Meta Stops Ex-Director From Promoting Critical Memoir (bbc.co.uk) 77
Ancient Slashdot reader Alain Williams shares a report from the BBC: Meta has won an emergency ruling in the US to temporarily stop a former director of Facebook from promoting or further distributing copies of her memoir. The book, Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams, who used to be the company's global public policy director, includes a series of critical claims about what she witnessed during her seven years working at Facebook.
Facebook's parent company, Meta, says the ruling -- which orders her to stop promotions "to the extent within her control" -- affirms that "the false and defamatory book should never have been published." The UK publisher Macmillan says it is "committed to upholding freedom of speech" and Ms Wynn-Williams' "right to tell her story." [You can also hear Ms Wynn-Williams interviewed in the BBC Radio 4 Media Show on March 12.]
Facebook's parent company, Meta, says the ruling -- which orders her to stop promotions "to the extent within her control" -- affirms that "the false and defamatory book should never have been published." The UK publisher Macmillan says it is "committed to upholding freedom of speech" and Ms Wynn-Williams' "right to tell her story." [You can also hear Ms Wynn-Williams interviewed in the BBC Radio 4 Media Show on March 12.]
Free speech? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to have north of $14.99 Million to have F-U money in the US.
Corrupt courts understand "the process is the punishment" and cheer on their fellow lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Corrupt courts understand "the process is the punishment" and cheer on their fellow lawyers.
It's also cathartic when you win.
Re:Free speech? (Score:4, Informative)
Notably, this is *not* a case of corrupt courts, because the courts aren't involved. This was a decision issued by an arbitrator that the author was in violation of her severance contract.
However, this is another example of how huge corporations force people to sign away their rights to access the court system.
Re: (Score:2)
It's weird that such clauses are not illegal. In Europe they mostly are. For example in the UK you can't contractually sign away your rights to legal redress.
Re: (Score:2)
It's weird that such clauses are not illegal. In Europe they mostly are.
In the U.S., such clauses are a 1st Amendment violation. However, our judiciary has been known to ignore the Constitution in favor of business interests.
Re: (Score:3)
It's weird that such clauses are not illegal. In Europe they mostly are.
In the U.S., such clauses are a 1st Amendment violation.
Not clear. The first amendment stops the government from censoring speech, but does not prevent you from signing a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for money.
This should be illegal, but it's not actually unconstitutional.
Courts may, however, void such clauses as unenforceable:
"Contracts that are not outright illegal but contrary to public policy, such as those involving restraint of trade, may also be void unless reasonable." I think that this would be a good choice for a contract term to be voi
Re: (Score:2)
This may be an unpopular thing right now, but the First Amendment prohibits the *government* from making laws restraining free speech. It does not prohibit people or businesses from entering into binding nondisclosure agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
The more they want to hide it... (Score:2)
Re: The more they want to hide it... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is working, I even bought a dead tree copy so it cannot be taken away by Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
the more curious I am what it says. You can't buy this kind of publicity.
Funny, when I tried publishing my book about how landfills contain garbage, I didn't get any takers.
Re: The more they want to hide it... (Score:1)
Great analogy ++
"emergency" (Score:2)
Yeah what a real emergency. I was trying to see what judge was hearing the case but it went to arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
Arbitrator ordered one of the parties subject to the arbitration to do something, probably at the cost of her severance or some shit like that.
The publisher can't be ordered to do shit by the arbitrator, and the only thing the person this order is against can suffer is what she has contracted to suffer in case she violates said contract.
This isn't the judiciary squashing some person's free speech. It's an out-of-court dispute between a company and it's ex-employee.
Re: "emergency" (Score:1)
You figured all that out but can't tell its from it's?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "emergency" (Score:1)
Ye's there i's.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice, Facebook isn't declaring she was paid to keep her mouth shut but they're a victim of a "false and defamatory book". Maybe, they could demand all the profits from this act of abuse, in a court of law: Who thinks that will happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Notice, Facebook isn't declaring she was paid to keep her mouth shut but they're a victim of a "false and defamatory book".
They're in outside non-legal arbitration. You cannot force someone into arbitration. They must agree to it.
