Dear friend, Joel Kaplan must have been one of your best bosses. But how does that prove that he has been the best with everyone. Your 'one of the best bosses' was not supposed to behave the way he did with Sarah? Let us not go in the details of all that.
Do you not think that Facebook's policies in China, Myanmar or the way Instagram misused the photos of the teenagers to target its advertisers are wrong.
A few minor inaccuracies, even if they are in the book, can't be used to discredit the critical issues to which the author has brought the attention of the readers the world over. And also however Meta and its people may try to deflect, the murky deeds of these 'Careless People' have been exposed. These deflections will make the book more popular in the days to come.
I'm still to read the book Katie and all, but am already getting a bit of PTSD from reading about Facebook + Davos briefing books. Most of my interactions with Sheryl Sandberg -- both as a presidential and VP adviser at the EU, and as a Politico journalist -- happened in Davos.
Looking back, I think I forced myself to be more circumspect in my reactions to those meetings and interactions than I should have been. I just found the behavior did not match the moments, and those moment were themselves far from genocides or election interference.
I've had plenty of friends who work at FB/Meta and plenty of positive professional relationships with individuals and teams there. But I think those true and nice feelings can coexist with other concerns.
The first time I met anyone from FB leadership was in 2013 in Davos when I met with Sheryl and Marne Levine (with my boss, EU VP Neelie Kroes).
I came into it wary because a few months earlier my boss had invited Sheryl to sign up to a joint statement with the title "Women Need Tech and Tech needs Women," encouraging more women to get involved in the tech sector for International Women's Day. It was, frankly, a deliberately anondyne statement, but still one worth making. Yet Sheryl expressly called to make sure her name was nowhere near the statement (Marissa Meyer signed on in, like, two seconds). Her claim was that with Facebook's impending IPO she wasn't allowed to make public statements (she had just been a co-chair of WEF in Davos the previous month, so it wasn't like she was living in the shadows).
So in this first meeting in 2013, I remember thinking it was rude that Sheryl was mostly spaced out / looking over our shoulders for more important people to lock eyes with. No Lean In vibes at this meeting ... until she zeroed in on something Neelie said about kids at risk on the internet, and mounted an argument that we want our children and grandchildren to have play dates, and that since life is moving online, we should also want kids to have digital play dates. And Neelie pointed out that maybe we don't want six year olds on digital play dates, and therefore not on Facebook. But Sheryl was dead serious that it would be OK to have young kids online in this way. And we walked away thinking: that can't be right, she doesn't really want that.
Ho-hum, I thought. Until the next Davos, when Sheryl sent Marne Levine in her place to the launch of something called the EU Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition. This coalition was about emphasising the ways digital companies create jobs, instead of merely replacing people with software. It was an event hosted by the President of the European Commission, and to which other companies sent presidents and CEOs, with serious pledges about digital training. Levine read out the most bizarre 2-min script about how many people had searched for jobs on Facebook the previous year, and that that in essence was Facebook's contribution to digital jobs. Samsung had pledged to train 1 million Europeans in essential digital skills, and Microsoft pledged 13,000 internships in Europe, to give some contrasting examples.
So I turn up for the meeting and Tony Blair is sitting there in the room when I arrive. And then the top editor at Reuters turns up. And then a bunch of other FB staff turn up. And then it's clear it's nothing like a 1-to-1, it's basically a roundtable with Sheryl. Who eventually turns up wearing a Madonna mic, and announces she has to use it because she has so many meetings this week (as if we don't all have endless meetings that week). Then she proceeds with a sob story about how harsh people are being to Facebook over the 2016 U.S. election (the Cambridge Analytica scandal still hadn't broken at this point), and how Facebook doesn't even make any money from political ads (she probably meant it was a small amount, not literally none). And even though she's managed to engineer a situation where even Tony Blair is now part of an unpaid focus group convened under false pretences, person for person we all tell her than FB being in the political ads business is bad for democracy and bad for their reputation: so why not just get out of it? She holds the line that it's a freedom of speech issue. Afterwards she came up to me with a worried look, and asked "do you REALLY think we should be out of political ads" as if I was a lone or radical voice putting this idea forward. I just wondered what bubble she lived in.
