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.

▲

KaiserPro 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

▲

Aurornis 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Zika virus. This was before Covid.

Thanks! My mistake.

> Which is very much 1st amendment (yes I know private company etc. etc.).

1st amendment to say it, yes, but 1st amendment does not guarantee freedom from repercussions as agreed upon by private contracts.

This detail from the article is also important:

> 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.

Given that Meta hasn't actually forced her to pay anything for the agreement, this whole "faces bankruptcy" article is starting to feel like another round of the PR tour for her book sales.

> I get that you don't like her

I'm just tired of people abusing the "whistleblower" label for personal profit with little substance. It undermines the importance of real whistleblowers who do actual whistleblowing activities.

	▲	KaiserPro 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm just tired of people abusing the "whistleblower" label for personal profit with little substance. It undermines the importance of real whistleblowers who do actual whistleblowing activities. That I get. At least shes not grifting like francis haugen. But clearly she wants to affect change, and saw that the only real way to do this is publicly shame the leadership. > Given that Meta hasn't actually forced her to pay anything for the agreement, this whole "faces bankruptcy" article is starting to feel like another round of the PR tour for her book sales. I mean yes, but also the implicit threat here is that meta can call in that debt at any time. Which for a company that prides it's self on freedom of expression, its an odd stance. Especially as the book doesn't really contain any secrets. The voluntary agreement is rarely voluntary, sadly. given the situation of her departure, I can see why she took it. If I were here and not looking like I'd be able to work again, I'd be taking the cash too.