4 ms·

In all seriousness (aside from all the comments stating they'd ordered it. Hey, I just did myself), it's interesting seeing Meta go after the employee but seemi

by bryant 2y ago

In all seriousness (aside from all the comments stating they'd ordered it. Hey, I just did myself), it's interesting seeing Meta go after the employee but seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher. What would they hope to gain going after any of it so late anyway? Surely if their goal is to dissuade others from publishing tell-alls, the resulting publicity from their suits against this one would do the opposite? If they really wanted to stop the book, they should've gone after it early before publication, but it seems like they dropped the ball and are doing more damage to themselves trying to catch up.

infecto 2y ago
In my mind its one of those events that is hard to know the exact motives. Could be as simple as enforcing the standard of their contracts or as extreme as actual retribution.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Why consume resources? Retribution.
  - infecto 2y ago
    That simply fits your desire/narrative. There is no way to know without being an insider.
    - datavirtue 2y ago
      I'm almost 50 years old. I know how shit works.
blitzar 2y ago
Publishers have high priced lawyers on retainer (who will copy and paste the same winning brief they have served anytime they have been challenged before) - individuals are resource constrained.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  Bingo. Authors are easier to bully into submission.
  - epoxy_sauce 2y ago
    They are defending the author in this case though. Im sure they bully authors plenty too, but I'm pretty sure they keep some around for allegations of libel and other complications where they have the authors back.
- delichon 2y ago
  You don't need an expensive lawyer to point out that the publisher is not covered by the arbitration agreement, a cheap one will do.
  - epgui 2y ago
    The bullying is not possible because the argument made is weaker, bullying is possible because the argument is made by a party with fewer resources.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  I suspect the actual issue is that the publisher is not a party to whatever contract there exists between the author and Meta. Unfortunately for free speech, it is no longer the case (if it ever was) that publishers have strong financial resources compared to an increasing number of those who want to hide things.
ghaff 2y ago
Yeah, even if the author wanted to, I doubt they could pull it back at this point.
zombot 2y ago
Maybe they want to see the Streisand Effect in action?
tbrownaw 2y ago
> it's interesting seeing Meta go after the employee but seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher. Why? As The Fine Article points out, the publisher wasn't party to the agreement they're trying to enforce.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  Exactly. The employee entered into an agreement with Meta, then broke the contractual agreement with this book. This is the purpose of those agreements. Meta has no such agreement with the publisher. You can argue about the merits of such agreement separately, but there isn’t any mystery in this situation. Employee entered into an agreement with Meta and then broke the agreement. Meta is pursuing the terms of the agreement.
  - nolamark 2y ago
    Facebook got a Interim award. The former employee was not present at the emergency arbitration hearing. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Arbitration-Interim-Award.pdf https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Arbitration-... Seems like she, personally, has been spared the need to go out and promote the book, the only thing Facebook seems to have gotten out of the arbitration. In return they provided far more promotion than her appearing on podcasts would have done. IANAL, and would really like to read some legal commentary of what Facebook thought they were going to achieve. As far as I can tell they have a pretty hollow victory. Even if they were somehow able to stop her from receiving royalties, it seems like Macmillan could pay her sideway with a contract and advance on her next book, her story of Facebook trying to silence her. Once again, IANAL, desperately want to read multi page thoughts from one on the Facebook strategy. Yes, I bought the book and am enjoying it immensely. It has a nice fun irreverent sense of humor.
voxic11 2y ago
Contracts only bind the people who are party to them, so they couldn't go after the publisher on the same grounds. And there is a lot of case law around suing publishers so they probably know they would lose a lawsuit on other grounds (and maybe get an anti-slap ruling against them which could cost a lot of money). One thing I don't understand though is I thought arbitration could only award monetary relief? I didn't realize that they could issue injunctions like this which I thought constituted an equitable remedy.
ajross 2y ago
> seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher. That's a much, much harder case to make. Wynn-Williams can be reasonably held to be bound by the terms of her severance agreement and whatever NDA was part of it. The publisher is allowed to print whatever they want as long as they don't knowingly defame someone. What might happen in the longer term is Meta suing the author (this case here is just an arbitration ruling) for proceeds from the book sales. NDAs have a hard time constraining speech, but they can absolutely constrain your ability to make money from speech. But again that's going to depend on the specific contract.

