3 ms·

> Described by its publisher as an “explosive insider account,” Wynn-Williams reveals some new details about Mark Zuckerberg’s push to bring Facebook to China

by dmix 2y ago

> Described by its publisher as an “explosive insider account,” Wynn-Williams reveals some new details about Mark Zuckerberg’s push to bring Facebook to China a decade ago. She also alleges that Meta's current policy chief, Joel Kaplan, acted inappropriately, and reveals embarrassing details about Zuckerberg’s awkward encounters with world leaders I'm interested in the topic but this sounds gossipy. I've been burned enough times by these insider journalism books whose only good parts become headlines within the first week and the rest is some random person's life story.

j_bum 2y ago
I listened to her interview on the Free Press, and to be totally honest, the way it was discussed does feel “gossipy.” [0] One thing that rubs me the wrong way is her decision to wait to share this information. When asked that by Weiss during the podcast, her response was effectively, “because AI is getting so powerful, and everyone should know what these companies are doing.” Don’t get me wrong - I believe what she claims to have happened, and I sympathize with her difficult experience at the company. But what she discussed doesn’t feel like it’s very substantive beyond what could already be deduced or observed. [0] https://www.thefp.com/p/meet-sarah-wynn-williams-facebooks https://www.thefp.com/p/meet-sarah-wynn-williams-facebooks
- taurath 2y ago
  It’s easier to be principled when you can afford to not have to find work anymore. People who publically criticize tech billionaires tend to not have an easy time with that. There’s no way to know, as someone who doesn’t know the writer, what her truest motivations are, but it’s probably a good bet that whatever she does she’ll never wield power and influence over the lives of so many people as Mark, who’s dedicated his life to extracting as many resources as he can for his personal empire.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  Assuming positive intent, many times the reason for a long wait is to allow NDAs to expire.
  - j_bum 2y ago
    Fair point. I didn’t hear her mention this in the podcast, but maybe she does in the book.
  - achrono 2y ago
    Some NDAs can effectively be life-long. (It's the non-solicits that are time-bound.)
    - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
      That’s true. Not all jurisdictions place maximum time limits on NDAs. The ones I’ve lived in do, and I personally won’t sign an NDA that doesn’t expire.
- finnthehuman 2y ago
  > But what she discussed doesn’t feel like it’s very substantive beyond what could already be deduced or observed. There is still value in having a primary source for it. Even if it's not news to you. Even on HN when you see an industry open-secret discussed, you'll occasionally have one sub-thread saying "you must be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to even suggest that" while another is the "everyone be knowing that already" sub-thread.
advisedwang 2y ago
Sure, but that doesn't mean Meta should be able to quash it.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"I've been burned enough times by these journalism books whose other good parts become headlines the first week and the rest is some random person's life story." This one also meets that description, to some extent. The author calls herself a "random New Zealander". Not sure what "burned" means. Maybe try libraries. This is not a "journalism book". The author is not a journalist and is not reporting on the "news of the day". It is an autobiography covering a period of the author's life. The author worked at Facebook as a lawyer focused on diplomacy from 2011. The recounted events concerning Facebook staff often involve multiple persons who are still alive and the facts could easily be corroborated. Alas, non-disparagement clauses may be an impediment. However, this HN submission, like others on the topic, is not about the book itself. It is about Meta's efforts to stop the book's promotion. Why try to stop its promotion. If privacy is dead according to Zuckerberg (2010)^1 then why is Meta concerned about this book. 1. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/01/10/10readwriteweb-facebooks-zuckerberg-says-the-age-of-privac-82963.html?source=post_page https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/external/readwri... Perhaps Meta wants to send a message to other terminated Meta employees who might also write books critical of their former employer. Zuckerberg is wrong of course. Privacy is not dead.^2 These days, Meta fights for its own privacy to the point of absurdity. 2. https://iapp.org/news/a/privacy-is-not-dead-its-powerful/ https://iapp.org/news/a/privacy-is-not-dead-its-powerful/ There appear to be some allegations of harassment and retaliation in this book by someone still working and recently promoted at Meta. Maybe this is why Meta is trying to stop the book's promotion. HN comments may focus on the quality of the book or the author but these HN story submissions are about Meta's attempt to stop promotion of the book, not the book itself.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by dmix 2y ago

