Law suits. The big one missing is law suits. That's a higher level of fame than this blogger has hit. That includes:
1) Nuts and idiots. For example, people who genuinely believe what you're doing is out to get them.
2) Jackals and vultures. People want what you've built, and see the legal system as a good way of extorting you to get it.
I hit this level of fame, and quickly backed down from anything which might give me more visibility.
I also stopped believing random accusations of famous people until there's proof or unless the accusers are really close. If someone is CEO of a 20,000 person company, and their closest associates accuse them of sexual harassment, exploitation, fraud, or otherwise? That's a plausible accusation. If someone runs a 20,000 person company, and 20 seemingly random people do? Well, that's almost guaranteed by statistics.
My understanding is even without fame, if you get anywhere interesting in the business world you'll need to get comfortable with litigation. Every wealthy person is entangled in it, even people you've never heard of that "only" have 50 million.
It is certainly not true that every wealthy person is entangled in litigation. Your typical not-famous, post-exit startup founder just doesn’t have any reason to get sued by anybody.
Sure, but if you rent out anything, you're going to be in court sooner or later. There's usually some wealth component to having something to rent out, but you don't need Internet Millions to do it.
This. Any company with any kind of marketing footprint is going to be the target of numerous lawsuits, from disgruntled employees, investors, shareholders, customers Etc.
The people who do best with Fame are like Bill Clinton, who ignored impeachment and went on to be a popular ex-president. You have to be able to compartmentalize. If you're the sort of person who takes things personally, let's things get under your skin, well, I think the public life is simply not for you.
One of the mitigating strategies here is to have a liability waiver that people sign to enter your office or home. Mine also has an NDA with a nondisparagement provision.
Personally, the only time i've had to sign a waiver is right before i've been doing something dangerous or life threatening. If a date made me sign a waiver before entering their home I'd be wondering what kind of fucked up things they've got planned and probably turn around and leave right there.
I have yet to encounter anyone who had any issue with it. Personally, I work at home and wouldn’t want anyone in the building who potentially had access to my office (it’s locked, but still) to not be under NDA at the very least. Opportunistic lawsuits make the liability waiver part important.
Hurt feelings when dating necessitates the non-disparagement clause. Several times I’ve had people I’ve politely rejected say all manner of false things about me, sometimes years after the fact.
I make it clear to anyone who participates in my life in any meaningful social capacity that they do so only on the condition of privacy and discretion. Those are the terms made plain up front. No one is required to participate.
Really though it comes down to physical safety. If someone doxes me, I incur approximately $40k in instantaneous expenses because I suddenly have to move, injunctions on posting or no, thanks to the internet. Having a document in place to be able to (somewhat) protect against or recover from that is a little bit of peace of mind.
No, you have yet to come across anyone who cared enough to be confrontational and refuse.
I guarantee you, 100% of people who have had to sign an NDA to enter your home, especially for social visits have a big problem with it and are totally weirded out by it.
Because it is weird and would come across as narcissistic and conceited to most everyone.
All I have to say that I feel sorry for you and quality of life you apparently live in 2020. Oh, and by being so paranoid, you're sending signals that you have something to protect in your home/office.
As for "dating," you can't police what they say. If you try to get smart with NDAs then it will be even worst since words spreads. But to each its own
>Hurt feelings when dating necessitates the non-disparagement clause. Several times I’ve had people I’ve politely rejected say all manner of false things about me, sometimes years after the fact.
Yeah it's true, you really can't control what people say about you other than through your own actions, even then people will say what they will, that's life.
>I make it clear to anyone who participates in my life in any meaningful social capacity that they do so only on the condition of privacy and discretion. Those are the terms made plain up front. No one is required to participate.
I can understand wanting privacy and discretion, but just the way you word this I find it...I'm not even sure, creepy as another commenter said, but more you've got this level of arrogance where you believe your life and the details around it are so important and special and every person that meets you and participates in 'your life' is a potential threat.
A friend or a social acquaintance isn't just someone that 'participates in your life', you are part of their life too.
I mean for me, if there's someone I know that just can't stop talking about everybody's personal stuff to everyone, I just don't share things with them I wouldn't want everyone knowing about.
>Really though it comes down to physical safety. If someone doxes me, I incur approximately $40k in instantaneous expenses because I suddenly have to move, injunctions on posting or no, thanks to the internet. Having a document in place to be able to (somewhat) protect against or recover from that is a little bit of peace of mind.
Really though, if someone's taking the time to stalk you and dox you, they're not going to give the slightest care about an NDA, will speak anyway and whatever litigation you try won't make much of a difference after the fact any way.
But in the end, the internet is fickle and ephemeral and has the memory of a goldfish and as soon as something more scandalous or interesting comes a long nobody will give a shit who you are again.
For what it's worth, rich people do not do this. It sounds like one of those nonsense things a person would do if they want people to think they're rich when they're not.
They do, however, have a good umbrella insurance policy to cover extra liability. If you have even a modest net worth you should also do this.
I’m not even accredited. I just don’t want to deal with the time
and hassle of a legal mess to defend what few assets I do have, or my reputation. I’ve had some specific bad experiences that the setup in its current design should hopefully mitigate; it’s not a theoretical thing. It bothers me that there isn’t a better way to do this.
As for “randos”; do you only date people you already know well? I know relatively few people well socially (ie less than dozen), and almost none in the cities in which I spend most of my time. I’m pretty reclusive despite having gotten to the point where death threats are a thing.
This sounds overkill, but mandatory arbitration clauses in business agreements is a good idea. In particular with partners, you don't want to have a nasty public fight over your company.
Can also include winner gets fees clause to discourage baseless claims.
1) Nuts and idiots. For example, people who genuinely believe what you're doing is out to get them.
2) Jackals and vultures. People want what you've built, and see the legal system as a good way of extorting you to get it.
I hit this level of fame, and quickly backed down from anything which might give me more visibility.
I also stopped believing random accusations of famous people until there's proof or unless the accusers are really close. If someone is CEO of a 20,000 person company, and their closest associates accuse them of sexual harassment, exploitation, fraud, or otherwise? That's a plausible accusation. If someone runs a 20,000 person company, and 20 seemingly random people do? Well, that's almost guaranteed by statistics.