I've read Wynn-Williams' book. It is astonishing and fascinating. If even half of it is truth, it's nightmarish how the leaders of Meta behave. And completely predictable that they'd try to punish its author, despite that punishment having no bearing on whether the book is out in the world (it is).
That said, the author doesn't come off particularly well, either. In her effort to excuse herself for working for Meta's leaders willingly for so long, she comes off as a painfully naive workaholic who ignores the welfare of her husband, children, friends, family, and even her own body in order to serve the whims of executives who will never care for her. Reading stories about how she, her colleagues, and even world leaders are repeatedly debased and devalued in order to please people like Mark Zuckerberg and Sherly Sandberg is deeply sad.
She doesn't deserve what's being done to her but it's hard to see how it is unpredictable.
Or maybe she wasn't that naive but thrilled by the proximity to the power working for facebook and shmoozing with heads of state gave her, and neglected everything else in service of that. She may not be the most reluable narrator for her own case.
> In her effort to excuse herself for working for Meta's leaders willingly for so long
From your description, this doesn't sound too uncommon. You're right that it doesn't make her look good, but isn't this also behavior many of us here do as well as likely the executives she's criticizing? Having a moment of reflection and reevaluation is a good sign, even if it came late. Better late than never?
Its an easy trap that I think many engineers fall for to varying degrees. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement of your work and lose sight of the implications of it. As engineers we build things that have great power. When building them we concentrate on how that power can be used for good. How much we can help the world. But it's easy to ignore how the same construction can be used for great evils. That's why the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Few people are truly evil and a sad truth is that evil is mostly created by good men trying to do good.
Maybe the most famous example of this is the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project. Captivated by the exciting challenges of the work and the exhilaration of solving these complex puzzles. Rushed by the war effort, blinding them to what was really being created. That sense of urgency that the bomb would be inevitable; if not them, then someone else. As they got closer to their goal more started to rethink. After Trinity more followed. After Hiroshima many became outspoken critics, including Oppenheimer himself. Many of these men ended up being disgusted with themselves, with how far they could go before they saw the consequences of their actions. Many more performed great acrobatics to justify why the construction was good and justified.
To be honest, it doesn't matter if it was the right decision to make the bomb or not. The real lesson is how easy it is to get lost in the work and blinded by a sense of urgency. It's magnitudes easier to recognize the consequences post hoc rather than a priori. But in most situations these things are even harder to see. We're not omniscient, so it's impossible to imagine all the ways a technology may be abused.
Our duty, especially as engineers, then becomes to make frequent pauses and rethink. Are we doing the right thing? Is there a better way? Is there something we've missed? This doesn't just make us more ethical, it also helps us solve the technical challenges. We're fortunate that this can align.
Since we cannot turn back time, all we can do is accept those who change. To accept that harm cannot be undone, but future harm can be prevented or lessened. The best we can do is recognize that the world is complex and we are blind to so much. I fear if we blame too much this only makes us dig our holes deeper. (Essentially) No one wants to be the harbinger of evil or harm, so we'll go to great lengths to blind ourselves to the damage in our wake. Not because we are evil, but because we want to be good.
Non-competes are being challenged and will be history soon and hopefully so will non-disperagement clauses. Those are just coercive anti-freedom practices.
I don’t know why Tostino’s reply to yours was flagged. This admin is literally backing away from defending against non competes just a few weeks ago[1]
What evidence is there, that this admin would be doing anything to push against or stop non competes?
Highly recommended. What you will find is that the title does the book justice. The top executives at Facebook aren't so much cartoonishly evil but rather hopelessly inept for the job at hand. They have no idea what they are doing, and little concern by way of the consequences of their actions, or their outsized impacts on individuals and the world in general.
It was an interesting book. I found it a tough read though. Every single chapter left me angry. A book about some of the worst people you could ever have the misfortune to meet - and unfortunately for her the author comes out looking just as bad. All just truly awful people.
