16 ms·
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
by docdeek 1y ago
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.
- 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.
- ShroudedNight 1y agoIs this still true, post Defamation Act 2013?
- ljf 1y agoNo, truth is a defence now.
- varelse 1y ago[dead]
- bluecalm 1y agoSame in many EU countries. Poland and Germany are two examples. For example if someone robs you (or do worse things to you) and you call them out publicly you can be liable if you can't prove it happened. In practice the law defends the offenders. You can't speak up if you don't have a hard proof. I think it's ridiculous but so is a lot of civil law. Americans often don't appreciate how well they have it in comparison.
- 1y ago
- mextrezza 1y ago> Has yet to pay a cent to the company. Does that matter at all? They can destroy this whistleblower financially without ever having the "non-disparagement agreement" enforced.
- james_marks 1y agoIn the definition of bankruptcy, you don’t have to pay anything, just have your liability (debts) > assets (ability to pay). So No, it doesn’t matter if she’s paid it or not. Just being asked to pay in a way that is defensible in court, could make you bankrupt.
- dh2022 1y agoThis liability would most likely prevent Sarah from getting a new loan (for example to move away from it all). And in theory bankruptcy means not being able to fulfill existing liabilities-which Sarah is most likely not able to. But practically Meta probably wants Sarah to not publish the book. Sarah may get even more money from another deal with Meta :)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- loeg 1y agoSurely it matters as to whether or not the headline is accurate or misleading.
- mextrezza 1y agoi guess, but the headline IS accurate. The top-level comment is just spin, it doesn't point out anything that is misleading or inaccurate about the headline. It's pretty common for technical people (and corporate PR) to misunderstand how the machinery of the judicial system can be used and abused.
- CPLX 1y agoYou still don’t have to like it or go on message boards advocating on behalf of the company. There’s no principle saying that you have to be on the side of an organization being exposed for behavior that is horrible for society, just because they may have a legally sound argument in court. Laws and rules and courts are fully arbitrary and exist in search of justice. If the rules brought us to this place, of what use were the rules?
- 2muchcoffeeman 1y agoI have not read the book. But this line of argument doesn’t always hold with me. At some point, the behaviour of a company or person could be so heinous, that no amount of voluntary signing of an agreement should prevent you from exposing them.
- Dumblydorr 1y agoParent comment cares more about Zuckerberg’s lawyers’ paperwork than calling out a terrible company for its terrible actions. Maybe if we play nice those lawyers could help Zuck buy another Hawaiian island?
- dh2022 1y agoCry me a river. The person who wants to get rich here is Sarah. If she was motivated by exposing some dirty laundry inside Meta she could have started a blog or podcast. But she went for the book deal.
- Dumblydorr 1y agoCongrats empowering billionaires, great stance to take in our oligarchy
- JKCalhoun 1y agoIs it even legal? Like, can I sign away my 1st Amendment rights? I mean, I'm sure a corporate lawyer thinks so.
- simonh 1y agoThe 1st amendment is about what laws the government can or cannot pass restricting your rights. It doesn’t say anything about what rights you can choose to give up by entering into a contract. There may be other laws governing the validity of such contracts though.
- mminer237 1y agoThe freedom of contract is pretty fundamental. The entire point of a contract is to force you to do something it's your right not to do or to not do something you have the right to do.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago"voluntarily" is doing a lot of work there. I don't disagree with the facts here, but I do with this particular qualifier which implies a level of willingness to sign away rights was something that she (or anyone in that position) wanted. She was likely very strongly pressured to sign it with various threats and consequences if she didn't. So she did sign it, but lets not pretend her choices at that moment were many and/or equal when faced with the law team of a trillion dollar company.
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoI don’t really feel bad for the author. Most of these separation agreements - especially at higher levels - are generous golden parachutes with the stipulation that you don’t do damaging things like working for a competitor (while on garden leave) or disparage the company. I am not aware of their separation agreement being published, but you have to be a special type of stupid to work for Facebook as an exec, get a $500k advance on a book you wrote about Meta, and then go bankrupt. From the limited information I have I can see why Facebook fired her.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoYou don’t need to feel bad for the author. You need to feel afraid for the ability for a corporation to so easily get you to surrender your own fundamental rights. It’s not a coincidence you rarely hear stories like this in Scandinavian or even broader European countries because they have basic safety nets that mean you don’t need to sign away your rights in order to just live peacefully.