Then finally in 2019, she was on some kind of apology tour (I forget what scandal had recently broken) that culminated in Davos, and despite my better instincts, I thought I had to go where the story was and turned up to another Facebook reception. The strangest thing was how many people like me turned up for the free champagne. Our price is lower than we think it is!
Sheryl eventually comes in with her own "Garry" next to her whispering into her ear who this person or that person is as she mills about the crowd. I was never TV famous or anything like that, but I'd been meeting Sheryl for six years at this point. If I emailed, I got a response (I am guessing from a team of assistants rather than SS herself, but the responses were suitably clear and concise so it was hard to tell). The point is: I was a person she should have recognized for better or worse if she bumped into me. No recognition apparent.
I can't say I know what any of this means individually, but literally none of it adds up collectively to being equal to the power and influence this company and these individuals exercised over our world. We can all say we were more optimistic about Silicon Valley back in the day, and that life and power is never exercised perfectly. True.
But really my point is that with great power comes great responsibility. It's not easy, and it's not supposed to be. And you don't get credit because you took on a hard job that made you a billionaire and you found it was, in fact, really f*ing hard. You get credit for being responsible, for learning from mistakes and slowing down, and breaking as few things as possible. Which is not really the way careless people operate, and not the track record - overall - of Facebook.
I love you, my friend, but I have to disagree with you so hard here. I don't think retroactive accountability is her goal. I think she's just chronicling a moment in time when a company that was literally helping shape world events chose to insert itself and tout its potential in ways and places where it was expedient--with often unintended consequences--and failed to take action or even seem to care about its potential for real world harm when it wasn't expedient. It's a head-spinning incongruity, and the senior leaders involved must've either simply not cared or done some significant mental gymnastics to justify it--and in most cases, based on my first hand observations, I don't believe it was the latter. I don't disagree with your criticism that things are glossed over, teams are somewhat combined into an amorphous "other" that was not her domain, and therefore lots of people and teams whose work mattered were skipped over. That's important to us, because we were that "other," but I honestly don't think the distinction between organic FB use versus paid ads by politicians or how/when those teams developed matters one iota to the central point of the book. And all of that said, I still love you and I can't wait to read your book.
I am glad you put out your perspective, and I have heard from others who I love that I'm focusing too much on the minutiae, and only those who worked on it care. That could be very true, but the only way I know forward is to share my perspective of the story just as you are doing so people can have a fuller picture. My point in the piece is that the larger argument you talk of would be much stronger if the details weren't glossed over. I love you too and appreciate us being able to disagree while doing so.
Focusing on details is just an attempt to defend something that has become almost impossible to defend these days. Also, Meta’s recent decisions on content moderation and Zuck cosiing up to Trump only confirm the mindset at the company. In the end that was the aim of the book, to give insight on how consequantial decisions with real life impact are made based on the whim and ego of a few execs and with regard only to the bottom line. Obviously this does’t surprise many but it’s refreshing to see it laied out so clearly.
Furthermore, saying Obama also used facebook is a weak “what about”, since I believe the point being made in the book is not that facebook is inherently bad, but that it allowed the spread of fake news and miss information which is the fuel that drove Trump’s campaign and others throughout the world
'nooo the factory wasn't actually that bad upton Sinclair is exaggerating' - girl whose still shilling her boss at EvilCorp being Totally A Nice Guy I Swear. maam you worked for a company that helped genocides, you're not trustworthy about any theoretical allegedly good things they could have done. all of your bosses belong at the hague
Brilliant, well written, and immensely credible book. Not one word is out of place. Research shows how truthful it is. Loved this book. Bought several copies for friends.
I read the book, and have also discussed it with a few ex-Meta employees. I have also researched the many, disgusting business practices of Facebook in it's pursuit for endless growth and stock price increases over many years. Now having read your post, it appears you're trying to do the exact thing you accuse Sarah of - failing to take responsibility for your role in the morally bankrupt work of Facebook.
