The Meta Follow of the Author of ‘Careless People’ Is Relentless and Self-Defeating

On May 31, Sarah Wynn-Williams he took the stage as a panelist at the prestigious Hay event, along with law professor Tim Wu and journalist Carole Cadwalladr. Before he could say anything, he was greeted with cheers. He said nothing, sitting in silence as the other two discussed the evils of great technology. Still, his quiet presence inspired the audience, Wu later told me. ‘It’s the only time at the book club that I can be happy.

Wynn-Williams didn’t speak — she couldn’t speak — because of a temporary judge’s injunction that prevented her from promoting or promoting her best-selling book of the time. Trimwhere he worked as director of global public policy. In 2017, the company fired him, and he and his lawyers negotiated a settlement in which the company would pay him $780,000. The agreement said they would refrain from making “derogatory, defamatory or harmful comments” about Meta. In March 2025, Meta discovered that Wynn-Williams was about to publish a memoir, Careless people, which was actually 400 pages a sarcastic comment. Meta immediately asked for an emergency contract, and the decision at this time was that Wynn-Williams could not promote his book in any way. The verdict is still pending, and a grand jury trial is expected in October.

Now Wynn-Williams has spoken at length, under the defense of a lawsuit that was filed on June 25. He is complaining that he should actually stop the arbitration decision and move the dispute to the federal courts, because the process violated his right to speak. In his statement, he says, what he announced, has been removed because Meta says – with the help of the judge – that anything he says about technical principles can be interpreted as promoting the book. Each time they do this, they risk paying a $50,000 fine. Her attorneys said the decision “forced Ms. Wynn-Williams to remain silent for more than a year and not participate in the increasingly public debate.” As he said in his announcement, “It feels like Meta has control over my speech, my life, my behavior, and my ability to interact with others.”

Meta Answers filed this week calls his suit “a last-ditch effort to avoid a joint motion and avoid a final determination.” It repeatedly mentions the fact that Wynn-Williams agreed to a non-disparagement clause and a remedy.

The importance of this case does not depend on which side has the power. At a time when Big Tech is being questioned for its power and impunity, the views of the case speak louder than the merits of any contract dispute. These optics advance the narrative that the Meta is a merciless and evil force determined to suppress the truth in its wrongdoings.

In her statement, Wynn-Williams says she chose to accept the deal under duress. (Meta says that he had experienced lawyers who consulted on his behalf, and he knew very well that he was giving up free speech to sell $ 780,000.) He argues in his legal documents that when Mark Zuckerberg spoke at Georgetown University in 2019 he was free speech, and when Meta said that it would no longer force the harassment of privacy, he felt that the plaintiffs could no longer force the plaintiffs to agree. work. He didn’t bother to check with Meta if these suspicious thoughts were correct, and kept the book a secret.

On the other hand, he has a point that the number of his restrictions limits his technical decisions. It seems reasonable that they should be comfortable dealing with technical issues without worrying about talking themselves out of bankruptcy, especially since Meta representatives travel to see how they look in public. However, there is a certain appeal in how he defines what is and is not literary promotion: Silence at the Hay Festival seems more inflammatory than reciting the spoilers in his book. “Isn’t this bear pride?” I asked one of his lawyers, Corey Stoughton. “This bear will be hooked on anything,” he told me, referring to Meta’s accuracy in the case.