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoFacebook execs need safety nets now? I am all for safety nets, and I actually live in a country with stronger safety nets than the USA, but I still don’t feel sorry for the author who basically has had every card to be extremely wealthy and squandered it. Also realize that it isn’t private companies job to fix the broken social system in the USA, usually separation agreements for high paid employees offer severance well above and beyond the legal requirements (I have seen 3 months to a year including accelerated vesting in some cases), and a condition of accepting those benefits above and beyond the laws is you don’t disparage your employer. If you don’t accept the agreement you get the bare minimum according to the laws but you are then not bound to the disparage clauses.
- Fraterkes 1y ago[flagged]
- RobotToaster 1y agoSuch gagging orders should be illegal, they only serve to hide corporate malfeasance.
- Ekaros 1y agoAnd on other hand any bribes that is payments attached to such contracts should as well.
- dh2022 1y agoReporting crimes is protected by law: see the whistleblower act. What is being hidden here is some dirty laundry.
- martin-t 1y agoNot all immoral, abusive and exploitative acts are illegal. In fact, most are not, because companies have whole legal departments dedicated to figuring out just how they can exploit the system and other people without getting punished legally.
- nilamo 1y ago...which should also be totally ok? It's a company, not a person, it shouldn't have any kind of protections except for libel/slander. If the laundry is dirty, it should be aired. No one is better off for hiding it, many people are worse for hiding it. And a real person, saying real(true) things about an unreal(corporation) person, should always be ok.
- RobotToaster 1y agoWhich is why I used the term malfeasance, which covers acts that aren't illegal but still immoral or otherwise against the public interest.
- jackmottatx 1y ago[dead]
- jagged-chisel 1y agoIs it “disparagement” if it’s a list of facts? I’m not saying hers is a list of facts, I’m only asking the question.
- hliyan 1y agoShould a private contract that requires a citizen to sign away a fundamental right (the right to say something that is not confidential, is objectively true and does not incite violence) be enforceable? Not sure if all three conditions apply here though.
- twoodfin 1y agoShe wasn’t required. She had the agency to choose not to sign it.
- hliyan 1y agoConsider that you have no agency if a gun is pointed at you, and that you do have agency if the gun is a water pistol. In your mind, does everything in between exist in a spectrum, or do they fall into one of the two buckets into which the above two scenarios fell? I.e. is your conception of agency binary or continuous?
- JKCalhoun 1y agoI don't think that matters in terms of whether it is even enforceable. I could sign a document allowing management to take my first born son but them doing so is not legal. "But he signed it!"
- MangoToupe 1y agoFrankly, who gives a damn about the motivations? This is clearly in the public's best interest to know, and nobody deserves to be bankrupted over that.
- varelse 1y ago[dead]
- JKCalhoun 1y agoYeah, sounds like "non-disparagement agreements" are kind of bullshit.
- dh2022 1y agoThanks for the trouble to read the article and to give a summary. I avoid reading The Guardian on principle.
- ninalanyon 1y agoI'm curious, what principle might that be?
- marstall 1y agoread the book. her allegations are important and she's a brave woman. Low point: zuckerberg pressuring the author, while she is suffering from late pregnancy complications, to travel to Myanmar with a callow sales pitch for their dictators. Following which they failed to appoint a native-language speaker to monitor usage in the country, while facebook became a very clear vector for racially motivated violence. Another low point: MZ working with communist party chiefs to engineer a "chinese" version of facebook where the government could see all citizens' private information at will. She REALLY stuck her neck out for millions/billions of people's basic rights. The fact that she is facing bankruptcy for it just makes her that much more of a badass.
