this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
297 points (100.0% liked)

News

32358 readers
2926 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Exclusive: Sarah Wynn-Williams faces $50,000 fine every time she breaches order banning her from criticising Meta

A former Meta executive who wrote an explosive exposé making allegations about the social media company’s dealings with China and its treatment of teenagers is said to be “on the verge of bankruptcy” after publishing the book.

An MP has claimed in parliament that Mark Zuckerberg’s company was trying to “silence and punish” Sarah Wynn-Williams, the former director of global public policy at Meta’s precursor, Facebook, after her decision to speak out about her time at the company.

Louise Haigh, the former Labour transport secretary, said Wynn-Williams was facing a fine of $50,000 (£37,000) every time she breached an order secured by Meta preventing her from talking disparagingly about the company.

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UsernameNotFound404@sh.itjust.works 12 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

“Careless People” is what it’s called. In case anyone wanted to buy it.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago

I've put in a request at my library.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

You can also purchase it at bookshop.org. I believe the eBook is still DRM'ed but buying the physical book can at least support a local (to you) book store.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

Her big mistake is paying the fine.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago

It's a good book and while everyone should take her claims with a grain of salt they fit pretty cleanly into the open behavior of the company.

[–] Bwoj@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Usually I would expect the truth to be a defense against defamation. Looks like binding arbitration is an end run around that.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I’m not a lawyer, but I thought this kind of NDA was declared illegal. Like for sure you can’t share legally protected data (copyright, trade secret, and the like) but talking disparagingly seems like a pretty obvious first amendment violation.

And I know that protects you from the government, but who’s enforcing the stipulations of such an NDA?

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 16 points 21 hours ago

The only law left in America is money.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 day ago

She's in America. We no longer even respect our Constitution. So at this point, any existing law is easily avoided by the rich with money and time. If you are unable to pay lawyers to fight back, you get railroaded and bleed out.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 19 points 1 day ago

Nda's do not traditionally cover illegal activities either. Like if you were illegally trafficking puppies and you broke the NDA to expose that, that NDA was illegal to begin with and not enforceable. The courts are just so corrupt now they are just going along pretending to not be sold out plutocratic tools.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Hopefully this gets more press so the streisand effect can kick in.

[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (4 children)

If you ever want to know who rules you, look at who you aren't allowed to criticize.

[–] ShawiniganHandshake@sh.itjust.works 17 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

This quote is commonly attributed to Voltaire but it's an anti-Semitic dog whistle coined by neo-Nazi Kevin Alfred Strom.

[–] compostgoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 21 hours ago

Thanks for posting that, I was about to! Molly Conger did a great episode of Weird Little Guys about this exact subject called Do We Really Need to Talk About Kevin?

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

My wife. X__x

[–] LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I knew those god damn disabled, 4th stage cancer suffering orphans were secretly in charge

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Regardless of the original source of the quote, there is a marked difference between criticism and disparagement. Making light of or downplaying someone's situation isn't the same as saying, "What you are doing is wrong".

There is also a foundational difference between social consequences and governmental ones.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

They say I’m not allowed to look at them

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago

I bought a copy, and this bullshit. We should be making her a millionaire. This book needs to become a number 1 bestseller.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago

I’m torn between wanting to read it, and saving the last vestiges of my remaining state-of-the-world-influenced mental health.

[–] shaun@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Unfortunately her book only appears to be available with DRM

[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it’s in physical form as well.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

This is thread, and your reply is one of the funniest things I’ve read on Lemmy!

[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't she just talking truthfully? Is the truth disparaging, if it is, isn't it of their own making, how is she to discern, I doubt they have a bar they wouldn't go below, even they wouldn't be able to point to the line where something is truthful but disparaging, if that's a possible description, because doesn't that then just become a retelling of the facts? Anyone would be hard pressed to find something above board, or even slightly ok about fb. Not even one, non disparaging description or thing, exisits relating to fb. I haven't read the book, I'm just going by what Zuck has publicly said and done, too.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

In legal terms, disparagement means any negative remarks regardless of truthfulness. It is usually used in cases where the statements are truthful or opinions.

Defamation or libel is used when it is not. Obviously, you can usually disparage anyone you want if it is the truth or opinion. However, you may sign a contract, usually as part of employment, that forbids you from disparaging someone, usually your employer. That is likely what happened here. If you signed such a contract, your statements being true does not help you.

Also note that no contract can stop you from reporting a crime to the authorities, in case you ever need to know that.