When I saw Mark join Diplo on a "run" with the Meta Glasses, I couldn't help but recall the part in the book that talked about the unwritten rules the executive team maintained while playing board games with Mark (i.e., "let him win").
The headline: Meta exposé author faces bankruptcy after ban on criticising company.
The article: “Meta has served a gagging order on Sarah and is attempting to fine her $50,000 for every breach of that order. She is on the verge of bankruptcy.”
A little deeper in the article: It is understood that the $50,000 figure represents the damages Wynn-Williams has to pay for material breaches of the separation agreement she signed when she left Meta in 2017. Meta has emphasised that Wynn-Williams entered into the non-disparagement agreement voluntarily as part of her departure. Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement.
Alternative: Woman voluntarily signs non-disparagement agreenment with $50K penalty for each breach. Goes on to repeatedly breach agreement, publish a book full of disparaging commentary. Has yet to pay a cent to the company.
Crazy idea, how about making non-disparagement clauses illegal?
They serve no purpose, other than protecting abusive and exploitative companies.
If a disgruntled employee says something that is not true, there are already laws the company can use to defend itself and the company has way more resources than an individual. That's enough to deter even people who want to expose the truth but are not confident they can prove it. These clauses just make the power differential even larger.
Rule number one when you get fired is don't sign anything on your way out the door. Crazy that a Facebook exec wouldn't be aware of that advice or ignored it.
I got offered a small severance after a recent layoff. Severance agreement contained a non-disparagement clause. I didn't sign. You don't get corporate goons coming to your house to threaten you if you don't sign your severance/termination agreement.
You don't face the consequences of violating a non-disparagement agreement if you don't violate said agreement (for example, by writing a disparaging book). It is pretty easy to avoid for most former employees. Of course, you can do the analysis for yourself on whether the offered severance money is worth it.
This is much easier said than done. What if her severance was significant? What if she needed it to survive? Meta's line is she was fired for "poor performance and toxic behavior" and a non-disparagement clause often cuts both ways; now instead of saying "she worked her from <start date> to <end date> this was her job title" they can publicly disclose she was let go for serious job failures. It doesn't matter if this is true, good luck getting a new job.
I read the book and I think it struck me as an accurate portrayal. With this bullying, Zuckerberg is showing how important it is to him that people not know about its contents.
“New York magazine has previously reported that Wynn-Williams was paid an advance for the book of more than $500,000 (£370,000).”
That’s the part they buried. If you’re handed half a million up front, it’s hard to square “bankruptcy” with some kind of noble crusade. The article frames it like she’s sacrificing everything to expose Meta, but it reads more like poor money management than pure altruism. Meta’s behavior might still be heavy-handed, but leaving that payout until halfway down makes the story feel slanted.
That would be the minimum you'd need to even get the retainer paid to fight the SLAPP you're guaranteed to get from one of the most powerful and vindictive companies on earth
$500k is nothing to scoff at. However, it’s also not like they won the lottery. Depending on where she lives, her financial situation, how frequently she writes/publishes, etc. that number can mean very different things.
Also, at the very top before the article even begins:
> Sarah Wynn-Williams faces $50,000 fine every time she breaches order banning her from criticising Meta
And further down:
> However, the former diplomat was barred from publicising the memoir after Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, secured a ruling preventing her from doing so.
I think it’s fair of me to say that maybe we shouldn’t downplay her situation.
Any big lawyer group that would be willing to go up against meta will rip through 500k in 6 months or less and then wish you the best at the end of those few months of representing you.
Honestly, I don't care if it made her richer than Zuckerberg and her only reason to do it was unrelated personal spite. It's contrary to public interest, and should be illegal, to bind anybody not to disclose truthful information about how a corporation operates. Full stop.
She could have started a blog if she was motivated by truth. But she chose the book deal. Quoting from Casino: “It’s always the dollars. Always the %$!@ dollars.”
