13 ms·
Meta exposé author faces $50k fine per breach of non-disparagement agreement
- cap11235 1y ago> on the verge of bankruptcy > Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement. Unless the reporter and MP are willing to show that Meta is lying about that (which presumably can be easily shown by the book's author producing communications), looks like they are trying to imply causation by the framing of the article.
- KaiserPro 1y agoIf you have a pending bill that is greater than your liquid assets, then you are on the verge of bankruptcy. > Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement. which is not the same as "Wynn-Williams" is not liable for any damages. Meta is not going to let someone public claim that meta can make them bankrupt, if it wasn't true. Its bad PR. Its clear that meta has the power to claim breech of contract, but they are choosing _not_ to at this time. I assume in order to force a stop of book being sold.
- docdeek 1y agoThe 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.
- Quarrel 1y agoWhich is perhaps also why: > An MP has claimed in parliament that Mark Zuckerberg’s company was trying to “silence and punish” Sarah Wynn-Williams By doing so in parliament they have immunity (presumably the worry would be defamation) for pushing this, true or false. I'm not much of a Meta fan, but there seems to be less to this story every paragraph you read of the article.
- zelphirkalt 1y agoI wonder, is stating the truth qualifying as "disparaging"? According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparaging https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disparaging: > meant to belittle the value or importance of someone or something : serving or intended to disparage someone or something Maybe it is not meant to belittle, but merely uncovering the truth. Who is to know, what her intention was, when releasing a book? I guess one would have to read that book and check how she formulated things, to know, whether it is intentionally belittling the "value" of Meta. Also, subjectively speaking: How does one belittle the value of something that already has net negative value for society? Maybe the waters are a little bit murky there. But anyway, this goes to show, how these companies consume your soul. Trying to prevent you from ever revealing the truth about them and their illegal activities.
- rwmj 1y agoNon-disparagement clauses (common for executives) are clauses found in contracts that just state you can't say anything bad about the company, doesn't matter if it's true or not. Some examples here: https://contracts.justia.com/contract-clauses/non-disparagement/ https://contracts.justia.com/contract-clauses/non-disparagem... I think it's a case where the law should simply say such clauses are not enforcible.
- mystraline 1y agoIn the UK, even the truth isn't a sufficient defense for libel or slander. The fact that you can't speak the 100% truth, and not get sued there is quite disgusting. The truth should always be permitted speech.
- Lio 1y ago> Meta has described the book as a “mix of out-of-date and previously reported claims about the company...” Sounds like another way of saying stuff they acknowledge is true. :P
- pfortuny 1y ago-Mom, yesterday my brother hit me! -Out of date and previously reported, bro.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Aurornis 1y agoIt’s not really wrong, though. The book wasn’t an “explosive” reveal like all of these news articles say. It was mostly a bland rehashing of old news combined with some weird office hearsay that felt like forced gossip about the company, not an actual first-hand whistleblower reveal. It also took a lot of little things and tried to make them sound like a really big deal, like how Meta spent money on measures to reduce Zuckerberg’s exposure to COVID. I guess these things sound bad to people who dislike CEOs, but it’s in any big company’s interest to take extra precautions to prevent their CEO from getting sick. I think the “whistleblower” designation falls flat because there wasn’t really any whistleblowing in the book as far as I can tell. It was a disgruntled fired employee trying to mix up old news stories with some gossip and sell it for personal gain. In general, the “whistleblowers” who write books and sell them to the public are very different than real whistleblowers who take evidence to the government or journalists. This person was firmly in the former group. I don’t agree with the excessive restrictions the government there is putting on her. Sadly seems like par for the course for speech over there right now.
- KaiserPro 1y ago> measures to reduce Zuckerberg’s exposure to COVID. Zika virus. This was before Covid. > It was mostly a bland rehashing of old news combined with some weird office hearsay Which is very much 1st amendment (yes I know private company etc. etc.). But it wasn't bland, it was actually quite engaging. I get that you don't like her, but I don't think that its a good thing that a large company who values "freedom of expression" and trumpeted its unvarnished support for freedom of speech is trying to bankrupt an _author_. Its not like there are industrial secrets there either.
- firesteelrain 1y ago“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.
- Forgeties79 1y ago$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.