- basisword 1y agoShe is almost as bad as the people she writes about unfortunately. She enabled the Facebook machine and even when she saw highly unethical things she wouldn't leave because she didn't want to miss out on her unvested stock. She wasn't some lowly employee getting coerced into taking actions she didn't agree with - she was a highly ranked exec flying on private jets with Zuck because she wanted the money. She could have taken another high ranked tech job at any time. Instead she put her life and unborn child's life at risk multiple times. For the money.
- santadays 1y agoI think this is the wrong take. I don’t agree that people are good or bad, I think actions are, and there are lots of reasons and motivations a person can end up enabling a bad situation, some of those motivations can even at the time be justified. I do believe Meta is very bad for the world and has way too much power. Anything that can get people to open their eyes to this is important. Dividing those that are trying isn’t helping.
- marstall 1y agoall pretty much true - but she wrote this book, which goes a fair way to redeem her in my view. also, she tended to at least try to temper the worst tendencies of the executive team.
- dbg31415 1y agoThere should be no such thing as a non-disparagement clause. It's a gag, pure and simple. You should always be able to tell your own story -- what you lived through, what you lost, who failed you. But these clauses are everywhere now, slipped into contracts and settlements, letting corporations bury their mistakes and keep the next person in line from knowing what's coming. I learned this the hard way. I grew up believing USAA was the gold standard of insurance. My grandfather used to say, "I won't always be around, but USAA will always have your back." So when my house flooded, I trusted them. They assigned me a contractor and promised -- in writing, on their website (it's still there: https://www.usaa.com/perks/home-solutions/contractor/ https://www.usaa.com/perks/home-solutions/contractor/) -- that I'd get a five-year workmanship warranty on the repairs. What I got was a disaster. Their contractor turned my house into a construction horror show. They cracked my foundation slab by drilling into it to move a drain -- cutting tension cables in the process. They killed two huge front-yard trees by dumping chemicals on them. They didn't scrape off the old glue before laying new flooring, so the planks bent and shifted underfoot. They painted latex over oil, so the paint peeled off in sheets. They tiled the bathroom directly onto the subfloor with no moisture barrier, ignored termite damage behind the walls, dropped and damaged new appliances -- cook top and oven were both damaged. Since they used multiple sub-contractors, their crews even the new cabinets they installed were cracked and chipped in over a dozen places. They stole everything from my garage -- even stole the ice cube maker from my fridge! It got worse. They cracked the gas line and left it leaking (I had to call the fire department). They installed two sinks with the hot and cold lines reversed. Messed up all of my GCFI outlets, and they left the entire upstairs without electricity and without working outlets at all. They even covered electrical outlets with drywall instead of cutting openings where the plugs had been. Every corner I turned revealed something new, often dangerous -- and I documented it all with photos, videos, emails, and texts. I thought having a paper trail meant I was safe. When I complained, we went into mediation. The contractor -- a steam-cleaning company that had only recently started doing restoration work -- admitted they'd screwed up. One of their managers even wrote, "Look, the situation at your house is unfortunate. We hired subcontractors we thought we could trust, but clearly we didn't supervise them correctly. This isn't how we normally operate, but we'll make this right." We built a punch list of fixes. They agreed to pay my living expenses while I was displaced. Then they vanished. No crews. No repairs. No communication. No reimbursement. I kept sending receipts -- just like we agreed -- and got nothing. USAA went quiet too. Three months later, someone at USAA finally said, "Look, I can't help you, but why haven't you hired a lawyer yet?" I said, "Because I trusted you." After a year of silence, USAA's mediation team -- who had never set foot in my house and were based in another state -- emailed me: "Your house had issues no contractor could have foreseen," they said. The work, while clearly bad, was apparently "about what you could expect from the average contractor in Austin right now." They knocked $2,000 off the bill. I had to spend $80,000 fixing the foundation slab alone. (All told, I've spent over $300k repairing my house to date, and there's still more to do... just for context, I only paid $275k for my house in 2010...) And here's what I didn't know: the "mediation" wasn't neutral. It was run through Contractor Connection -- a company that exists to serve insurance carriers. I was never really their customer. USAA was. Any pressure to do the right thing had to come from USAA -- and USAA simply didn't care. So I finally hired a lawyer. Expensive. Slow. A year later, we finally had