One data point - I borrowed audiobook in the library some time ago, before all the brouhaha started. For reasons, I only got through about 2/3 of it, and had to return it. Now I wanted to finish it - I see I am 114th in line. No line at all last time. It certainly has some effect.
So what happens if she racks up a few million in fines and declares herself bankrupt, say in the UK, where you can't then be held responsible for earlier debts?
Meta is a corporation that is anti-democracy. In the US we have this thing called free speech. Requiring non-disclosure in order to get a severance (or to get a settlement for abuse) is not an excuse for doing this.
More and more corporations are resorting to the predatory practice of abusing the court system to protect their hide their actions. You may accept this kind of thing, I do not.
>In the US we have this thing called free speech. Requiring non-disclosure in order to get a severance (or to get a settlement for abuse) is not an excuse for doing this.
As discussed umpteenth times in every free speech debate ever, "free speech" as enshrined in the legal system only offers protection from the government. There's a broader principle of free speech in general, but it's unclear whether that should be applicable in this case, where two private entities entered into an agreement where one side agreed to cease speech in exchange for money.
I would say using the court system rather than abusing, simple because IMHO the courts primarily exist to defend corporate rights contrary to the marketing.
Is it that meta is anti-democracy or is it just that Mark Zuckerberg is kind of an idiot? The feeling I get from the book is more towards the latter.
Speaking personally, the moment I knew that Zuckerberg knew nothing about politics was circa 2010, when he announced his plan to join forces with Chris Christie to "fix Newark schools". I don't care if you support team red or team blue, but it was obvious to anyone who knew politics at that time that Christie was a con artist. Why waste any amount of time and money on this project destined to fail? If Zuck had any insight and had a goal to do an actual thing and see it work, he would not have. He spent $100 million on that.
Aren't a vast majority of large corporations inherently undemocratic? They all seem to be organized much more like authoritarian dystopias, with power held by a shadowy cabal (the board), then a king-like figure (CEO), with a court (all the C-levels), then trickling down to a coterie of lesser magnates, viceroys and dukes of all sorts (middle management), all the way down to vassals and peons who do what they are told.
There is no democratic process in a corporation, everything is dictated top down. There's the Stasi / secret police / CIA (HR) who spy on everyone and root out then shut down dissent. Every decision is subservient to the Mission, the Vision, etc. They unironically have Five Year Plans.
If you take some distance and look at it, corporations are awfully undemocratic. I think it follows they would be anti-democratic when it comes to things outside of their immediate boundaries; to have that power and want it extended beyond, for your advantage, that's inevitable.
by saying "we have free speech" in this context, you are inadvertently admitting that you actually don't know what the right to free speech actually is. Rule of thumb: if neither party is the government, free speech is not relevant in any way shape or form.
I had a company try to sneak in a non-disparagement clause when they were purchasing media rights from me. They immediately removed it when I said it was ridiculous and I wasn't going to sign.
If you're not allowed to criticize a person, you're in a cult. If you're not allowed to criticize the government, that's authoritarianism.
Being able to speak freely is supposed to be one of our core values, and when a business asks someone to forfeit that right, it's a sign there's something seriously wrong. You don't require someone to never speak ill of you unless you're planning on doing something they might speak ill about.
By my moral compass, the very act of requiring someone to never publicly say anything bad about you is itself unethical. It's psychopathic behavior, not something that should be normalized.
IANAL, but how is this considered legal? I could see Facebook being allowed to claw back up to the amount of the severance, but $50,000 per statement in perpetuity seems wrong.
Well she’s done a massive service exposing these absolutely imbecilic people at Facebook. It’s depressing, but aslo helpful to know definitively that our next step as a culture can safely be to end the cult of the billionaire. They do not deserve our admiration, and there is no place for them in public policy.