- firesteelrain 1y ago> I think it’s fair of me to say that maybe we shouldn’t downplay her situation. Right - if she had actually gone through the PIDA channels, the courts might treat it differently. But skipping straight to a $500k advance and a commercial book makes it harder to see this as whistleblowing. Truth or not, it looks less like a principled disclosure and more like monetizing criticism of Meta.
- Forgeties79 1y agoPeople have to make a living, that’s capitalism for you. You expect her to spend years on this and just release it for free? Then pay her rent and stock her fridge for her. There is nothing wrong with making money writing a tell-all so far as the work is rigorous and truthful. Attacking her for profiting is a cheap way to discredit her without having to assess the merits of her work. Yes it’s valid to critique the source and see where funding is coming from, that’s important information, but discrediting someone out the gate for making money on something is simply lazy and requires no critical assessment at all.
- qoez 1y agoNever been better streisand effect making me want to read a book
- maximinus_thrax 1y agoThis is exactly the reason I read it. I also bought the hardcover just in case Facebook manages to get it pulled off digital marketplaces. It's a good book, everyone should read it.
- aix1 1y agoI just finished the audiobook. Didn't have any particular expectations but couldn't put it down (so to speak). The audiobook is narrated by the author, which adds an extra dimension to the story. Would highly recommend.
- gherkinnn 1y agoI stopped listening half way. The writing was tedious and Meta too revolting. Would recommend anyway.
- ethagnawl 1y agoIt's a "great" read. However bad you assume their behavior was, it was (probably) so much worse. The executive suite was full of creeps and their inability to do any substantive moderation in Myanmar was horrifically negligent.
- lynndotpy 1y agoI read it and also highly recommend it. Knowing the book ends in 2017, the whole thing has something of a "Monster at the End of This Book" effect with both Trump and Myanmar.
- z3c0 1y agoJust purchased it. I never would have read it otherwise.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
- shrubby 1y agoToo big to care, just like Sarah stated in the book. Meta and the likes don't need to care anymore.
- vvpan 1y agoNon-competes are being challenged and will be history soon and hopefully so will non-disperagement clauses. Those are just coercive anti-freedom practices.
- Tostino 1y agoYou think that will happen with this administration?
- vvpan 1y agoThere are certainly headwinds but it could be state laws too. If California passes something - that would be big. But in general culture heads in a certain direction and reactionaries are just a bump in the road or so I prefer to think.
- bigmadshoe 1y agoWhat do you mean? Non-competes have been unenforceable in California for a long time and are entirely banned as of 2024.
- vvpan 1y agoI mean in general these types of restrictive laws but non-disperagement specifically. I did hear about the non-compete.
- bigmadshoe 1y agoAh that makes sense. It will be interesting to see how those play out.
- lovich 1y agoI 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? [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-administration-drops-defense-ban-employee-noncompete-agreements-2025-09-06/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-administratio...
- doublerabbit 1y agoWhat's the point in whistle blowing when you can't blow the whistle? I've always called bullshit to those whistle blowing hotlines. Who's really going to go after a mega corp-entity when they do $bad? "Whistle Blower" is like an oxymoron to that the likes of "Friendly Fire".
- dh2022 1y agoBecause whatever Sarah reports in that book is probably not an actual crime. Look up Whistleblowers act for reference.
- jaccola 1y ago[flagged]
- talkingtab 1y agoMeta 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.
- hliyan 1y agoI recently heard a US journalist/author named Chris Hedges say something to the effect that the US has the symbols, the iconography and the language of a democracy, but internally, corporates and oligarchs have seized all the levers of power, and that it is reminiscent of the end of the Roman Empire. He also went onto distinguish between corporates and oligarchs, claiming that the two political camps in the US actually represent these two sides (rather than democracy vs. facism or socialism).
- imiric 1y agoIsn't that obvious? When corporations can lobby to influence legislation, pay to get a candidate elected, and CEOs hold positions of power, including the presidency itself, any semblance of democracy is an illusion.
- koakuma-chan 1y agoAnd why would "corporate" and "oligarchs" fight? Can the same person not be a "corporate" and an oligarch at the same time?
