former employer or client. And my kind words about their companies and products continue on (and with high relevancy in Google searches).

And once again logic provides us with insight.