Meta, Apparently, Really Wants Everyone To Read This Book (By Trying To Ban It)

Failures

from the well-NOW-the-book-sounds-interesting dept

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg, for giving me yet another exhibit in my museum of those who fail to understand the Streisand Effect. Meta is so desperate to silence a former employee’s book that it’s doing everything possible to ensure maximum publicity for the allegations within it. You might think that a company like Meta would understand the Streisand Effect, but apparently Mark Zuckerberg’s newfound commitment to “free speech” only goes so far.

You may have heard about a new book by a former Meta (then Facebook) policy person, Sarah Wynn-Williams, making some pretty explosive allegations about the company. Having spoken to a few former Meta employees, the general response I’ve gotten about the book is that it is a mix of known awful things the company did that have mostly been reported on, mixed with some more questionable claims. I heard from multiple people that some of the claims don’t sound right, though no one wanted to go further than that.

Either way, it appears that Meta is so unhappy with the book that it’s trying to silence the author. It claims she violated a non-disparagement agreement she signed when she was let go from the company years ago.

Let’s talk about Meta’s legal/media strategy here, because it’s a special kind of puzzling. The company’s plan appears to be:

1. Drag both the author and her publisher into arbitration over a severance agreement
2. Hope nobody notices that the publisher never signed any agreement with Meta
3. Get an arbitrator to order them to stop distributing a book that’s already on sale
4. ???
5. Profit! (Or at least, less embarrassing publicity)

According to the arbitrator’s interim award, Wynn-Williams simply ignored the proceedings (more on that decision in a moment). Meanwhile, Macmillan showed up just long enough to point out the blazingly obvious: they never signed any agreement with Meta and thus can’t be bound by arbitration. The arbitrator, displaying basic common sense, had to admit they had no jurisdiction over Macmillan.

On March 7, 2025, Claimant filed an Emergency Motion seeking interim and emergency measures pursuant to AAA Employment Rule 0-4 concerning the publication of Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism. On March 10, 2025, the Emergency Arbitrator was appointed and scheduled an emergency telephonic hearing with the parties to occur on March 11, 2025 at 3:15 p.m. (CT) / 4:15 p.m. (ET). On March 11, 2025, the Emergency Arbitrator held the telephonic hearing. Claimant, through its counsel, appeared and presented oral argument. Respondent Wynn-Williams did not appear, despite notice being provided by email. Respondent Macmillian, through its counsel, did specially appear (while preserving its objections to jurisdiction) and was provided the opportunity to be heard, and argued, among other points, that the Emergency Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over Respondent Macmillian, and that Respondent Macmillian should not be specifically named in this award.

On March 12, 2025 at 11:16 a.m. (ET), the Emergency Arbitrator informed the parties that he would provide Respondent Wynn-Williams additional time until 9:00 a.m. (ET) on March 13, 2025 to file any written objection to Claimant’s Motion. Shortly thereafter at 12:19 p.m. (ET), Claimant provided the Arbitrator and the parties additional evidence regarding Respondent Wynn-Williams knowledge of the proceedings. On the morning of March 12, 2025, Respondent Wynn-Williams apparently appeared on a popular podcast where she discussed her book and Claimant’s attempts to “shut this book down.” The Emergency Arbitrator will consider Claimant’s March 12 submission of the podcast’s partial transcript as a further exhibit in support of its Emergency Motion. Accordingly, the Emergency Arbitrator finds that Respondent Wynn-Williams is on notice of this emergency proceeding.

So Meta filed an emergency motion on March 7th, got a hearing on March 11th, and then frantically submitted evidence that Wynn-Williams knew about the proceedings because she went on a podcast to talk about how Meta was trying to “shut this book down.” Which, of course, is exactly what was happening.

Yeah, so, no one comes out of this looking particularly good. Meta’s aggressive move in trying to silence the book (which is clearly backfiring and driving more attention to the book) seems absurd. Just put out a bland statement (as the company already did) saying that the book is full of “out-of-date” claims and “false accusations.” If there’s anything particularly egregiously wrong, present some receipts, and let the whole thing fade away.

By going to arbitration and trying to block publication, then, suddenly, it all gets that much more attention.

The arbitrator’s ruling reads like a corporate revenge fantasy rather than enforceable legal reality. Yes, Wynn-Williams probably should have engaged with the arbitration process rather than just appearing on podcasts to discuss Meta’s attempts to silence her. But the arbitrator’s order is nonsensical: telling her not to make disparaging remarks about Meta, not to promote a book that’s already on sale, and to stop distribution “to the extent within [her] control” (which is effectively zero since Macmillan controls distribution and isn’t bound by the arbitration).

This fits a pattern for Meta. For all of Zuckerberg’s grand pronouncements about free speech and open dialogue, the company seems pretty quick to freak out when strong criticism comes along.

The timing here is particularly rich. Just months after Zuckerberg made grand proclamations about Meta’s renewed commitment to “free speech,” here we are watching his company flail around trying to legally mandate silence. It turns out Zuckerberg’s version of “free speech” comes with some pretty significant terms and conditions.

The irony, of course, is that Meta’s heavy-handed response has only amplified Wynn-Williams’ message. Perhaps instead of paying lawyers to draft emergency arbitration motions, someone at Meta should have invested in a quick course on the Streisand Effect (I know a good instructor). Though given the company’s track record, they’d probably try to get an arbitrator to block that too.

Filed Under: arbitration, former employees, mark zuckerberg, sarah wynn-williams, streisand effect, tell all books
Companies: facebook, macmillan, meta