“New York magazine has previously reported that Wynn-Williams was paid an advance for the book of more than $500,000 (£370,000).”
That’s the part they buried. If you’re handed half a million up front, it’s hard to square “bankruptcy” with some kind of noble crusade. The article frames it like she’s sacrificing everything to expose Meta, but it reads more like poor money management than pure altruism. Meta’s behavior might still be heavy-handed, but leaving that payout until halfway down makes the story feel slanted.
That would be the minimum you'd need to even get the retainer paid to fight the SLAPP you're guaranteed to get from one of the most powerful and vindictive companies on earth
$500k is nothing to scoff at. However, it’s also not like they won the lottery. Depending on where she lives, her financial situation, how frequently she writes/publishes, etc. that number can mean very different things.
Also, at the very top before the article even begins:
> Sarah Wynn-Williams faces $50,000 fine every time she breaches order banning her from criticising Meta
And further down:
> However, the former diplomat was barred from publicising the memoir after Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, secured a ruling preventing her from doing so.
I think it’s fair of me to say that maybe we shouldn’t downplay her situation.
> I think it’s fair of me to say that maybe we shouldn’t downplay her situation.
Right - if she had actually gone through the PIDA channels, the courts might treat it differently. But skipping straight to a $500k advance and a commercial book makes it harder to see this as whistleblowing. Truth or not, it looks less like a principled disclosure and more like monetizing criticism of Meta.
People have to make a living, that’s capitalism for you. You expect her to spend years on this and just release it for free? Then pay her rent and stock her fridge for her.
There is nothing wrong with making money writing a tell-all so far as the work is rigorous and truthful. Attacking her for profiting is a cheap way to discredit her without having to assess the merits of her work.
Yes it’s valid to critique the source and see where funding is coming from, that’s important information, but discrediting someone out the gate for making money on something is simply lazy and requires no critical assessment at all.
Fair point, but the issue isn’t that she got paid. It’s that the reporting frames her as bankrupt martyr while burying the half-million advance. Making money on a book is fine, but when you sell it as whistleblowing rather than commerce, readers deserve to know the financial context up front.
There’s often significant payouts associated with whistleblowing because it’s so financially risky. The SEC has paid people way more than 500k and it’s not uncommon for those people to regret it.
> Fair point, but the issue isn’t that she got paid.
Then we shouldn’t assert that it matters. I’m glad we agreed ultimately it doesn’t, but I just want to be very clear there.
The half-million advance does not mean she can’t be going bankrupt. As I said, it’s not exactly lottery money, especially when 10% of that is at risk for every offense she’s up for, and she is struggling to get the rest of her money the book would net because of their blocking it. You’re ignoring a ton of context and overstating how much 500k should solve her financial woes.
Also, it’s not “buried,” it’s in the article clear as day. You just think it should be the first thing stated.
Frankly I’m not sure what your aim is here. You’re being wildly charitable to Facebook here, whereas I would think we should start on her side until we see reason not to be.
I get what you’re saying, but my point is different. It’s not about rooting for Meta, it’s about how every story gets framed as righteous activism. After a while it feels performative more than principled. I don’t think noticing that makes me “pro-Facebook,” it just means I’m tired of the constant activist spin that leaves out key context.
I don’t get what you’re getting from this article that is leading you to the conclusion that this is performative and I don’t know what key context is being left out here. They tell you clearly that she has been paid for this book and how much it was for. That is literally why we are having this discussion.
The whole thing feels performative because the framing is all martyrdom. “Bankruptcy for exposing Meta” makes for a good headline, but when you bury the $500k advance it turns into a morality play instead of straight reporting. Writing a book and doing media is symbolic, but it’s not the same as taking protected disclosures through proper channels. That’s where the activism starts to look more about appearance than effect.
Call it what you want. Unless there’s something in the reporting to indicate that it is incorrect, then you should take it largely at face value. If you don’t, then go find evidence that counters it and make up your mind.
I’m not saying the reporting is factually wrong. Facts can be right while the framing still shapes the story in a way that misleads. That’s why skepticism matters.
It is about noticing when the narrative is doing extra work.
I don’t understand how this is confusing or otherwise perplexing. People can’t just spend years doing this stuff for free, I’m sure we both know this and it’s strange for you to pretend otherwise.
We don’t have a system that provides for that unless you’re incredibly privileged/financially set already.
She’s a US citizen living in the US writing for a US publication about a US-based company and being challenged in the US legal system. The US is a capitalist nation.
I do not understand where your objection is coming from.
