7 ms·

“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.

“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 ago
    People 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.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Fair point, but the issue isn’t that she got paid. It’s that the reporting frames her as bankrupt martyr while burying the half-million advance. Making money on a book is fine, but when you sell it as whistleblowing rather than commerce, readers deserve to know the financial context up front.
      - Retric 1y ago
        There’s often significant payouts associated with whistleblowing because it’s so financially risky. The SEC has paid people way more than 500k and it’s not uncommon for those people to regret it. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-program https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-pro...
      - Forgeties79 1y ago
        > Fair point, but the issue isn’t that she got paid. Then we shouldn’t assert that it matters. I’m glad we agreed ultimately it doesn’t, but I just want to be very clear there. The half-million advance does not mean she can’t be going bankrupt. As I said, it’s not exactly lottery money, especially when 10% of that is at risk for every offense she’s up for, and she is struggling to get the rest of her money the book would net because of their blocking it. You’re ignoring a ton of context and overstating how much 500k should solve her financial woes. Also, it’s not “buried,” it’s in the article clear as day. You just think it should be the first thing stated. Frankly I’m not sure what your aim is here. You’re being wildly charitable to Facebook here, whereas I would think we should start on her side until we see reason not to be.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        > Frankly I’m not sure what your aim is here I get what you’re saying, but my point is different. It’s not about rooting for Meta, it’s about how every story gets framed as righteous activism. After a while it feels performative more than principled. I don’t think noticing that makes me “pro-Facebook,” it just means I’m tired of the constant activist spin that leaves out key context.
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    what actual change did sophie zhang manage to effect by doing it "properly"? She was still dismissed and ignored.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      True, Zhang was dismissed and ignored inside Facebook. But by going through the internal and external disclosure channels she left a paper trail that regulators, journalists, and researchers could use. It didn’t fix Meta, but it gave her work legitimacy and fed into hearings and reporting. That’s different from skipping straight to a commercial book deal.
      - KaiserPro 1y ago
        > True, Zhang was dismissed and ignored inside Facebook. Zhang wasn't ignored. She made a huge fucking impact internally. The problem is the department that she was trying to affect change is run by a bastard.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        If the end result is nothing changes, arguing about whether she was ignored or stonewalled feels academic.
boomboomsubban 1y ago
I assume a hefty chunk of that has gone towards court costs for the fight to publish the book.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  With $500k advance, she has 10 free times to do it.
  - boomboomsubban 1y ago
    That's not how legal fees work. Hiring lawyers to oppose Facebook and allow your book to be published is expensive, and currently she seems to be losing the fight.
cm2012 1y ago
I came to the comments to find the caveat. Thank you!
- alisonatwork 1y ago
  It's literally a quote from the article, though?
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    The point is the article is burying the lede rather than upfront framing it in a different manner. It is easy to miss. Edit: I am responding to the critique of a different person. I did read the article.
    - Klonoar 1y ago
      You can just admit you didn’t read the article.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        I wasn’t the GP
      - dh2022 1y ago
        I proudly admit I do not read the Guardian on principle.
        parados 1y ago
        Would you care to share those principles?
        dh2022 1y ago
        Wrapping a tiny bit of truth in innuendoes and click-bait titles with anti-corporate bent. Like for example this article. Free press and all, I guess.
jordanb 1y ago
That would be the minimum you'd need to even get the retainer paid to fight the SLAPP you're guaranteed to get from one of the most powerful and vindictive companies on earth
Hizonner 1y ago
Honestly, I don't care if it made her richer than Zuckerberg and her only reason to do it was unrelated personal spite. It's contrary to public interest, and should be illegal, to bind anybody not to disclose truthful information about how a corporation operates. Full stop.
- dh2022 1y ago
  Reporting crimes is protected by law. See the whistleblower act.
  - martin-t 1y ago
    Not all anti-social behavior is illegal. Most isn't. Say a company operated a short-form video platform, did active research about its effects, knew a large chunk of its user-base were children younger than 6 and knew that the video selection algorithm caused addiction but kept serving then addictive videos because getting the ad money was profitable. Was any law broken? Should society know all of this?
    - dh2022 1y ago
      Laws are put in place to protect society. When a behavior hurts the society the society puts a law against it. Like for example : Australia requires minimum age 16 for creating an online account. This addresses one of the issues you mentioned in your post: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7284 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... This is how abuse is addressed and society is protected. Not by choosing to get a severance package, reneging on the contract, seeking a book deal and then crying 'woe be me' on The Guardian. PS. I cannot help but notice two things: 1. The sort of people Meta seems to attract. 2. The fact that both you and I are creating online noise and sentiment which will probably help Sarah sell more books (or get another, better deal from Meta). It's better to get away from the computer now.
      - Hizonner 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dh2022 1y ago
She could have started a blog if she was motivated by truth. But she chose the book deal. Quoting from Casino: “It’s always the dollars. Always the %$!@ dollars.”
- fermentation 1y ago
  Do you think we'd be reading the story if it were on some random blog? Actually, WE might. But my mom wouldn't.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    If it’s about principle, you take the hard road. If you take the book deal, that’s profit with activism as garnish.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > She could have started a blog if she was motivated by truth now you are liable on your own, without any of the backing of a large publisher with specialist lawyers on staff. Plus it'd go nowhere and be taken down almost instantly by facebook.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    If the goal was a moral one then you better be willing to die on your own sword.
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      Like by facing bankruptcy for publicizing accounts of malfeasance?
    - pikelet 1y ago
      Yeah, like… exactly what she's doing? People here are so willing to assume that she's doing all this out of self interest, because of what? A $500,000 book deal? Compared to what she stands to lose? She isn't stupid, she knows the risk. As a New Zealander myself I'm not sure if there's just some cultural difference at play here with the tendency to assume the worst in people but it seems kind of sad.
EasyMark 1y ago
Any big lawyer group that would be willing to go up against meta will rip through 500k in 6 months or less and then wish you the best at the end of those few months of representing you.