Maybe, they could demand all the profits from this act of abuse, in a court of law: Who thinks that will happen?
Sure, but this arbitration ruling will have nothing to do with that, unless the person agreed to it, which is insanity, unless it comes from some kind of prior arrangement tied to her employment that she stands to lose something by maintaining.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not be able to "force" someone into arbitration, but you can certainly coerce them by making it a condition of employment, condition of receiving severance benefits, and so on. I'd be surprised if there's an employment agreement in the country that doesn't include a binding arbitration clause at this point (thanks a lot, "Epic Systems v. Lewis").
Re: (Score:2)
You may not be able to "force" someone into arbitration, but you can certainly coerce them by making it a condition of employment, condition of receiving severance benefits, and so on. I'd be surprised if there's an employment agreement in the country that doesn't include a binding arbitration clause at this point (thanks a lot, "Epic Systems v. Lewis").
Of course.
Being the lady has just published a book, I think it's fair to conclude she doesn't give a fuck about her severance.
That is backed up by her not showing up to this arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook don't want a court involved. Discovery will no doubt uncover more lies.
Facebook have claimed the book is false an defamatory, but that has nothing to do with the arbitrators decision. That is based on her potentially violating her severance agreement, which probably also has a forced arbitration clause, to avoid court where people are required by law to tell the truth. A place where things like evidence are considered.
If it was really defamatory, they would have gone to court to file an injunction
Re: (Score:2)
Defamation is how Musk silences critics in China, where he is very friendly with the Premier, https://www.taipeitimes.com/Ne... [taipeitimes.com] perhaps the other oligarchs will start the same tricks. In China the courts are politically biased, in America, the courts are biased for whoever has the money, lawyers, appeals, etc can break you no matter how good your case.
Re: (Score:2)
They've got something they're trying to hold over this person's head, precisely because they don't have a fucking case.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess with the publisher not being under US jurisdiction, arbitration might be the best option.
Re: (Score:2)
A Judge does still have power, even with an out-of-jurisdiction publisher.
They can, for example, order the publisher to comply, or have their products seized at the border.
Re: (Score:2)
You may well be right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know what that is between Meta and this person, but they have apparently decided it isn't that bad, since they didn't show up.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know what that is between Meta and this person, but they have apparently decided it isn't that bad, since they didn't show up.
Yes we do. She signed a separation agreement, which apparently had a non-disparagement clause and also a clause agreeing to arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "emergency" (Score:2)
Ducking hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
If Facebook took this to arbitration, then Jane Employee agreed to subject herself to arbitration at some point.
The power the arbitrator has will be governed by whatever contract allowed it to go here to begin with, and of course, if Jane Employee doesn't believe the contract is being applied fairly- she can absolutely go to a Judge... or simply ignore the arbitrator's order if she thinks she'll win that case when it goes to a real court.
Re: (Score:2)
The publisher can't be ordered to do shit by the arbitrator, and the only thing the person this order is against can suffer is what she has contracted to suffer in case she violates said contract.
This however it is more than likely both parties are contractually bound by arbitration. I have one of these on me when I tried to resign from a bad situation with an employer. There was so much hazing, mobbing, gaslighting and overt bullying I had to get out, so I found another job, put it down to experience and offered my resignation. Instead my boss found a away to fire me and go after my reputation.
The recruiter (who placed me in the new job) suggested I consult a lawyer so I didn't have "why were
Re: (Score:2)
This however it is more than likely both parties are contractually bound by arbitration.
Yes- they must be. That was my point.
Whatever contract binds them to this arbitration will also expressly detail the penalties for breaking the contract, or not following the orders of the arbitration.
Everything was mutually agreed to, though.
That doesn't mean this isn't a bad thing for this employee- but it's a very different thing than the State coming down like this on the side of the employer- silencing someone due to an unproven allegation of libel.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, I think my experiences support your point.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline doesn't say that the publisher was ordered to do anything, so I'm not sure why you think the headline is "bullshit". It says that she is being prevented from promoting the book (due to the non-disparagement clause in her severance agreement).
Technically I guess it's the arbitration board that's stopping her, not Meta, but it's doing so based on the action from Meta.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is forced* into an arbitration agreement.