[+] [-] ivraatiems|5 months ago|reply
That said, the author doesn't come off particularly well, either. In her effort to excuse herself for working for Meta's leaders willingly for so long, she comes off as a painfully naive workaholic who ignores the welfare of her husband, children, friends, family, and even her own body in order to serve the whims of executives who will never care for her. Reading stories about how she, her colleagues, and even world leaders are repeatedly debased and devalued in order to please people like Mark Zuckerberg and Sherly Sandberg is deeply sad.
She doesn't deserve what's being done to her but it's hard to see how it is unpredictable.
[+] [-] smsm42|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] godelski|5 months ago|reply
Its an easy trap that I think many engineers fall for to varying degrees. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement of your work and lose sight of the implications of it. As engineers we build things that have great power. When building them we concentrate on how that power can be used for good. How much we can help the world. But it's easy to ignore how the same construction can be used for great evils. That's why the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Few people are truly evil and a sad truth is that evil is mostly created by good men trying to do good.
Maybe the most famous example of this is the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project. Captivated by the exciting challenges of the work and the exhilaration of solving these complex puzzles. Rushed by the war effort, blinding them to what was really being created. That sense of urgency that the bomb would be inevitable; if not them, then someone else. As they got closer to their goal more started to rethink. After Trinity more followed. After Hiroshima many became outspoken critics, including Oppenheimer himself. Many of these men ended up being disgusted with themselves, with how far they could go before they saw the consequences of their actions. Many more performed great acrobatics to justify why the construction was good and justified.
To be honest, it doesn't matter if it was the right decision to make the bomb or not. The real lesson is how easy it is to get lost in the work and blinded by a sense of urgency. It's magnitudes easier to recognize the consequences post hoc rather than a priori. But in most situations these things are even harder to see. We're not omniscient, so it's impossible to imagine all the ways a technology may be abused.
Our duty, especially as engineers, then becomes to make frequent pauses and rethink. Are we doing the right thing? Is there a better way? Is there something we've missed? This doesn't just make us more ethical, it also helps us solve the technical challenges. We're fortunate that this can align.
Since we cannot turn back time, all we can do is accept those who change. To accept that harm cannot be undone, but future harm can be prevented or lessened. The best we can do is recognize that the world is complex and we are blind to so much. I fear if we blame too much this only makes us dig our holes deeper. (Essentially) No one wants to be the harbinger of evil or harm, so we'll go to great lengths to blind ourselves to the damage in our wake. Not because we are evil, but because we want to be good.
[+] [-] vvpan|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] lovich|5 months ago|reply
What evidence is there, that this admin would be doing anything to push against or stop non competes?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-administratio...
[+] [-] Tostino|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] qoez|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] isolatedsystem|5 months ago|reply
Careless people, indeed.
[+] [-] aix1|5 months ago|reply
The audiobook is narrated by the author, which adds an extra dimension to the story.
Would highly recommend.
[+] [-] basisword|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] runxel|5 months ago|reply
I think it is a real eye-opener.
[+] [-] bobdaicon979|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] maximinus_thrax|5 months ago|reply
It's a good book, everyone should read it.
[+] [-] z3c0|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] docdeek|5 months ago|reply
The article: “Meta has served a gagging order on Sarah and is attempting to fine her $50,000 for every breach of that order. She is on the verge of bankruptcy.”
A little deeper in the article: It is understood that the $50,000 figure represents the damages Wynn-Williams has to pay for material breaches of the separation agreement she signed when she left Meta in 2017. Meta has emphasised that Wynn-Williams entered into the non-disparagement agreement voluntarily as part of her departure. Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement.
Alternative: Woman voluntarily signs non-disparagement agreenment with $50K penalty for each breach. Goes on to repeatedly breach agreement, publish a book full of disparaging commentary. Has yet to pay a cent to the company.
[+] [-] martin-t|5 months ago|reply
They serve no purpose, other than protecting abusive and exploitative companies.
If a disgruntled employee says something that is not true, there are already laws the company can use to defend itself and the company has way more resources than an individual. That's enough to deter even people who want to expose the truth but are not confident they can prove it. These clauses just make the power differential even larger.
