Facebook Whistleblower Demands Overturn of Interview Ban - as Her Book Remains a Bestseller (msn.com) 42
The latest Facebook whistleblower, a former international lawyer, "cannot grant any of the nearly 100 interview requests she has received from journalists from print and broadcast news outlets in the United States and the United Kingdom," reports the Washington Post (citing "a person familiar with the matter").
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 — 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 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 "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 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 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...
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 — 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 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 "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 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 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...
Re:The problem with this is that... (Score:5, 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, Redundant)
No need when the subject of your book is doing all the promotion you could ever want
Re:The problem with this is that... (Score:4, 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 giving a lot of publicity to a book that otherwise would quickly be forgotten.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Revenge is a dish best served cold...
Re:The problem with this is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 have no idea what she wants, nor do I care. What I do care is that an NDA provision is being used to silence public reports of corporate misconduct. Those reports may be untrue, but quashing them outright shouldn't be an enforceable contract provision under the public policy principle. The arbiters even forbade her to talk to *lawmakers*, which definitely is a public policy violation.
This shows you what bullshit employee contract arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the employer is.
It doesn't matter if we don't care about the specific alleged misdeeds. It doesn't even matter if she is lying through her teeth. A corporation should not be able to put itself in a position where accusations of misconduct can't be lodged against them by employees. If it succeeds at that, there is no limit to the wrongs it can commit on employees and on the public. If she is lying, well, that's what a defamation suit is for. Understandably, Facebook would prefer their hand-picked arbitration firm handle this, but with eighty billion dollars on hand they can well afford to fund the mother of all defamation suits.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the thing I'm most curious about is why Friendface is putting so much time and effort into this, since it's giving a lot of publicity to a book that otherwise would quickly be forgotten.
We cannot know whether it would otherwise be quickly forgotten. As Feceboot is preventing her from promoting her book, we do not have a control experiment.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a classic case of the Streisand Effect.
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.
Re: The problem with this is that... (Score:2)
And the book is definitely not helping Mark Zuckerberg win the wager with his wife as to who can do the most good. It kind of makes him look like a genocidal maniac.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is that interviews aren't a great way of disseminating important information, they're simply self-promotion.
IF you publish a book and you want it to be read, you have to promote it. If Jesus died in the 1980s, St Mark would be on the Rogan podcast today.
Re: The problem with this is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
However her NDA severely hobbles her from further action. It blocks her from testifying to legislative bodies or conduct interviews with the media. The NDA is acts as a broom to sweep it under the carpet.
And yes, whistleblowers do interviews with the media. There's countless examples from Serpico to Snowden. It's helpful to have a face to explain what might otherwise be lost to the public as dry legal filings such as the ones made by Wynn-Williams.
It's helpful to have journalists better understand what is happening in order to tell the story. Watergate wouldn't have stopped Nixon without Woodward and Bernstein. Also quite helpful to explain the details to legislators who want to create laws to stop these new and poorly understood abuses of power.
FB's NDA don't keep Wynn-Williams from filing the whistleblower complaints, but it does keep her from speaking to journalists or testifying about what she has seen to the parliaments of the world in order to influence legislation from New Zealand to the EU without going through lengthy arbitration. Probably for each time.
Facebook's strategy severely limits the damage such testimony by a reliable witness who is also a trained lawyer and diplomat might effect, thus enabling them to continue SOP and discourage further whistleblowers, wrongful death lawsuits, and the sort of business limitations they might face from governments who are interested in protecting stuff like children and democracy.
In publishing the book she took a calculated legal risk to end run the NDA arbitration process and force FB to court. That she published the book in the UK, a country with strong liable laws, she took a calculated risk that underscores her sincerity.
On her account, the book is based on careful notes taken throughout why it's unlikely anyone at FB will directly refute her claims and instead avoid speaking to journalists about specifics beyond handwaving and invoking the magical incantations of QAnon, Fake News!
Re: The problem with this is that... (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find really amazing is the part of the "ban" where the "arbiter" can also
also [bar] her from talking with lawmakers in the U.S., London and the European Union, according to a legal challenge she lodged against the ruling.
That's limiting a basic right to be represented and should be seriously unconstitutional in her jurisdiction. What's next for the private "courts", ban people from talking to tax authorities if they suspect tax fraud? Ban people from talking to the police if they suspect a more serious crime?
The "arbitrage" subterfuge, and all other forms of "private" courts that exist to create the illusion that somehow "the business" can self-regulate successfully are just a demonstration of the obvious opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
he said, she said (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrisy is when you want universal rules to apply to everyone, but never to yourself.
Irony is when you've just washed a shirt and it is all wrinkled.
Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
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:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The former Facebook has not done her any favors.
Quite the opposite, they've tried and are still trying to silence her.
The Streisand effect here is just people rooting for the obviously unfairly treated underdog and has nothing to do with the bully billionaire lizard android and his disgusting outfit.
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:5, 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:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone and their dog know very well what the paid bullies of zuck the droid mean when they say "diligence".
They mean "toe the line that I like" and nothing else.
The billionaire class is never wrong, it is always the fault of the "little people".
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)
Re: No fact checking please (Score:3)
It's probably all true (Score:1)
And this should surprise no one.
Take it to trial! (Score:1)
Due Dilligence (Score:2)
Wow, make up your mind. Due dilligence involves contacting the subject with a list of assertions and asking for a response (right of reply). Does the Meta CTO really not understanding the most basic of journalistic principles???
This honestly sounds more like a Scientology statement than a hundred-billion-dollar multi-national.
Re: (Score:2)
zuck with tape over his mic and camera (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
One might wonder why she signed that non-disparagement agreement in the first place? She could've just walked away, right? Of course that might've affected the publishing and/or distribution.
I've never signed a non-disclosure agreement in my life (not quite the same as a non-disparagement agreement, true) that I didn't carefully and suspiciously rewrite, ensuring I wasn't giving away the entire farm. Curiously, I never had an employer who disagreed with my rewrite ... to include the US Army! I guess my