If she's been "ordered" by an arbitration board not to promote her book, it's because she agreed, contractually, at some point before now, to grant that power to the arbitration board.
* if we stretch the meaning to include idiots that click-through without reading, then ok, but that doesn't apply here either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it implies that it's some body with the ability to compel.
Correct. The arbitration board.
Nobody is forced* into an arbitration agreement.
Signing the severance agreement with the arbitration clause was something that happened in the past. Given the fact that it was signed, yes, the arbitration board has the ability to compel.
There is absolutely nothing in the headline that is "bullshit". Yes, you could have proposed a much longer headline "Arbitration board agrees with Meta to stop Ex-Director From Promoting Critical Memoir, where their ability to stop the promotion is due to the fact that eight years ago she si
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. The arbitration board.
Not correct. The arbitration board has no power to compel, and it can only order punishment that you have agreed to, and if you refuse, it still takes a real court to compel.
In this case, if you take this to a real court, the Judge will not order you to stop promoting your book. It may order you to pay any monetary punishment you have agreed to be liable for in the arbitration agreement.
Signing the severance agreement with the arbitration clause was something that happened in the past. Given the fact that it was signed, yes, the arbitration board has the ability to compel.
Wrong.
There is absolutely nothing in the headline that is "bullshit". Yes, you could have proposed a much longer headline "Arbitration board agrees with Meta to stop Ex-Director From Promoting Critical Memoir, where their ability to stop the promotion is due to the fact that eight years ago she signed a non-disparagement agreement with compulsory arbitration," but you know, the way headlines work is that they are short, they are not summaries of the complete article.
You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Emergency in this case is a legal term which is to say that the urgency of the ruling has an impact on how effective it is. And given that the defendant didn't even bother to show up or file a defense it really doesn't matter who the judge was or if it went to arbitration, this was only going to go one way.
Re:"emergency" (Score:4, Informative)
Wynn-Williams is aghast to discover that Sandberg has instructed her 26-year-old assistant to buy lingerie for both of them, budget be damned. (The total cost is $13,000.) During a long drive in Europe, the assistant and Sandberg take turns sleeping in each other’s laps, stroking each other’s hair. On the 12-hour flight home on a private jet, a pajama-clad Sandberg claims the only bed on the plane and repeatedly demands that Wynn-Williams “come to bed.” Wynn-Williams demurs. Sandberg is miffed.
Well, uh...If I were Facebook, I'd want that silenced, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Facebook gives a shit about that. If anything this is just raunchy misbehavior from two senior people. What Facebook do give a shit about are the claims that are being made in the media and being spread widely, not something you need to dig out and find personally interesting.
What you quoted isn't in the news so Facebook doesn't care.
Weird (Score:2)
I had no idea Facebook held national secrets that could prevent the release of free speech /s
Re: (Score:2)
You can still buy the book.
They've threatened this woman her severance money because shes making public things that happened while she worked there.
Streisand effect new to broligarchs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Saw story this morning, bought book on my Kobo immediately.
For the cost of a few (Canadian dollars) to a Canadian/Japanese company (some of which goes to a German-owned publishing house, albeit probably their American subsidiary), on a device that replaced my Kindle last week (unionization-inspired close-down of Amazon depot in Canada earned them a cancelled Prime after more than ten years, no further purchases, cancellation of Audible subscription, even before Emperor Orange Turd and Grand Moff Musk starte
Cue ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Streisand effect.
Re: Cue ... (Score:1)
I'm almost crying with joy over here, you used "cue".
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, As apposed to what? Q is an omnipotent a-hole and queue is a line to wait in (or a braid of hair which is rather odd).
Re: Cue ... (Score:1)
Queue is French for "tail" so that might explain the hair thing.
PS: it's "opposed".
Re: (Score:2)
The Streisand effect.
Honestly, who at this point didn't already know Facebook was a shitty company? This is was like when Snowden revealed exactly what everybody knew all along: the US government was spying on its citizens.
I guess it's nice to have confirmation if you're the type of person who feels every source absolutely must have a citation, but for for me I don't need to buy a book to know that Facebook is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice!!! Added to my running list of shitty Meta news [skoll.ca].
