Facebook Whistleblower Demands Overturn of Interview Ban - as Her Book Remains a Bestseller (msn.com)
- Reference: 0176794995
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/03/23/0413214/facebook-whistleblower-demands-overturn-of-interview-ban---as-her-book-remains-a-bestseller
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/meta-scrambled-to-silence-a-tell-all-book-now-it-s-a-bestseller/ar-AA1BrC0p
That's because of an independent arbiter's ruling that "also bars her from talking with lawmakers in the U.S., London and the EU, according to a legal challenge she lodged against the ruling..."
> On March 12, an emergency arbiter — a dispute resolution option outside the court system — [2]sided with Meta by ruling that the tech giant might reasonably convince a court that Wynn-Williams broke a non-disparagement agreement she entered as she was being fired by the company in 2017. The arbiter also said that while her publisher Macmillan appeared for the hearing on Meta's motion, Wynn-Williams did not despite having received due notice. The arbiter did not make any assessments about the book's veracity, but Meta spokespeople [3]argued that the ruling meant that "Sarah Wynn Williams' false and defamatory book should never have been published."
>
> Wynn-Williams this week filed an emergency motion to overturn the ruling, arguing that she didn't receive proper notice of the arbitration proceedings to the email accounts Meta knows she uses, according to a copy of the motion seen by The Post. Wynn-Williams further alleged that her severance agreement including the non-disparagement provisions are unenforceable, arguing that it violates laws that protect whistleblowers from retaliation, among other points. In a statement, legal representatives for Wynn-Williams said they were "confident in the legal arguments and look forward to a swift restoration of Ms. Wynn-Williams' right to tell her story."
That book — Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism — is currently #1 on the New York Times best-seller list (and #3 on Amazon.com's best-selling books list). And the incident prompted an article by Wired editor at large Steven Levy titled " [4]Meta Tries to Bury a Tell-All Book ." ("Please pause for a moment to savor the irony," Levy writes. "Meta, the company that recently announced an [5]end to fact-checking in posts seen by potentially millions of people, is griping that an author didn't fact-check with them ?")
And this led to [6]a heated exchange on X.com between the Wired editor at large and Meta's Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bozworth:
Steven Levy: Meta probably realizes that all-out war on this book will only help its sales. But they are furious that an insider--who signed an NDA!--is going White Lotus on them, showing what it's like on the inside.
Meta CTO Bozworth: Except that it is full of lies, Steven. Shame on you.
Steven Levy: Boz, it would be helpful if Meta called out what it believes are the factual inaccuracies, especially in cases where it calls the book "defamatory."
Meta CTO Bozworth: Sorry you don't get to make up a bunch of stories and then put the burden on the person you lied about. Read the accounts from former employees who have gone through several of the anecdotes and said flatly they did not happen as written and then extrapolate.
Steven Levy: I would love for Sheryl, Mark and Joel to speak out on those anecdotes and give their sides of the story. They are the key subjects of those stories and their direct denial of specific incidents would matter.
Meta CTO Bozworth: Did you read what I wrote? I'm sure you would love to have more fuel for your "nobody wants you to read this" headline, but that's a total bullshit expectation. It isn't unreasonable to expect a journalist like you to do basic diligence. I'm sure you have our comms email!
Steven Levy: Believe me I was in touch with your comms people...
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/meta-scrambled-to-silence-a-tell-all-book-now-it-s-a-bestseller/ar-AA1BrC0p
[2] https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Arbitration-Interim-Award.pdf
[3] https://x.com/andymstone/status/1899938639540338759
[4] https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext/careless-people-meta-mark-zuckerberg/
[5] https://www.wired.com/story/meta-ditches-fact-checkers-in-favor-of-x-style-community-notes/
[6] https://x.com/StevenLevy/status/1900556850753343506
he said, she said (Score:3)
She says he was a monster and beat the kids, drank like a fish, and did coke all the time.
He says none of that is true, the woman was a complete bitch making everything up, just to make me look bad.
Uh oh, sounds like a regular divorce to me.
She signed and NDA! Oh well, I guess that's the end of that.
Here's what I don't get. Meta has destroyed society by monetizing anger and that's OK. That's just fine. Nobody seems to care.
Now someone from the inside spills the tea on how that happened ... but that's SHOCKING! She's breaking the law!
Am I the only one that finds this full of irony?
tl/dr: Meta breaks the law all day long then complains when someone doesn't honour an NDA.
Re: (Score:2)
> Am I the only one that finds this full of irony?
It's like rain on your wedding day.
Marketing (Score:2)
Pretty sure the court case solved that problem. I mean, I never heard of this book or person until I heard about the court case.
Keeping it in the news (Score:3)
When you can't grant interviews, publicly air your grievance. This way you keep the public's interest in your book.
Meta has done this woman a great favor. Almost free advertising.
