The sum of it all

Together, these three clauses – routinely used by Meta to silence would-be whistleblowers – meant that after Wynn-Williams's book was published, Meta got its arbitrator – a lawyer who is paid by Meta to adjudicate contractual disputes instead of an actual judge – to order her to never promote or even speak about her book.

The arbitrator awarded Meta $50,000 for each criticism that Wynn-Williams levied, quickly coming to a total of over $11,000,000. This vastly exceeds the assets and lifetime earning potential of Wynn-Williams and her husband (a reporter with the Financial Times). If this bill ever truly comes due, they will be wiped out.

Which raises an interesting question: what else can they do to her? Once they've secured civil damages that exceeds her net worth several times over, why shouldn't she just flout her agreement? "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," and all that.

Nevertheless, Wynn-Williams has scrupulously hewed to the arbitrator's rules, steadfastly remaining silent about her book, its contents, and her experiences at Facebook/Meta. When she and I appeared onstage together in London for the launch for my book Enshittification last year, she fell silent and assumed a blank expression any time the subject of Meta came up, and she didn't sign or sell books afterward:

https://www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2025/event/cory-doctorow-with-sarah-wynn-williams-chris-morris

When she won the British Book Award, she did not speak to accept it, and the cover of her book was blurred out on the overhead screen (she gave an acceptance speech on behalf of her co-winner, the late Virginia Giuffre, who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein and who accused Prince Andrew of sexual assault):

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/may/11/sarah-wynn-williams-and-virginia-giuffre-jointly-win-freedom-to-publish-prize-at-british-book-awards

Nevertheless, when she was booked to speak – about a subject other than her book – at the Hay Festival on a stage with Tim Wu and Carole Cadwalladr, Meta sent a legal threat to the festival and Wynn-Williams, claiming that if by speaking about anything in public, she would violate the arbitrator's order. Accordingly, Wynn-Williams maintained total silence and a blank facial expression for an hour on stage, saying not one word, while Wu and Cadwalladr carried on a discussion. Careless People was withdrawn from the festival bookshop on the days she appeared there:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/may/31/meta-legal-action-forces-facebook-whistleblower-to-stay-silent-at-hay-festival

Nevertheless, Meta has informed Wynn-Williams that her silent, motionless appearance on a stage constitutes a further breach of her "agreement" and that they are going to seek even more damages from her. This act of anti-ice cream thuggery has pushed Wynn-Williams over the edge and now she's sued to invalidate her contract:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jun/25/whistleblower-sarah-wynn-williams-sues-meta-attempts-to-silence-her-careless-people

Her lawyers have posted their documents related to the suit, including a 285-page declaration by Wynn-Williams explaining the great lengths she's gone to in order to comply with Meta's demands, and the company's absolute intransigence and arbitrary menace:

https://katzbanks.com/sarah-wynn-williams-meta-lawsuit-documents/

Why would Meta be so intent on destroying this one high-profile whistleblower? Surely they've heard of the Streisand Effect. There is no better way to ensure that Wynn-Williams' book (already a NYT #1 bestseller) continues to attract readers than to continue to escalate these threats.

I think they're perfectly aware that they are convincing more people to read Careless People (you should read it, it's genuinely excellent):

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250391230/carelesspeople/

But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because:

a) They've done even worse things since Wynn-Williams parted ways with the company; and

b) They're laying off thousands of workers because their giant bet on AI has been a flop, leaving them with a massive cash crunch; and

c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.

That's my theory, anyway:

https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-layoffs-managers-software-engineers-ai-spending-2026-6

Ingredients:

4 Golden apples

100 g of sugar (white or brown are both fine)

cinnamon powder

dessert wine (Moscatell, Malvasia...)

optional: crushed almonds or lemon peel

Preparation:

Preheat the oven at 180 ºC with heat from above and below.

Clean the apples with much water.

Remove the apple's heart. Be careful not to remove the bottom of the apple to avoid spilling the filling.

Place the apples on the tray.

Inside the whole at the apple's centre, add a spoon of sugar, some cinnamon powder, a drizzle of wine (don't worry if you're cooking for children, all the alcohol will evaporate in the oven), and if you want you can add a little piece of lemon peel or some almonds.

Bake the tray for 45-50 minutes approximately. How long you leave it depends how you like them, if you want them to melt you'll have to leave then between 1 and 2 hours. Every so often, take a look and stab them with a fork to see if they're soft enough or you want to leave them for longer.

Serve them and enjoy! You can eat them warm or cold, but most people prefer them warm.

Variations:

You can also add some water on the tray to help the wine evaporate.

You can skip the sugar, because baking the apple already makes it become sweeter.