My husband worked at Meta (legal) and had so many things he wanted to point out. I am so glad this woman came out with this book. Meta was also one of the companies Supermicro used to work with. They are the biggest cheaters, their thing is they will break the law until someone attempts to hit em' with a lawsuit and good luck w/the person that is lawyering up because it may be biased to the company due to political ties. I also know someone of a sister that works there and slept her way to the talk to be there with Sheryl Sandberg.
I feel, given that fb would sue her ass, if they could, means the book is true. There might be details of who worked on what but that’s irrelevant. This is the story of how fb operates, and the deadly consequences that can have, not who created the decks for Davos. I’ve read the book. It’s fascinating and scary and really confirms my/our worst fears. I believe there is a mention in the book that Clinton declined to have staff embedded. That in now way justifies the lies and smear campaigns that fb allowed to be published on the platform. Personally she should have left earlier and the numerous ‘I need to leave’ moments do wear. However we all know how hard it is to walk away from power and profile. My question though: did she lose the benefit of her stock options as she got fired?
This book is shocking, and Facebook/Meta had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing. Not only did you all turn a blind eye, the leadership team finely tuned the worst possible parts of Facebook.
I'm embarrassed for you, you tragic pick me.
Women don't come forward about sexual harassment because of things like this post, and the reasons laid out in the book. Spoiler alert: She was fired for reporting her harassment.
Now we have the red-pilled incel version of Mark Zuckerberg being unleashed on us all. Sarah became part of the solution in writing this book. You, (sad, pathetic, embarrassing) Katie, continue to be part of the much bigger problem.
Do yourself a favor and go touch some grass. I got like three emails from Substack with all of your pathetic attempts at insulting me and then editing your comments.
According to your post history, it took 3 tries before you could figure out how to insult me. That's hilarious and very very tragic.
Did you also create this account to come at me? If someone writes a public substack to attack someone's character, they should be prepared for the backlash.
I'm a little over halfway through the book. The way I see it, the exaggerations are obvious. I keep yelling at the book because I think the author constantly makes terrible decisions, either harmful ones endorsing what FB does, but she also makes so many dumb decisions on how she navigates her company, raising issues with superiors and not anticipating and preparing for things going wrong!
I hardly think she's painting herself in a positive light, though I wonder if she even realizes it. This is not someone who can navigate any serious corporate environment.
In short: they're all careless idiots, some just have a greater impact than others.
Also: I'm glad we're back to having the conversation on how much Lean In is elitist, unrealistic BS.
You're last comment about Lean In, hell yes! Total crap. I sniffed it out from the beginning and Im gonna say it this way: Bunch of white elitist crap and clearly Sheryl Sandberg never practiced what she preached.
One final point to Katie Harbath that someone else made. Your defense of Joel Kaplan is so incredibly dismissive of Sarah's experience, it made me gasp outlook. That kind of behavior is what keeps predators like Joel safe. Please do better.
In hindsight, it is easy to criticize others decisions. We all make them. Some of us just have more impact than others. Humanity is flawed. The point is to do better.
She didn't criticize her own decisions, in hindsight. She seems to consider herself better than the people she wrote about. I firmly disagree that she is.
I found this article while searching for some of the responses to the book and I am so disappointed in this take. Particularly your inference that because you did not experience your boss in a certain way, then that is not how he was. Just because he did not exhibit the behavior with you, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I agree with the many takes that some of the details you mentioned aren’t important to the whole of the story and shouldn’t be the cause of you painting it as in accurate. And then ending with your conclusion that since you viewed the book as inaccurate, the conclusions drawn about those in leadership should be questioned. As if the world didn’t know before this, how horrible Facebook execs have been.
The same happened for me! I was looking for other reader’s take on it. Seems Meta did a good of attempting to block it. If it weren’t true they would not care so much. And yet, here we are. Discussing it. 😼
Can you confirm the section on Myanmar? This is where the amoral nature of the business is most devastating. The internal politics are amusing but the core message of the indifferent power of big business and the monsters running it, is the point.
I found it interesting how the employees are locked in to their jobs by their need for health insurance. Despite her claimed revulsion she could not leave with her health issues and small children. A shocking indictment of American culture.