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 ago
  People 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.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Fair point, but the issue isn’t that she got paid. It’s that the reporting frames her as bankrupt martyr while burying the half-million advance. Making money on a book is fine, but when you sell it as whistleblowing rather than commerce, readers deserve to know the financial context up front.
    - Retric 1y ago
      There’s often significant payouts associated with whistleblowing because it’s so financially risky. The SEC has paid people way more than 500k and it’s not uncommon for those people to regret it. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-program https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-pro...
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      > Fair point, but the issue isn’t that she got paid. Then we shouldn’t assert that it matters. I’m glad we agreed ultimately it doesn’t, but I just want to be very clear there. The half-million advance does not mean she can’t be going bankrupt. As I said, it’s not exactly lottery money, especially when 10% of that is at risk for every offense she’s up for, and she is struggling to get the rest of her money the book would net because of their blocking it. You’re ignoring a ton of context and overstating how much 500k should solve her financial woes. Also, it’s not “buried,” it’s in the article clear as day. You just think it should be the first thing stated. Frankly I’m not sure what your aim is here. You’re being wildly charitable to Facebook here, whereas I would think we should start on her side until we see reason not to be.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        > Frankly I’m not sure what your aim is here I get what you’re saying, but my point is different. It’s not about rooting for Meta, it’s about how every story gets framed as righteous activism. After a while it feels performative more than principled. I don’t think noticing that makes me “pro-Facebook,” it just means I’m tired of the constant activist spin that leaves out key context.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  what actual change did sophie zhang manage to effect by doing it "properly"? She was still dismissed and ignored.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    True, Zhang was dismissed and ignored inside Facebook. But by going through the internal and external disclosure channels she left a paper trail that regulators, journalists, and researchers could use. It didn’t fix Meta, but it gave her work legitimacy and fed into hearings and reporting. That’s different from skipping straight to a commercial book deal.
    - KaiserPro 1y ago
      > True, Zhang was dismissed and ignored inside Facebook. Zhang wasn't ignored. She made a huge fucking impact internally. The problem is the department that she was trying to affect change is run by a bastard.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        If the end result is nothing changes, arguing about whether she was ignored or stonewalled feels academic.

