Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#31

Post by laweijfmvo » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

avalys wrote: post #16

“Zuck is also revealed to have given the Chinese state access to all of Facebook and the power to censor content they disliked, as part of a failed bid to get permission to offer a Facebook service in China.” This did not happen and I’m not aware of any evidence or allegations that it did. Williams claims that Meta indicated they would accept China’s demand to give the Chinese government access to Chinese users’ data…

i think the article is saying that’s what the book claims, not whether it’s true or false.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#32

Post by GlibMonkeyDeath » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

avalys wrote: post #16

“Zuck is also revealed to have given the Chinese state access to all of Facebook and the power to censor content they disliked, as part of a failed bid to get permission to offer a Facebook service in China.” This did not happen and I’m not aware of any evidence or allegations that it did. Williams claims that Meta indicated they would accept China’s demand to give the Chinese government access to Chinese users’ data…

That's a quote from Corey Doctorow, not Sarah Wynn-Williams. I read her book. She was pretty careful to use your language (i.e., that it was offered, but not implemented, and was China-only data from what she related. Not that that is great either, of course...)

Her main allegations (that Facebook/Meta optimizes for profit at the expense of everything else) seem pretty unsurprising. I mean, given what has been observed, is this in any way controversial?

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#33

Post by potatos22 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

avalys wrote: post #16

“Zuck is also revealed to have given the Chinese state access to all of Facebook and the power to censor content they disliked, as part of a failed bid to get permission to offer a Facebook service in China.” This did not happen and I’m not aware of any evidence or allegations that it did. Williams claims that Meta indicated they would accept China’s demand to give the Chinese government access to Chinese users’ data…

it was called project aldrain. multiple internal employees made company wide memos on internal platforms and resigned. they factually did the stuff your talking about.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#34

Post by jacobgold » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

Meta said in a statement that its “she accepted a large severance payment years ago...”

This is the only point from Meta that is legitimate. If she accepted payment in exchange for signing an NDA and then violated it, the appropriate remedy in this should be that she returns the money.

Which doesn't change the fact that Zuckerberg should be ashamed of using NDAs as a weapon like this. It's very small minded from a man who clearly wants to see himself as a great man of history.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#35

Post by hedora » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 4:01 PM UTC

avalys wrote: post #16

“Zuck is also revealed to have given the Chinese state access to all of Facebook and the power to censor content they disliked, as part of a failed bid to get permission to offer a Facebook service in China.” This did not happen and I’m not aware of any evidence or allegations that it did. Williams claims that Meta indicated they would accept China’s demand to give the Chinese government access to Chinese users’ data…

The Chinese rejected the offer, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Here’s an article from the Atlantic that was sponsored by the Koch Brothers (so, good luck arguing one sided political bias!) on Zuck’s strategy for whitewashing censorship of political speech:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191115132324/https://www.theat...

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#36

Post by kleton » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

> Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire.

That might be a bit generous to assume that he has this theory of mind

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#37

Post by akudha » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

My guess would be - there is way more primitive explanation than setting an example etc (which is also a good reason, from their point of view). It is just plain ego and pettiness - we see it everywhere, even from a manager who has 3 people reporting to him. Why else would Zuck cheat on a board game, of all things? That too in private?

It might just be as primitive as "I have more money than God, therefore I am better than everyone else, nobody dare to challenge/disrespect me even in the slightest". Blind rage can make people do things that they themselves can't understand

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#38

Post by gilrain » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #14

jjgreen wrote: post #2

Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire. There's quite a bit of competition out there ,,,

I kinda get the hate but harking back to the la terreur doesn’t do anyone any favors and instead will engender strange bedfellows.

Oh, well better let them destroy everything with greed then. Wouldn’t want to break, like, five eggs to save every other egg in the world…

The ethics become laughably simple, with as far as they’ve taken the resource imbalance. They should be very worried.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#39

Post by mananaysiempre » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

liendolucas wrote: post #18

All that it was ruled against her should be illegal. It should also be illegal for companies to add abusive contract clauses that directly go against basic rights as freedom of speech. Disgusting set of human beings Zuck and company. Read the book and then decide if it's worth continuing on FB.

I mean, a lot of people these days, including a lot of anti-Facebook techies, seem to think it is right and proper to equate “freedom of speech” to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, scoped to the government only, whereas private actors can do whatever. (Though now that I think about it I don’t know if Doctorow does—hopefully not but I’ve been disappointed by quite a few childhood idols in this way over the last decade.)

Unproductive schadenfreude aside, how does one get not punishing opinions—even those that would put the listener in danger if implemented—broadly accepted as a value? I hesitate to say “accepted again” because I’m getting the impression this was always a fringe position, it’s just that on occasion said fringe intersected with the similarly small circle of people whose opinions were broadly publicized.

Re: Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers

#40

Post by bob001 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

jacobgold wrote: post #34

Meta said in a statement that its “she accepted a large severance payment years ago...” This is the only point from Meta that is legitimate. If she accepted payment in exchange for signing an NDA and then violated it, the appropriate remedy in this should be that she returns the money. Which doesn't change the fact that Zuckerberg should be ashamed of using NDAs as a weapon like this. It's very small minded from a ma…

> using NDAs as a weapon like this.

This is standard in companies. I've seen companies give a pittance in exchange for a binding NDA and the person took it because they needed to pay rent that month. Meta is evil but in this case so is almost every other company and especially tech companies. Also, giving it back doesn't undo the contract, the deal was done.