Zuckerberg comes across as a feudal lord.
Sadly these people , without ethics or a moral compass, appear to be in charge.
Dear friend, Joel Kaplan must have been one of your best bosses. But how does that prove that he has been the best with everyone. Your 'one of the best bosses' was not supposed to behave the way he did with Sarah? Let us not go in the details of all that.
Do you not think that Facebook's policies in China, Myanmar or the way Instagram misused the photos of the teenagers to target its advertisers are wrong.
A few minor inaccuracies, even if they are in the book, can't be used to discredit the critical issues to which the author has brought the attention of the readers the world over. And also however Meta and its people may try to deflect, the murky deeds of these 'Careless People' have been exposed. These deflections will make the book more popular in the days to come.
I'm still to read the book Katie and all, but am already getting a bit of PTSD from reading about Facebook + Davos briefing books. Most of my interactions with Sheryl Sandberg -- both as a presidential and VP adviser at the EU, and as a Politico journalist -- happened in Davos.
Looking back, I think I forced myself to be more circumspect in my reactions to those meetings and interactions than I should have been. I just found the behavior did not match the moments, and those moment were themselves far from genocides or election interference.
I've had plenty of friends who work at FB/Meta and plenty of positive professional relationships with individuals and teams there. But I think those true and nice feelings can coexist with other concerns.
The first time I met anyone from FB leadership was in 2013 in Davos when I met with Sheryl and Marne Levine (with my boss, EU VP Neelie Kroes).
I came into it wary because a few months earlier my boss had invited Sheryl to sign up to a joint statement with the title "Women Need Tech and Tech needs Women," encouraging more women to get involved in the tech sector for International Women's Day. It was, frankly, a deliberately anondyne statement, but still one worth making. Yet Sheryl expressly called to make sure her name was nowhere near the statement (Marissa Meyer signed on in, like, two seconds). Her claim was that with Facebook's impending IPO she wasn't allowed to make public statements (she had just been a co-chair of WEF in Davos the previous month, so it wasn't like she was living in the shadows).
So in this first meeting in 2013, I remember thinking it was rude that Sheryl was mostly spaced out / looking over our shoulders for more important people to lock eyes with. No Lean In vibes at this meeting ... until she zeroed in on something Neelie said about kids at risk on the internet, and mounted an argument that we want our children and grandchildren to have play dates, and that since life is moving online, we should also want kids to have digital play dates. And Neelie pointed out that maybe we don't want six year olds on digital play dates, and therefore not on Facebook. But Sheryl was dead serious that it would be OK to have young kids online in this way. And we walked away thinking: that can't be right, she doesn't really want that.
Ho-hum, I thought. Until the next Davos, when Sheryl sent Marne Levine in her place to the launch of something called the EU Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition. This coalition was about emphasising the ways digital companies create jobs, instead of merely replacing people with software. It was an event hosted by the President of the European Commission, and to which other companies sent presidents and CEOs, with serious pledges about digital training. Levine read out the most bizarre 2-min script about how many people had searched for jobs on Facebook the previous year, and that that in essence was Facebook's contribution to digital jobs. Samsung had pledged to train 1 million Europeans in essential digital skills, and Microsoft pledged 13,000 internships in Europe, to give some contrasting examples.
Fast forward to when I'm writing Politico's Davos Playbook newsletter, and Facebook now has a massive Davos pavilion and I was invited to meet Sheryl. This is Jan 2018 and it's amusing because the day before we meet Facebook announces essentially the same digital skills initiative they refused to sign onto in 2014 (https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/davos-playbook/politico-davos-playbook-trumps-town-meet-davos-woman-mercron-european-love-story-back-on/)
So I turn up for the meeting and Tony Blair is sitting there in the room when I arrive. And then the top editor at Reuters turns up. And then a bunch of other FB staff turn up. And then it's clear it's nothing like a 1-to-1, it's basically a roundtable with Sheryl. Who eventually turns up wearing a Madonna mic, and announces she has to use it because she has so many meetings this week (as if we don't all have endless meetings that week). Then she proceeds with a sob story about how harsh people are being to Facebook over the 2016 U.S. election (the Cambridge Analytica scandal still hadn't broken at this point), and how Facebook doesn't even make any money from political ads (she probably meant it was a small amount, not literally none). And even though she's managed to engineer a situation where even Tony Blair is now part of an unpaid focus group convened under false pretences, person for person we all tell her than FB being in the political ads business is bad for democracy and bad for their reputation: so why not just get out of it? She holds the line that it's a freedom of speech issue. Afterwards she came up to me with a worried look, and asked "do you REALLY think we should be out of political ads" as if I was a lone or radical voice putting this idea forward. I just wondered what bubble she lived in.
