Meta Wants Free Speech for Everyone—Except Anyone Who Talks About Meta
Meta wants fact-checking gone for billions but demands silence from one whistleblower.
Meta's version of "free speech" comes with a few asterisks, fine print, and a non-disparagement clause longer than the Iliad. Because while Mark Zuckerberg is happy to let political misinformation, deepfakes, and flat-out lies swirl on his platforms unchecked, one former executive penning a gossipy memoir? That’s where he draws the line.
Careless People Expose Careless Billionaires
Sarah Wynn-Williams’ Careless People could’ve easily slipped into the overflowing bin of “former exec spills tea, tries to look like a reluctant hero.”
But no—Meta’s PR department decided to give it the Streisand Effect treatment, turning a book most of us would’ve ignored into Amazon’s third-best seller.
A round of applause for the communications geniuses who thought, “Hey, maybe if we aggressively remind everyone she worked closely with leadership, they'll forget to buy the book.”
Their playbook? First, smear campaign—she’s “disgruntled,” “toxic,” and “terminated.” Then, legal overreach—invoke an NDA like it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card for corporate malpractice.
Never mind that the NDA seems less like a confidentiality agreement and more like an old-school loyalty oath: "Swear allegiance to Zuck or face the consequences."
Dichotomy Framing: Free Speech for Me, NDA for Thee
Meta’s business model lets anyone shout anything into the void—election lies or snake oil supplements. But heaven forbid, someone with insider knowledge tries to shout about Meta. Wynn-Williams didn't just break an NDA; she broke the unwritten Silicon Valley code: you can lie to the public, but don’t air the dirty laundry of your fellow billionaires.
Meta’s hypocrisy writes itself:
End fact-checking for millions of users’ posts? Totally fine.
Demand prepublication fact-checking from one whistleblower? Absolutely essential.
That’s like Netflix canceling Black Mirror but requiring you to review your tweets with them before you post.
Power Doesn’t Like Leaks—Because It Can’t Control Them
At its core, this isn’t about one memoir or Meta’s fragile PR strategy. It’s about punishing disobedience. In a world where facts no longer hold sway—thanks mainly to social media algorithms optimized for outrage—Meta’s leadership isn’t trying to prove Wynn-Williams wrong. They’re warning anyone else who might feel morally queasy about the sausage-making in Menlo Park.
And here’s the kicker: Wynn-Williams doesn’t even come off like a crusading hero. She admits she cashed the checks, flew the jets, and only started dragging her feet after it became clear she was on the corporate chopping block. She’s not so much Daniel Ellsberg as she is a more glamorous, morally conflicted middle manager, which makes Meta’s overreaction even more telling. When the emperors are this terrified of a former courtier, it suggests the palace is much messier than they want you to think.
Make It Make Sense
Meta, the trillion-dollar empire that claims to connect the world, is now trying to gag a single woman with an NDA while simultaneously dismantling fact-checking and free speech guardrails for billions. It’s a bold business model: radical transparency for everyone else, obsessive secrecy for themselves.
Here’s a question: if your company’s moral compass is so intact, why do you fear someone telling her version of the story?
In the end, Careless People should borrow its title from Fitzgerald. Nothing screams Gatsby like billionaires who break things and then call on their lawyers to help clean up the mess.
Careless people rule the world—and Meta just confirmed it, one silencing attempt at a time.
That’s the point.