our "day in court." Except it wasn't court -- there's no public record, no evidence allowed (meaning my entire photo slide deck showing all the issues wasn't even looked at!), no jury of sane peers who could see this from a human angle. Just arbitration with a "neutral" retired judge who had spent the past two years doing nothing but USAA cases. (Think she'd have had that job for two years if she ever ruled against the insurance company?) At one point she said, "We have to give the benefit of the doubt to these hard-working contractors who came to aid you in your hour of need. If we don't protect them, they won't be there when others need them." You can imagine how her ruling went. (Another thing everyone should know about Texas before moving here: there are no "Licensed Contractors." So even though I had a professional inspection outlining all the issues, when it came time to present it, I said, "It's clear a professional didn't do this work." And the contractor's lawyer was able to shamelessly say, "Nowhere in the contract does it say a professional would do the work." So shady.) The contractor wanted me to pay their legal fees. Pay for the full amount of the repairs -- wouldn't even tell me what the insurance company had agreed to pay, but claimed the value of their work was three times higher than any number I had seen until that point. It still bothers me that they were allowed to just make up a number -- and all the written emails and texts saying they'd make things right, pay my living expenses, were just ignored. But what killed my will to fight... mid-way through, my lawyer told me that if I wanted to proceed to trial, I'd need a $250,000 retainer up front -- and it would drag on for two or three more years. And I wouldn't be allowed to fix or move back into my house until it was done because they would need the house as evidence. By then I was exhausted, broke, and just wanted it over. Ten hours into a marathon arbitration session -- literally as the building's janitorial staff was locking doors -- I agreed to a deal to just make all this stop. We'd all just walk away. I'd keep the house in the state it was, we'd never have to go through mediation again or do another blue-tape walk-through, but they weren't paying for anything -- not even the expenses they'd already agreed to pay, certainly not the damages to my house. At the end my lawyer pointed me to a DocuSign field and said, "Sign here." After I said, "Well, at least I can warn other people with a brutal Yelp review," my lawyer said: "No, you can't. You signed a non-disparagement clause." At no point was this talked about before I signed it. When I asked, "Why didn't you tell me?" my lawyer just said, "Oh, these are really standard..." And apparently, she didn't think it was worth bringing up because another one had already been in the original contract I signed while standing in two inches of water in my living room. Looking back, it feels like they knew from the start they weren't going to deliver quality work -- and they wanted to make sure anyone who went through mediation could never speak publicly about it again. (Technically it doesn't cover USAA, but calling them "independent" is like calling a husband and wife independent -- legally separate maybe, but joined at the hip in every way that matters.) That's the real power of these clauses: they don't just close your case, they erase it. They wipe away the evidence, silence the people who lived it, and make sure the next homeowner walks into the same trap with no warning. And there's a power dynamic. They've done this a hundred times. They show up with the contract they want. You're acting in the moment, often stressed or panicked. You think you're just signing to pay them -- but really, you're signing to let them off the hook for any damages, and do things in the shadiest way they can do them. And no matter what they say or do after that, the only thing that matters is the original contract. So I can't name the contractor in Austin. But I can tell you it was USAA's contractor. And everything I went through was part of a process that USAA designed. =P Insurance companies aren't there to help you. They're there to protect their balance sheet. If you get crushed in the process, that's acceptable collateral damage. They don't care about making you whole -- only about checking boxes in a process designed to minimize payouts and keep the stock price climbing. And non-disparagement clauses? They're how corporations make sure no one ever finds out -- so they can keep getting away with it.
- SilverElfin 1y agoNon-disparagement agreements should be made illegal. It significantly reduces the chance that people can bring criminal actions to justice due to fear of lawsuits. But also, it just doesn't align with American society, where free speech is the most important and foundational value.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ponector 1y ago>>> Woman voluntarily signs non-disparagement agreenment with $50K penalty for each breach Like innocent people voluntarily sign guilty plea to end the torture. There was a story about people agreed to plea guilty for shaken baby syndrome.
- tomhow 1y agoWe adjusted the title, thanks.
- alextingle 1y agoDoes it count as "disparagement" if it's true?