> Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement.
Unless the reporter and MP are willing to show that Meta is lying about that (which presumably can be easily shown by the book's author producing communications), looks like they are trying to imply causation by the framing of the article.
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.
“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.
Non-competes are being challenged and will be history soon and hopefully so will non-disperagement clauses. Those are just coercive anti-freedom practices.
Meta is a corporation that is anti-democracy. 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.
More and more corporations are resorting to the predatory practice of abusing the court system to protect their hide their actions. You may accept this kind of thing, I do not.
I had a company try to sneak in a non-disparagement clause when they were purchasing media rights from me. They immediately removed it when I said it was ridiculous and I wasn't going to sign.
If you're not allowed to criticize a person, you're in a cult. If you're not allowed to criticize the government, that's authoritarianism.
Being able to speak freely is supposed to be one of our core values, and when a business asks someone to forfeit that right, it's a sign there's something seriously wrong. You don't require someone to never speak ill of you unless you're planning on doing something they might speak ill about.
By my moral compass, the very act of requiring someone to never publicly say anything bad about you is itself unethical. It's psychopathic behavior, not something that should be normalized.
I had suspended judgement about Meta in the past; but every revelation in their media about their toxic behaviour makes me thankful I never seriously considering taking a job with them.
The clincher was when a colleague I worked with in a previous job joined Meta, and went from a fun and interesting person, to creepy and weird. As if he has joined a cult. Then a family member did the same -- the effect was subtle... their political opinions turned distinctly sinister -- like they'd downloaded the inherently un-egalitarian, anti-Western and anti-progress ideology of the founder into their own heads.
I've seen the same cult-like effect of Amazon on people. Literally 'selling' the idea of Jeff Bezos, and flogging his book like their company were some kind of dark techno Amway.
The FAANGs are NOT nice people, and I want nothing to do with them.
Rule number one when you get fired is don't sign anything on your way out the door. Crazy that a Facebook exec wouldn't be aware of that advice or ignored it.
I got offered a small severance after a recent layoff. Severance agreement contained a non-disparagement clause. I didn't sign. You don't get corporate goons coming to your house to threaten you if you don't sign your severance/termination agreement.
Crazy idea, how about making non-disparagement clauses illegal?
They serve no purpose, other than protecting abusive and exploitative companies.
If a disgruntled employee says something that is not true, there are already laws the company can use to defend itself and the company has way more resources than an individual. That's enough to deter even people who want to expose the truth but are not confident they can prove it. These clauses just make the power differential even larger.
So what happens if she racks up a few million in fines and declares herself bankrupt, say in the UK, where you can't then be held responsible for earlier debts?
IANAL, but how is this considered legal? I could see Facebook being allowed to claw back up to the amount of the severance, but $50,000 per statement in perpetuity seems wrong.
I read the book and I think it struck me as an accurate portrayal. With this bullying, Zuckerberg is showing how important it is to him that people not know about its contents.
Well she’s done a massive service exposing these absolutely imbecilic people at Facebook. It’s depressing, but aslo helpful to know definitively that our next step as a culture can safely be to end the cult of the billionaire. They do not deserve our admiration, and there is no place for them in public policy.
27 comments of 352
[ 22.3 ms ] story [ 431 ms ] thread> Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement.
Unless the reporter and MP are willing to show that Meta is lying about that (which presumably can be easily shown by the book's author producing communications), looks like they are trying to imply causation by the framing of the article.
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.
Sounds like another way of saying stuff they acknowledge is true. :P
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.
Meta and the likes don't need to care anymore.
Who's really going to go after a mega corp-entity when they do $bad? "Whistle Blower" is like an oxymoron to that the likes of "Friendly Fire".
More and more corporations are resorting to the predatory practice of abusing the court system to protect their hide their actions. You may accept this kind of thing, I do not.
If you're not allowed to criticize a person, you're in a cult. If you're not allowed to criticize the government, that's authoritarianism.
Being able to speak freely is supposed to be one of our core values, and when a business asks someone to forfeit that right, it's a sign there's something seriously wrong. You don't require someone to never speak ill of you unless you're planning on doing something they might speak ill about.
By my moral compass, the very act of requiring someone to never publicly say anything bad about you is itself unethical. It's psychopathic behavior, not something that should be normalized.
The clincher was when a colleague I worked with in a previous job joined Meta, and went from a fun and interesting person, to creepy and weird. As if he has joined a cult. Then a family member did the same -- the effect was subtle... their political opinions turned distinctly sinister -- like they'd downloaded the inherently un-egalitarian, anti-Western and anti-progress ideology of the founder into their own heads.
I've seen the same cult-like effect of Amazon on people. Literally 'selling' the idea of Jeff Bezos, and flogging his book like their company were some kind of dark techno Amway.
The FAANGs are NOT nice people, and I want nothing to do with them.
I got offered a small severance after a recent layoff. Severance agreement contained a non-disparagement clause. I didn't sign. You don't get corporate goons coming to your house to threaten you if you don't sign your severance/termination agreement.
They serve no purpose, other than protecting abusive and exploitative companies.
If a disgruntled employee says something that is not true, there are already laws the company can use to defend itself and the company has way more resources than an individual. That's enough to deter even people who want to expose the truth but are not confident they can prove it. These clauses just make the power differential even larger.