by bryant 2y ago

infecto 2y ago

In my mind its one of those events that is hard to know the exact motives. Could be as simple as enforcing the standard of their contracts or as extreme as actual retribution.

datavirtue 2y ago
Why consume resources? Retribution.
- infecto 2y ago
  That simply fits your desire/narrative. There is no way to know without being an insider.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    I'm almost 50 years old. I know how shit works.

blitzar 2y ago

Publishers have high priced lawyers on retainer (who will copy and paste the same winning brief they have served anytime they have been challenged before) - individuals are resource constrained.

cosmic_cheese 2y ago
Bingo. Authors are easier to bully into submission.
- epoxy_sauce 2y ago
  They are defending the author in this case though. Im sure they bully authors plenty too, but I'm pretty sure they keep some around for allegations of libel and other complications where they have the authors back.
delichon 2y ago
You don't need an expensive lawyer to point out that the publisher is not covered by the arbitration agreement, a cheap one will do.
- epgui 2y ago
  The bullying is not possible because the argument made is weaker, bullying is possible because the argument is made by a party with fewer resources.
mannykannot 2y ago
I suspect the actual issue is that the publisher is not a party to whatever contract there exists between the author and Meta. Unfortunately for free speech, it is no longer the case (if it ever was) that publishers have strong financial resources compared to an increasing number of those who want to hide things.

ghaff 2y ago

Yeah, even if the author wanted to, I doubt they could pull it back at this point.

zombot 2y ago

Maybe they want to see the Streisand Effect in action?

tbrownaw 2y ago

> it's interesting seeing Meta go after the employee but seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher. Why? As The Fine Article points out, the publisher wasn't party to the agreement they're trying to enforce.

Aurornis 2y ago
Exactly. The employee entered into an agreement with Meta, then broke the contractual agreement with this book. This is the purpose of those agreements. Meta has no such agreement with the publisher. You can argue about the merits of such agreement separately, but there isn’t any mystery in this situation. Employee entered into an agreement with Meta and then broke the agreement. Meta is pursuing the terms of the agreement.
- nolamark 2y ago
  Facebook got a Interim award. The former employee was not present at the emergency arbitration hearing. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Arbitration-Interim-Award.pdf https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Arbitration-... Seems like she, personally, has been spared the need to go out and promote the book, the only thing Facebook seems to have gotten out of the arbitration. In return they provided far more promotion than her appearing on podcasts would have done. IANAL, and would really like to read some legal commentary of what Facebook thought they were going to achieve. As far as I can tell they have a pretty hollow victory. Even if they were somehow able to stop her from receiving royalties, it seems like Macmillan could pay her sideway with a contract and advance on her next book, her story of Facebook trying to silence her. Once again, IANAL, desperately want to read multi page thoughts from one on the Facebook strategy. Yes, I bought the book and am enjoying it immensely. It has a nice fun irreverent sense of humor.

voxic11 2y ago

Contracts only bind the people who are party to them, so they couldn't go after the publisher on the same grounds. And there is a lot of case law around suing publishers so they probably know they would lose a lawsuit on other grounds (and maybe get an anti-slap ruling against them which could cost a lot of money). One thing I don't understand though is I thought arbitration could only award monetary relief? I didn't realize that they could issue injunctions like this which I thought constituted an equitable remedy.

ajross 2y ago

> seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher. That's a much, much harder case to make. Wynn-Williams can be reasonably held to be bound by the terms of her severance agreement and whatever NDA was part of it. The publisher is allowed to print whatever they want as long as they don't knowingly defame someone. What might happen in the longer term is Meta suing the author (this case here is just an arbitration ruling) for proceeds from the book sales. NDAs have a hard time constraining speech, but they can absolutely constrain your ability to make money from speech. But again that's going to depend on the specific contract.