- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Exclusive: Sarah Wynn-Williams faces $50,000 fine every time she breaches order banning her from criticising Meta
A former Meta executive who wrote an explosive exposé making allegations about the social media company’s dealings with China and its treatment of teenagers is said to be “on the verge of bankruptcy” after publishing the book.
An MP has claimed in parliament that Mark Zuckerberg’s company was trying to “silence and punish” Sarah Wynn-Williams, the former director of global public policy at Meta’s precursor, Facebook, after her decision to speak out about her time at the company.
Louise Haigh, the former Labour transport secretary, said Wynn-Williams was facing a fine of $50,000 (£37,000) every time she breached an order secured by Meta preventing her from talking disparagingly about the company.
You must log in or register to comment.
“Careless People” is what it’s called. In case anyone wanted to buy it.
I’ve put in a request at my library.
You can also purchase it at bookshop.org. I believe the eBook is still DRM’ed but buying the physical book can at least support a local (to you) book store.
Her big mistake is paying the fine.
It’s a good book and while everyone should take her claims with a grain of salt they fit pretty cleanly into the open behavior of the company.
Hopefully this gets more press so the streisand effect can kick in.
Usually I would expect the truth to be a defense against defamation. Looks like binding arbitration is an end run around that.
I’m not a lawyer, but I thought this kind of NDA was declared illegal. Like for sure you can’t share legally protected data (copyright, trade secret, and the like) but talking disparagingly seems like a pretty obvious first amendment violation.
And I know that protects you from the government, but who’s enforcing the stipulations of such an NDA?
The only law left in America is money.
She’s in America. We no longer even respect our Constitution. So at this point, any existing law is easily avoided by the rich with money and time. If you are unable to pay lawyers to fight back, you get railroaded and bleed out.
Nda’s do not traditionally cover illegal activities either. Like if you were illegally trafficking puppies and you broke the NDA to expose that, that NDA was illegal to begin with and not enforceable. The courts are just so corrupt now they are just going along pretending to not be sold out plutocratic tools.
I bought a copy, and this bullshit. We should be making her a millionaire. This book needs to become a number 1 bestseller.
If you ever want to know who rules you, look at who you aren’t allowed to criticize.
My wife. X__x
This quote is commonly attributed to Voltaire but it’s an anti-Semitic dog whistle coined by neo-Nazi Kevin Alfred Strom.
Thanks for posting that, I was about to! Molly Conger did a great episode of Weird Little Guys about this exact subject called Do We Really Need to Talk About Kevin?
I knew those god damn disabled, 4th stage cancer suffering orphans were secretly in charge
Regardless of the original source of the quote, there is a marked difference between criticism and disparagement. Making light of or downplaying someone’s situation isn’t the same as saying, “What you are doing is wrong”.
There is also a foundational difference between social consequences and governmental ones.
They say I’m not allowed to look at them
Isn’t she just talking truthfully? Is the truth disparaging, if it is, isn’t it of their own making, how is she to discern, I doubt they have a bar they wouldn’t go below, even they wouldn’t be able to point to the line where something is truthful but disparaging, if that’s a possible description, because doesn’t that then just become a retelling of the facts? Anyone would be hard pressed to find something above board, or even slightly ok about fb. Not even one, non disparaging description or thing, exisits relating to fb. I haven’t read the book, I’m just going by what Zuck has publicly said and done, too.
In legal terms, disparagement means any negative remarks regardless of truthfulness. It is usually used in cases where the statements are truthful or opinions.
Defamation or libel is used when it is not. Obviously, you can usually disparage anyone you want if it is the truth or opinion. However, you may sign a contract, usually as part of employment, that forbids you from disparaging someone, usually your employer. That is likely what happened here. If you signed such a contract, your statements being true does not help you.
Also note that no contract can stop you from reporting a crime to the authorities, in case you ever need to know that.
I’m torn between wanting to read it, and saving the last vestiges of my remaining state-of-the-world-influenced mental health.
Unfortunately her book only appears to be available with DRM
No, it’s in physical form as well.
This is thread, and your reply is one of the funniest things I’ve read on Lemmy!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
