Meta trying to destroy whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams, US senator says

72 pointsposted 10 hours ago
by barbazoo
(theguardian.com)

15 Comments

gherkinnn

9 hours ago

It has been [0] days since the last report on nasty Meta shenanigans.

On a related note, I believe (based on no evidence) that Zuckerberg knows of a lot more nasty dealings and wants to crucify Wynn-Williams to scare off any potential whistleblowers.

CoastalCoder

9 hours ago

Honest question:

If you have no evidence, then why do you believe it?

gherkinnn

9 hours ago

Circumstantial plus expecting the worst.

A company and founder with such an extensive list of publicly known misdeeds (starting with Facesmash), chances are that there are many skeletons left to uncover. Setting a precedent is no unknown course of action.

It's not much to go by, but I am a commenter on HN, not a lawyer and Occam's razor doesn't disagree either.

watwut

9 hours ago

Because it is extremely unlikely she knew everything. Based on her book, she was last to learn quite a lot of ugly stuff she reports on - they told her only when they had to.

And she left long time ago. It is even more unlikely that the company magically became clean after her leaving.

fsloth

9 hours ago

If you loved Catch-22 you will love ”Careless people”! I warmly recommend a read. Not to support Sarah necessarily - just because the book is great! It’s not really a spill-the-tea as much absurdist escapade in corporate america.

Ok the details on Zuckerberg and ”Lean In” Sandberg _are_ bizarre. Which makes it a super fun read.

fivetenpen

8 hours ago

I’m listening to the audiobook now and it’s captivating. These meta executives really live in a different world. The part with Sandburg and Sarah on the plane was absolutely wild. I can take a good guess at who is leading the charge to silence Sarah after reading that.

tim-tday

8 hours ago

I love the Streisand effect in play here.

Sucks that she’s getting attacked. Hopefully the punitive damages she wins will be staggering.

utdoctor

7 hours ago

I’m a bit over halfway through the book after purchasing it based off the premise alone and, I may be in the minority, but I find her insufferable and very naive.

On more than one occasion makes comparisons to the lofty idealized and non pragmatic goals of governmental institutions like the UN and seems bewildered that a business like Meta doesn’t (obviously) have the same aspirations/alignment.

She just reminds me of a very naive college student from what I’ve read thus far. Grinds my gears but I’m going to finish it.

user

9 hours ago

[deleted]

jauntywundrkind

9 hours ago

Cory Doctorow had a great write up two weeks ago, Zuckerberg's increasingly bizarre war on whistleblowers https://pluralistic.net/2026/06/27/zuckerstreisand-2/#autodi...

His end thesis is that even though Meta knows of the Streisand effect, even though they full on expect to lose, badly, and look like bullies chuds and losers, with no real defense, they are doing it to keep everyone else who works or worked at Meta on line, to engage in gratuitous overkill as a message. Sounds about right!

He also had a very excellent piece on pro-Monopolists like Thiel, which just feels so close a breed of absolute deranged fucking madness. Excellent read. Realest of real problems. Deranged billionaires and their syndromes, https://pluralistic.net/2026/07/16/lucky-orifices/

paulcole

9 hours ago

Her book was one of the worst I read last year.

Gets a really high paying, competitive, prestigious job. Goes overboard to please executives. Surprised when it takes a toll on her life. Blames everyone but herself.

Who’s surprised that Zuckerberg and Sandberg are total freaking weirdos? Who’s surprised that someone who works with them has their entire identity wrapped up in their work life?

_aavaa_

9 hours ago

If there wasn’t anything interesting in it, we wouldn’t be hearing about Zuck’s continual effort to silence her.

watwut

9 hours ago

I learned a lot of new in that book. And the "she blames everyone but herself" is literally a lie.