Then finally in 2019, she was on some kind of apology tour (I forget what scandal had recently broken) that culminated in Davos, and despite my better instincts, I thought I had to go where the story was and turned up to another Facebook reception. The strangest thing was how many people like me turned up for the free champagne. Our price is lower than we think it is!
Sheryl eventually comes in with her own "Garry" next to her whispering into her ear who this person or that person is as she mills about the crowd. I was never TV famous or anything like that, but I'd been meeting Sheryl for six years at this point. If I emailed, I got a response (I am guessing from a team of assistants rather than SS herself, but the responses were suitably clear and concise so it was hard to tell). The point is: I was a person she should have recognized for better or worse if she bumped into me. No recognition apparent.
I can't say I know what any of this means individually, but literally none of it adds up collectively to being equal to the power and influence this company and these individuals exercised over our world. We can all say we were more optimistic about Silicon Valley back in the day, and that life and power is never exercised perfectly. True.
But really my point is that with great power comes great responsibility. It's not easy, and it's not supposed to be. And you don't get credit because you took on a hard job that made you a billionaire and you found it was, in fact, really f*ing hard. You get credit for being responsible, for learning from mistakes and slowing down, and breaking as few things as possible. Which is not really the way careless people operate, and not the track record - overall - of Facebook.
Please write a book! 🙏🏼
I love you, my friend, but I have to disagree with you so hard here. I don't think retroactive accountability is her goal. I think she's just chronicling a moment in time when a company that was literally helping shape world events chose to insert itself and tout its potential in ways and places where it was expedient--with often unintended consequences--and failed to take action or even seem to care about its potential for real world harm when it wasn't expedient. It's a head-spinning incongruity, and the senior leaders involved must've either simply not cared or done some significant mental gymnastics to justify it--and in most cases, based on my first hand observations, I don't believe it was the latter. I don't disagree with your criticism that things are glossed over, teams are somewhat combined into an amorphous "other" that was not her domain, and therefore lots of people and teams whose work mattered were skipped over. That's important to us, because we were that "other," but I honestly don't think the distinction between organic FB use versus paid ads by politicians or how/when those teams developed matters one iota to the central point of the book. And all of that said, I still love you and I can't wait to read your book.
I am glad you put out your perspective, and I have heard from others who I love that I'm focusing too much on the minutiae, and only those who worked on it care. That could be very true, but the only way I know forward is to share my perspective of the story just as you are doing so people can have a fuller picture. My point in the piece is that the larger argument you talk of would be much stronger if the details weren't glossed over. I love you too and appreciate us being able to disagree while doing so.
I think the ‘larger argument’ in the book is quite clear …
Me too
Focusing on details is just an attempt to defend something that has become almost impossible to defend these days. Also, Meta’s recent decisions on content moderation and Zuck cosiing up to Trump only confirm the mindset at the company. In the end that was the aim of the book, to give insight on how consequantial decisions with real life impact are made based on the whim and ego of a few execs and with regard only to the bottom line. Obviously this does’t surprise many but it’s refreshing to see it laied out so clearly.
Furthermore, saying Obama also used facebook is a weak “what about”, since I believe the point being made in the book is not that facebook is inherently bad, but that it allowed the spread of fake news and miss information which is the fuel that drove Trump’s campaign and others throughout the world
'nooo the factory wasn't actually that bad upton Sinclair is exaggerating' - girl whose still shilling her boss at EvilCorp being Totally A Nice Guy I Swear. maam you worked for a company that helped genocides, you're not trustworthy about any theoretical allegedly good things they could have done. all of your bosses belong at the hague
Brilliant, well written, and immensely credible book. Not one word is out of place. Research shows how truthful it is. Loved this book. Bought several copies for friends.