j_bum 2y ago

I listened to her interview on the Free Press, and to be totally honest, the way it was discussed does feel “gossipy.” [0] One thing that rubs me the wrong way is her decision to wait to share this information. When asked that by Weiss during the podcast, her response was effectively, “because AI is getting so powerful, and everyone should know what these companies are doing.” Don’t get me wrong - I believe what she claims to have happened, and I sympathize with her difficult experience at the company. But what she discussed doesn’t feel like it’s very substantive beyond what could already be deduced or observed. [0] https://www.thefp.com/p/meet-sarah-wynn-williams-facebooks https://www.thefp.com/p/meet-sarah-wynn-williams-facebooks

taurath 2y ago
It’s easier to be principled when you can afford to not have to find work anymore. People who publically criticize tech billionaires tend to not have an easy time with that. There’s no way to know, as someone who doesn’t know the writer, what her truest motivations are, but it’s probably a good bet that whatever she does she’ll never wield power and influence over the lives of so many people as Mark, who’s dedicated his life to extracting as many resources as he can for his personal empire.
TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
Assuming positive intent, many times the reason for a long wait is to allow NDAs to expire.
- j_bum 2y ago
  Fair point. I didn’t hear her mention this in the podcast, but maybe she does in the book.
- achrono 2y ago
  Some NDAs can effectively be life-long. (It's the non-solicits that are time-bound.)
  - TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
    That’s true. Not all jurisdictions place maximum time limits on NDAs. The ones I’ve lived in do, and I personally won’t sign an NDA that doesn’t expire.
finnthehuman 2y ago
> But what she discussed doesn’t feel like it’s very substantive beyond what could already be deduced or observed. There is still value in having a primary source for it. Even if it's not news to you. Even on HN when you see an industry open-secret discussed, you'll occasionally have one sub-thread saying "you must be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to even suggest that" while another is the "everyone be knowing that already" sub-thread.

advisedwang 2y ago

Sure, but that doesn't mean Meta should be able to quash it.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"I've been burned enough times by these journalism books whose other good parts become headlines the first week and the rest is some random person's life story." This one also meets that description, to some extent. The author calls herself a "random New Zealander". Not sure what "burned" means. Maybe try libraries. This is not a "journalism book". The author is not a journalist and is not reporting on the "news of the day". It is an autobiography covering a period of the author's life. The author worked at Facebook as a lawyer focused on diplomacy from 2011. The recounted events concerning Facebook staff often involve multiple persons who are still alive and the facts could easily be corroborated. Alas, non-disparagement clauses may be an impediment. However, this HN submission, like others on the topic, is not about the book itself. It is about Meta's efforts to stop the book's promotion. Why try to stop its promotion. If privacy is dead according to Zuckerberg (2010)^1 then why is Meta concerned about this book. 1. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/01/10/10readwriteweb-facebooks-zuckerberg-says-the-age-of-privac-82963.html?source=post_page https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/external/readwri... Perhaps Meta wants to send a message to other terminated Meta employees who might also write books critical of their former employer. Zuckerberg is wrong of course. Privacy is not dead.^2 These days, Meta fights for its own privacy to the point of absurdity. 2. https://iapp.org/news/a/privacy-is-not-dead-its-powerful/ https://iapp.org/news/a/privacy-is-not-dead-its-powerful/ There appear to be some allegations of harassment and retaliation in this book by someone still working and recently promoted at Meta. Maybe this is why Meta is trying to stop the book's promotion. HN comments may focus on the quality of the book or the author but these HN story submissions are about Meta's attempt to stop promotion of the book, not the book itself.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]