boomboomsubban 1y ago

I assume a hefty chunk of that has gone towards court costs for the fight to publish the book.

firesteelrain 1y ago
With $500k advance, she has 10 free times to do it.
- boomboomsubban 1y ago
  That's not how legal fees work. Hiring lawyers to oppose Facebook and allow your book to be published is expensive, and currently she seems to be losing the fight.

cm2012 1y ago

I came to the comments to find the caveat. Thank you!

alisonatwork 1y ago
It's literally a quote from the article, though?
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  The point is the article is burying the lede rather than upfront framing it in a different manner. It is easy to miss. Edit: I am responding to the critique of a different person. I did read the article.
  - Klonoar 1y ago
    You can just admit you didn’t read the article.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      I wasn’t the GP
    - dh2022 1y ago
      I proudly admit I do not read the Guardian on principle.
      - parados 1y ago
        Would you care to share those principles?
        dh2022 1y ago
        Wrapping a tiny bit of truth in innuendoes and click-bait titles with anti-corporate bent. Like for example this article. Free press and all, I guess.

jordanb 1y ago

That would be the minimum you'd need to even get the retainer paid to fight the SLAPP you're guaranteed to get from one of the most powerful and vindictive companies on earth

Hizonner 1y ago

Honestly, I don't care if it made her richer than Zuckerberg and her only reason to do it was unrelated personal spite. It's contrary to public interest, and should be illegal, to bind anybody not to disclose truthful information about how a corporation operates. Full stop.

dh2022 1y ago
Reporting crimes is protected by law. See the whistleblower act.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Not all anti-social behavior is illegal. Most isn't. Say a company operated a short-form video platform, did active research about its effects, knew a large chunk of its user-base were children younger than 6 and knew that the video selection algorithm caused addiction but kept serving then addictive videos because getting the ad money was profitable. Was any law broken? Should society know all of this?
  - dh2022 1y ago
    Laws are put in place to protect society. When a behavior hurts the society the society puts a law against it. Like for example : Australia requires minimum age 16 for creating an online account. This addresses one of the issues you mentioned in your post: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7284 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat... This is how abuse is addressed and society is protected. Not by choosing to get a severance package, reneging on the contract, seeking a book deal and then crying 'woe be me' on The Guardian. PS. I cannot help but notice two things: 1. The sort of people Meta seems to attract. 2. The fact that both you and I are creating online noise and sentiment which will probably help Sarah sell more books (or get another, better deal from Meta). It's better to get away from the computer now.
    - Hizonner 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dh2022 1y ago

She could have started a blog if she was motivated by truth. But she chose the book deal. Quoting from Casino: “It’s always the dollars. Always the %$!@ dollars.”

fermentation 1y ago
Do you think we'd be reading the story if it were on some random blog? Actually, WE might. But my mom wouldn't.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  If it’s about principle, you take the hard road. If you take the book deal, that’s profit with activism as garnish.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> She could have started a blog if she was motivated by truth now you are liable on your own, without any of the backing of a large publisher with specialist lawyers on staff. Plus it'd go nowhere and be taken down almost instantly by facebook.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  If the goal was a moral one then you better be willing to die on your own sword.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    Like by facing bankruptcy for publicizing accounts of malfeasance?
  - pikelet 1y ago
    Yeah, like… exactly what she's doing? People here are so willing to assume that she's doing all this out of self interest, because of what? A $500,000 book deal? Compared to what she stands to lose? She isn't stupid, she knows the risk. As a New Zealander myself I'm not sure if there's just some cultural difference at play here with the tendency to assume the worst in people but it seems kind of sad.

EasyMark 1y ago

Any big lawyer group that would be willing to go up against meta will rip through 500k in 6 months or less and then wish you the best at the end of those few months of representing you.