- mapt 1y agoAnother way of looking at this would be in terms of the millionaire managerial and professional class holding up the Democratic Party versus the interests of the billionaire aristocratic and executive class holding up the Republican Party. The billionaires are far less numerous, have far better ability to coordinate and summon resources, and have interests that diverge farther from the thousandaires who actually do most of the voting, compared to the millionaires.
- onetokeoverthe 1y ago[dead]
- nextworddev 1y agoJust ordered the book. Streisand effect in full force
- calibas 1y agoI 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.
- somelamer567 1y agoI had suspended judgement about Meta in the past; but every revelation in their media about their toxic behaviour makes me thankful I never seriously considering taking a job with them. The clincher was when a colleague I worked with in a previous job joined Meta, and went from a fun and interesting person, to creepy and weird. As if he has joined a cult. Then a family member did the same -- the effect was subtle... their political opinions turned distinctly sinister -- like they'd downloaded the inherently un-egalitarian, anti-Western and anti-progress ideology of the founder into their own heads. I've seen the same cult-like effect of Amazon on people. Literally 'selling' the idea of Jeff Bezos, and flogging his book like their company were some kind of dark techno Amway. The FAANGs are NOT nice people, and I want nothing to do with them.
- whycombinetor 1y agoRule 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.
- skeeter2020 1y agoThis 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.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- subroutine 1y agoIf the severance is significant, it's because they are making a deal with you, not because they are being nice. Option 1: take the severance package/non-disparagement agreement and decline the $500k book deal focused on disparaging facebook Option 2: decline the severance and take the $500k book deal.
- loeg 1y agoYou 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.
- KaiserPro 1y ago> pretty easy to avoid for most former employees. Actually its not. its just facebook doesn't enforce it. There is a difference between leaving voluntarily, and being given n months wage. The agreement _must_ be kept secret from everyone apart from your designated spouse and legal representative. The only thing you are allowed to talk about in relation to meta is that you worked for them, and the dates. You cannot, using any written or recorded medium give an opinion about meta, its products, employees past and present, positive or otherwise, without prior written agreement. In return facebook promises not to disparage you, and pays a peppercorn to guarantee that. the only difference between the pleb agreements and hers is that pleb agreements are only liable for the money that they paid you, (ie 3-9 months wage, but that could also be country agreement) So everyone of those 40k employees that have been fired in the last 2 years will have been "offered" one of those contracts.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- martin-t 1y agoCrazy 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.
- Simon_O_Rourke 1y agoSo 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?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- theGnuMe 1y agoShe'd probably have to appeal arbitration but I think this all could be overturned based on California labor laws.
- taormina 1y agoIANAL, 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.
- asveikau 1y agoI 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.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- aklemm 1y agoWell 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.
- paulcole 1y agoThis book is terrible. Meta execs don’t come off looking that bad and the author comes across as sour grapes.
- gazpachotron 1y agoOffering a contrasting opinion: I enjoyed the book, and I don't think the author comes off as "sour grapes" at all. Instead, she joined Facebook out of an unwarranted and frankly silly idealism that FB could be a transformational force for good in the world. Even she admits this in the book. However, Meta execs came off far worse in this book than they already seemed, and that's saying a lot. Mark's indifference to Meta's impact on elections was horrifying to read about. And the chapter "Lean In and Lie Back" put a deeply disturbing bow on all the awfulness about Sheryl Sandberg.
- kats 1y agoThere's that section about how Meta executives got drunk on an airplane. And the only thing that happens is they sing karaoke. There's nothing inappropriate. They're a bunch of boring nerds.
- paulcole 1y agoYeah that was essentially my takeaway as well. The author thought the people she was working for were Really Special People and that by extension she was a Really Special Person. She gets very upset when she sees that are just Ordinary People and that by extension she is just an Ordinary Person as well. And how could she be just an Ordinary Person and so sad/stressed at the same time?
- ivraatiems 1y agoI'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.
- smsm42 1y agoOr 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.
- ivraatiems 1y agoYeah, to be clear, I think that is just as likely but she isn't comfortable saying that in a book where she is the protagonist. "I did this willingly and now realize it was awful" would have been much more noble than "oh, lol, i didn't know they sucked, woopsie", but she mostly went with the latter.
- godelski 1y ago> 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.
- smsm42 1y agoOne 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.