[+] [-] whycombinetor|5 months ago|reply
I got offered a small severance after a recent layoff. Severance agreement contained a non-disparagement clause. I didn't sign. You don't get corporate goons coming to your house to threaten you if you don't sign your severance/termination agreement.
[+] [-] loeg|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] skeeter2020|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] asveikau|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] firesteelrain|5 months ago|reply
That’s the part they buried. If you’re handed half a million up front, it’s hard to square “bankruptcy” with some kind of noble crusade. The article frames it like she’s sacrificing everything to expose Meta, but it reads more like poor money management than pure altruism. Meta’s behavior might still be heavy-handed, but leaving that payout until halfway down makes the story feel slanted.
[+] [-] jordanb|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Forgeties79|5 months ago|reply
Also, at the very top before the article even begins:
> Sarah Wynn-Williams faces $50,000 fine every time she breaches order banning her from criticising Meta
And further down:
> However, the former diplomat was barred from publicising the memoir after Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, secured a ruling preventing her from doing so.
I think it’s fair of me to say that maybe we shouldn’t downplay her situation.
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] EasyMark|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Hizonner|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2012|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dh2022|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Lio|5 months ago|reply
Sounds like another way of saying stuff they acknowledge is true. :P
[+] [-] shrubby|5 months ago|reply
Meta and the likes don't need to care anymore.
[+] [-] nextworddev|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Simon_O_Rourke|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] theGnuMe|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] talkingtab|5 months ago|reply
More and more corporations are resorting to the predatory practice of abusing the court system to protect their hide their actions. You may accept this kind of thing, I do not.
[+] [-] gruez|5 months ago|reply
As discussed umpteenth times in every free speech debate ever, "free speech" as enshrined in the legal system only offers protection from the government. There's a broader principle of free speech in general, but it's unclear whether that should be applicable in this case, where two private entities entered into an agreement where one side agreed to cease speech in exchange for money.
[+] [-] user3939382|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] asveikau|5 months ago|reply
Speaking personally, the moment I knew that Zuckerberg knew nothing about politics was circa 2010, when he announced his plan to join forces with Chris Christie to "fix Newark schools". I don't care if you support team red or team blue, but it was obvious to anyone who knew politics at that time that Christie was a con artist. Why waste any amount of time and money on this project destined to fail? If Zuck had any insight and had a goal to do an actual thing and see it work, he would not have. He spent $100 million on that.
[+] [-] btbuildem|5 months ago|reply
Aren't a vast majority of large corporations inherently undemocratic? They all seem to be organized much more like authoritarian dystopias, with power held by a shadowy cabal (the board), then a king-like figure (CEO), with a court (all the C-levels), then trickling down to a coterie of lesser magnates, viceroys and dukes of all sorts (middle management), all the way down to vassals and peons who do what they are told.
There is no democratic process in a corporation, everything is dictated top down. There's the Stasi / secret police / CIA (HR) who spy on everyone and root out then shut down dissent. Every decision is subservient to the Mission, the Vision, etc. They unironically have Five Year Plans.
If you take some distance and look at it, corporations are awfully undemocratic. I think it follows they would be anti-democratic when it comes to things outside of their immediate boundaries; to have that power and want it extended beyond, for your advantage, that's inevitable.
[+] [-] kordlessagain|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] vrighter|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] netfortius|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] calibas|5 months ago|reply
If you're not allowed to criticize a person, you're in a cult. If you're not allowed to criticize the government, that's authoritarianism.
Being able to speak freely is supposed to be one of our core values, and when a business asks someone to forfeit that right, it's a sign there's something seriously wrong. You don't require someone to never speak ill of you unless you're planning on doing something they might speak ill about.
By my moral compass, the very act of requiring someone to never publicly say anything bad about you is itself unethical. It's psychopathic behavior, not something that should be normalized.
[+] [-] unknown|5 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] taormina|5 months ago|reply
[+] [-] aklemm|5 months ago|reply