Claims go both ways in Court. (Score:2)
Meta, says ... "the false and defamatory book should never have been published."
Can't wait to see the discovery on this.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not in court. I doubt Facebook want to go there, because it'll require proof. Their lack of evidence against any defamatory claims will give them more weight.
The last thing they want is a court to rule everything in this book is factually correct.
Flashbacks (Score:2)
I'm getting flashbacks of Zuck's Trump capitulation video where he talks about how Facebook was too heavy-handed with free speech issues.
It's on 'Zon! (Score:2)
Buy them all (Score:3)
NSA Whistleblower Tom Drake said [youtu.be] the spooks bought up all 10,000 copies of his book and insisted he redact the claim that 9/11 Commission Director Phil Zelikow was briefed on hijackers being on Saudi/CIA payroll (reportedly independently confirmed) before reprinting.
Great move Zuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Careless People was released in the US, where it is number six on the Amazon chart, on Tuesday. It was published in the UK on Thursday.
I just checked, it's moved up to #3 on the Amazon Chart. It's #1 in Political and Social Sciences
I doubt she could have made this happen on her own.
She can now cancel all her book signings, while legitimately claiming Facebook doesn't want this story to come out as the reason.
It's also got world-wide headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt she could have made this happen on her own.
Then you haven't been paying attention. This book is about the only thing the media has been talking about all week, before anyone new Facebook was trying to stop its promotion. You have a causality problem. This isn't going up the charts because Facebook tried to silence it, Facebook tried to silence it because it was going up the charts.
Streisand Full Effect (Score:2)
Careless People was released in the US, where it is number six on the Amazon chart, on Tuesday. It was published in the UK on Thursday.
I just checked, it's moved up to #3 on the Amazon Chart. It's #1 in Political and Social Sciences
I doubt she could have made this happen on her own. She can now cancel all her book signings, while legitimately claiming Facebook doesn't want this story to come out as the reason. It's also got world-wide headlines.
And I was just looking for a new book to read this morning. How convenient!
Facebook created to track of female students? (Score:2)
Are NDAs reasonable? (Score:2)
Pretty much every business these days makes employees sign an NDA, as a condition of employment. Is this a problem? I'm not sure it is. Every company has embarrassing secrets. Why would a company want to hire people who will turn around and spill all their secrets?
Re: (Score:3)
"Every company has embarrassing secrets. Why would a company want to hire people who will turn around and spill all their secrets?"
Why should a company be able to get what it wants?
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose YOU start a small business, say, repairing computers. Your new business does well, and you find you need help. You hire somebody to help you, and before you know it, that person is blabbing to potential customers about all the mistakes you've ever made, driving away business. How long are you going to keep paying this person, do you think?
Companies can ask for things *because* they are willing to pay for those things. That's why a company should be able to get what it wants, within reason.
Ordered....... (Score:2)
Don't care. If Meta is trying to quash it, I buy it. It'll be here tomorrow. The Streisand Effect.
Community Notes (Score:2)
"the false and defamatory book should never have been published."
I'm sure some Community Notes will solve this.
Listen to the interviews! Buy the book! (Score:2)
nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/facebook-alleges-harassment-sandberg-kaplan-sarah-wynn-williams-rcna195130
bbc.com/audio/play/w3ct6pn1
amazon.com/Careless-People-Cautionary-Power-Idealism/dp/1250391237
Well.... (Score:2)
Review of ‘Careless People’ (Score:2)
“An eye-opening insider account of Facebook alleges a bizarre office culture and worrying political overreach”
‘Some years later she finds a female agency worker having a seizure on the office floor, surrounded by bosses who are ignoring her. The scales falling from her eyes become a blizzard. These people, she decides, just “didn’t give a fuck”.’
“Zuckerberg, in short, turns out to
Streisand effect! (Score:2)
It's lovely to see the Streisand effect [wikipedia.org] at work once again.
If they didn't sue, it may have gone under the radar, now I want to read it.
Precrime (Score:2)
Libel is indeed illegal. However, the court has ruled that it's illegal to even plan to commit the crime. Is there any legal basis with this court action? If this reasoning is upheld, imagine the truly horrific consequences. Precrime would essentially become a crime.