Or 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.

"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.

Should 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.

I 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.

I wonder, is stating the truth qualifying as "disparaging"? According to 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

Such gagging orders should be illegal, they only serve to hide corporate malfeasance.

Non-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.

Is 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.

Which 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.

There 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/) -- 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.

read 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.

Thanks for the trouble to read the article and to give a summary. I avoid reading The Guardian on principle.

You 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?

Frankly, 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.

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

Yeah, sounds like "non-disparagement agreements" are kind of bullshit.

[flagged]

Highly recommended. What you will find is that the title does the book justice. The top executives at Facebook aren't so much cartoonishly evil but rather hopelessly inept for the job at hand. They have no idea what they are doing, and little concern by way of the consequences of their actions, or their outsized impacts on individuals and the world in general.

Careless people, indeed.

I 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.

Definitely a Must-Read. One of the best books I read this year, and basically spent my whole holiday digging it.

I think it is a real eye-opener.

It was an interesting book. I found it a tough read though. Every single chapter left me angry. A book about some of the worst people you could ever have the misfortune to meet - and unfortunately for her the author comes out looking just as bad. All just truly awful people.

Just purchased it. I never would have read it otherwise.

This 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.

[dead]

You 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.

This 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.

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

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

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.

$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.

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.

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

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.”

It’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.

-Mom, yesterday my brother hit me!

-Out of date and previously reported, bro.

>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.

As discussed umpteenth times in every free speech debate ever, "free speech" as enshrined in the legal system only offers protection from the government. There's a broader principle of free speech in general, but it's unclear whether that should be applicable in this case, where two private entities entered into an agreement where one side agreed to cease speech in exchange for money.

I would say using the court system rather than abusing, simple because IMHO the courts primarily exist to defend corporate rights contrary to the marketing.

Is it that meta is anti-democracy or is it just that Mark Zuckerberg is kind of an idiot? The feeling I get from the book is more towards the latter.

Speaking personally, the moment I knew that Zuckerberg knew nothing about politics was circa 2010, when he announced his plan to join forces with Chris Christie to "fix Newark schools". I don't care if you support team red or team blue, but it was obvious to anyone who knew politics at that time that Christie was a con artist. Why waste any amount of time and money on this project destined to fail? If Zuck had any insight and had a goal to do an actual thing and see it work, he would not have. He spent $100 million on that.

> is a corporation that is anti-democracy

Aren't a vast majority of large corporations inherently undemocratic? They all seem to be organized much more like authoritarian dystopias, with power held by a shadowy cabal (the board), then a king-like figure (CEO), with a court (all the C-levels), then trickling down to a coterie of lesser magnates, viceroys and dukes of all sorts (middle management), all the way down to vassals and peons who do what they are told.

There is no democratic process in a corporation, everything is dictated top down. There's the Stasi / secret police / CIA (HR) who spy on everyone and root out then shut down dissent. Every decision is subservient to the Mission, the Vision, etc. They unironically have Five Year Plans.

If you take some distance and look at it, corporations are awfully undemocratic. I think it follows they would be anti-democratic when it comes to things outside of their immediate boundaries; to have that power and want it extended beyond, for your advantage, that's inevitable.

by saying "we have free speech" in this context, you are inadvertently admitting that you actually don't know what the right to free speech actually is. Rule of thumb: if neither party is the government, free speech is not relevant in any way shape or form.

Never sign anything going out the door that isn’t tied to a financial gain.

What about requiring new employees to sign non-disparagement agreements? Maybe companies are getting “smarter” and requiring employees to agree to not say anything negative about their employer from day 1 … not sure about the legality here.

Replace "have" with "had"

you dont really have free speech when people are being fired for not worshipping an extreme, violence-incepting podcaster

I 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).

>In the US we have this thing called free speech

that expression is carrying a lot of water these days. Although libel laws in England are pretty tyrannical in a different way than the current rise of fascism and attempts to use government to hush dissent against the Trump regime . The current FCC chairman and Pam Bondi are trying to silence critics of Trump, VP is saying that trans people speaking out should be committed to insane asylums

Free speech has always been about the government. Do you not think it is acceptable for companies to fire people for their speech? Should employers just have to keep silent and do nothing when their employees e.g. glorify violence, promote fascism or attack human rights?

>Requiring non-disclosure in order to get a severance (or to get a settlement for abuse) is not an excuse for doing this.

This seems very reasonable? If you want to attack your employer you are free to do so, why should they pay you for that?

>More and more corporations are resorting to the predatory practice of abusing the court system to protect their hide their actions.

What are you on about? Companies have always tried to get what they can, it is not some recent trend that companies go after their own (former) employees in court.

[flagged]

Because whatever Sarah reports in that book is probably not an actual crime. Look up Whistleblowers act for reference.

There'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.

[dead]

If 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.