True, Zhang was dismissed and ignored inside Facebook. But by going through the internal and external disclosure channels she left a paper trail that regulators, journalists, and researchers could use. It didn’t fix Meta, but it gave her work legitimacy and fed into hearings and reporting. That’s different from skipping straight to a commercial book deal.
> True, Zhang was dismissed and ignored inside Facebook.
Zhang wasn't ignored. She made a huge fucking impact internally. The problem is the department that she was trying to affect change is run by a bastard.
That's not how legal fees work. Hiring lawyers to oppose Facebook and allow your book to be published is expensive, and currently she seems to be losing the fight.
Any big lawyer group that would be willing to go up against meta will rip through 500k in 6 months or less and then wish you the best at the end of those few months of representing you.
Honestly, I don't care if it made her richer than Zuckerberg and her only reason to do it was unrelated personal spite. It's contrary to public interest, and should be illegal, to bind anybody not to disclose truthful information about how a corporation operates. Full stop.
Not all anti-social behavior is illegal. Most isn't.
Say a company operated a short-form video platform, did active research about its effects, knew a large chunk of its user-base were children younger than 6 and knew that the video selection algorithm caused addiction but kept serving then addictive videos because getting the ad money was profitable.
Was any law broken? Should society know all of this?
Laws are put in place to protect society. When a behavior hurts the society the society puts a law against it. Like for example : Australia requires minimum age 16 for creating an online account. This addresses one of the issues you mentioned in your post: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...
This is how abuse is addressed and society is protected. Not by choosing to get a severance package, reneging on the contract, seeking a book deal and then crying 'woe be me' on The Guardian.
PS. I cannot help but notice two things:
1. The sort of people Meta seems to attract.
2. The fact that both you and I are creating online noise and sentiment which will probably help Sarah sell more books (or get another, better deal from Meta). It's better to get away from the computer now.
> When a behavior hurts the society the society puts a law against it
Laws are passed by politicians, not society. And the more removed they are from actual working people, the more different their incentives are. You and I as members of society have very little actual control over what gets passed.
On any given issue, there's something between 0 and 30% of the population who actually care.
- Immigration? Maybe 30% cares, the rest doesn't.
- Gay marriage? Maybe 10%, idk really.
- Whether training an ML model is derivative work? Right now, I'd guess close to 1%, hopefully it'll go up.
- Whether online services should disclose evidence of causing addiction? I bet that's maybe 2% now.
- Trans rights? Depending on country, it's between 0 and, say, 10%. This issue is massively hyped up by people who benefit from dividing the population to distract them from other issues. No, seriously, most people should have no need to dictate other people's lives, but frame is as an attack on moral values and you get supporters.
The issue with democracy is that you don't vote on issues, you vote for parties. And even if you live in a democracy which isn't totally broken by degenerating into 2 parties, there are still way fewer parties than combinations of issues. So you can't express your view in any meaningful way.
It's like describing a precise point in N-dimensional space (your entire opinion) by picking 1 of a dozen predefined points. When you realize this, you realize how incredibly dumb is it.
Right. Let me say it one more time: these laws are passed because of leaks. Not because of $0.5 million book deal. She could have leaked these anonymously or not to the NYT or WP or WSJ or whoever. She chose the book deal.
Didn't mean to imply is isn't in the article. I came to commentary after seeing the headline. Usually on HN there is a comment that shows why the headline is misleading in some way.
It's an open secret that many people here don't read past the headline before commenting, but being open about it and proudly stating it is certainly... an interesting choice on your part.
She could have started a blog if she was motivated by truth. But she chose the book deal. Quoting from Casino: “It’s always the dollars. Always the %$!@ dollars.”
> She could have started a blog if she was motivated by truth
now you are liable on your own, without any of the backing of a large publisher with specialist lawyers on staff. Plus it'd go nowhere and be taken down almost instantly by facebook.
Yeah, like… exactly what she's doing? People here are so willing to assume that she's doing all this out of self interest, because of what? A $500,000 book deal? Compared to what she stands to lose? She isn't stupid, she knows the risk. As a New Zealander myself I'm not sure if there's just some cultural difference at play here with the tendency to assume the worst in people but it seems kind of sad.
That’s the part they buried. If you’re handed half a million up front, it’s hard to square “bankruptcy” with some kind of noble crusade. The article frames it like she’s sacrificing everything to expose Meta, but it reads more like poor money management than pure altruism. Meta’s behavior might still be heavy-handed, but leaving that payout until halfway down makes the story feel slanted.