What a cock holster. (Score:5, Insightful)
"It isn't unreasonable to expect a journalist like you to do basic diligence. I'm sure you have our comms email!"
Requesting comment on the specific allegations as well as asking to talk with the people mentioned in the stories to get their side......*is* doing "basic diligence".
Re:What a cock holster. (Score:4, Interesting)
You know it's strange that I am kind of pining for the days when companies usually only spoke through press and PR people and tried to maintain some sort of dignity instead of every C-level on Twitter spouting off every thought in their brains.
On the other hand it can reveal sometimes how little these people know, the veneer of the meritocratic industrialist has been peeled away.
Re: (Score:3)
> You know it's strange that I am kind of pining for the days when companies usually only spoke through press and PR people and tried to maintain some sort of dignity instead of every C-level on Twitter spouting off every thought in their brains.
> On the other hand it can reveal sometimes how little these people know, the veneer of the meritocratic industrialist has been peeled away.
I also miss the days when businesses had press officers instead of letting some manager shitpost on twitter. Back in my day, you weren't allowed to post stuff about your employer on social media unless explicitly permitted by the media team.
Also does anyone see the irony in facebook (a social media company) posting their argument on Elon Musk's social media site? Surely facebook has the resources to host their own website? Or, if they actually were concerned about being treated fairly, use some third-party
Re: (Score:2)
They have their own Twitter competitor, it's Threads and obviously even Meta's CTO knows it's a dead platform today.
Re:What a cock holster. (Score:4, Informative)
The funny thing is the idiot facebook cto contradicted himself while playing the victim. Those tech douches say they are smart, but....
> "It isn't unreasonable to expect a journalist like you to do basic diligence. I'm sure you have our comms email!"
Journalist before tries to do basic diligence by asking facebook cto about what lies are in the book.
> Boz, it would be helpful if Meta called out what it believes are the factual inaccuracies, especially in cases where it calls the book "defamatory."
Facebook cto refuses to comply with basic diligence.
> Sorry you don't get to make up a bunch of stories and then put the burden on the person you lied about.
cto plays the victim like the coward he is.
tough. (Score:2)
If MacMillian received a notice and didn't contact her to confirm that she was going to attend, it seems like they don't care if its a flop.
How much was the severance payment? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, how much did she get paid for the severance agreement? The book publisher should just pay her that money, so that she can pay off Meta by returning the severance money. In return, she and the publisher get to use the controversy as part of their marketing to drum up even more sales. Of course, maybe they're doing this later but waiting now in order to get free publicity first. I'm assuming there are no parts of the agreement that require more than just return of the severance payment, because I'd imagine that requiring more would be legally unenforceable. So, the agreement can't say, "I'll give you $1 million to say silent, but if you say anything, then you have to return the $1 million plus another $1 billion penalty."
No fact checking please (Score:1)
Your horrible book is full of lies, but I won't dignify it with a fact correction...
Re: No fact checking please (Score:4, Insightful)
It's slightly better than their dismissal of her account of FB enabling genocide in Myanmar as old news.
It's probably all true (Score:1)
And this should surprise no one.
The problem with this is that... (Score:2, Redundant)
The problem with this is that interviews aren't a great way of disseminating important information, they're simply self-promotion. Whistleblowers don't want to go on TV, they want to effect change and share what they know. She is allowed to share what she knows. If she actually has evidence of crimes, post that evidence everywhere and issue press releases that actually contain links to the evidence.
The media keeps implying that this former employee has some smoking gun against the company but if that was t
Re:The problem with this is that... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you publish a book, part of the process is that you're expected to promote it. That's how the publishing game works.
Re: (Score:2)
"When you publish a book, part of the process is that you're expected to promote it. That's how the publishing game works"
No need when the subject of your book is doing all the promotion you could ever want
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> The media keeps implying that this former employee has some smoking gun against the company but if that was true, and she actually wanted to effect change, that would have been made public already.
Yeah, writing a "tell all" book definitely does not make a person a whistleblower. She probably wants to get even, and she probably wants publicity... however that doesn't mean what she wrote isn't true.
I am obviously (mildly) interested enough to be posting here, but I can't say I care much about this one way or another. If the book were given to me for free, I am doubtful I'd read it. Honestly, the thing I'm most curious about is why Friendface is putting so much time and effort into this, since it's givi
Re: (Score:2)
It really could just be a simple opportunity taken to make the Zuck look MANLY and IMPULSIVE in accordance with his latest image. This is at least no less likely than any other explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Get even 8-years later?
Re: (Score:2)
Revenge is a dish best served cold...
Re: (Score:3)
> The media keeps implying that this former employee has some smoking gun against the company but if that was true, and she actually wanted to effect change, that would have been made public already.
Everyone already knows Meta is a profoundly douchey company, I don't think a smoking gun is really required at this point. I think this book is more just filling in the blanks, and I would not expect change in any case. It's pretty clear they will continue to be a profoundly douchey company regardless.