This is a great idea! I'll buy additional copies for friends. I'm already telling everyone I know to read it.
I read the book, and have also discussed it with a few ex-Meta employees. I have also researched the many, disgusting business practices of Facebook in it's pursuit for endless growth and stock price increases over many years. Now having read your post, it appears you're trying to do the exact thing you accuse Sarah of - failing to take responsibility for your role in the morally bankrupt work of Facebook.
Well said!
My husband worked at Meta (legal) and had so many things he wanted to point out. I am so glad this woman came out with this book. Meta was also one of the companies Supermicro used to work with. They are the biggest cheaters, their thing is they will break the law until someone attempts to hit em' with a lawsuit and good luck w/the person that is lawyering up because it may be biased to the company due to political ties. I also know someone of a sister that works there and slept her way to the talk to be there with Sheryl Sandberg.
I feel, given that fb would sue her ass, if they could, means the book is true. There might be details of who worked on what but that’s irrelevant. This is the story of how fb operates, and the deadly consequences that can have, not who created the decks for Davos. I’ve read the book. It’s fascinating and scary and really confirms my/our worst fears. I believe there is a mention in the book that Clinton declined to have staff embedded. That in now way justifies the lies and smear campaigns that fb allowed to be published on the platform. Personally she should have left earlier and the numerous ‘I need to leave’ moments do wear. However we all know how hard it is to walk away from power and profile. My question though: did she lose the benefit of her stock options as she got fired?
like i cannot emphasize enough i think you and everyone who worked for meta belong in jail
This book is shocking, and Facebook/Meta had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing. Not only did you all turn a blind eye, the leadership team finely tuned the worst possible parts of Facebook.
I'm embarrassed for you, you tragic pick me.
Women don't come forward about sexual harassment because of things like this post, and the reasons laid out in the book. Spoiler alert: She was fired for reporting her harassment.
Now we have the red-pilled incel version of Mark Zuckerberg being unleashed on us all. Sarah became part of the solution in writing this book. You, (sad, pathetic, embarrassing) Katie, continue to be part of the much bigger problem.
I think the lip fillers have gone your brain, gurl.
Coming here to post vitriol on other people's substacks is as you say "sad, pathetic, embarrassing."
I'm entitled to my opinion. Lifting up someone who sexually harasses people at work is disgusting.
Also, attacking me for my looks is, 'sad, pathetic, embarrassing.' I'd love to see what you look like. 🗑
I could also attack your ideas if you want.
Do yourself a favor and go touch some grass. I got like three emails from Substack with all of your pathetic attempts at insulting me and then editing your comments.
Go have the day that you deserve.
Personal attacks on a woman about another woman to prove a point is never a good choice. Just an observation.
According to your post history, it took 3 tries before you could figure out how to insult me. That's hilarious and very very tragic.
Did you also create this account to come at me? If someone writes a public substack to attack someone's character, they should be prepared for the backlash.
Watch out, ladies and gents, we have a Substack detective here!
Nice work showing everyone what you are. Keep it up, "Kimberly," with your fake account that you made just to bully me.
This is not doing your buddy any favors. It's actually reaffirming my original comment, so thank you.
I'm a little over halfway through the book. The way I see it, the exaggerations are obvious. I keep yelling at the book because I think the author constantly makes terrible decisions, either harmful ones endorsing what FB does, but she also makes so many dumb decisions on how she navigates her company, raising issues with superiors and not anticipating and preparing for things going wrong!
I hardly think she's painting herself in a positive light, though I wonder if she even realizes it. This is not someone who can navigate any serious corporate environment.
In short: they're all careless idiots, some just have a greater impact than others.
Also: I'm glad we're back to having the conversation on how much Lean In is elitist, unrealistic BS.
I'm only a few chapters in, but I think the author makes it clear her responsibility in some of the questionable decisions she made.
You're last comment about Lean In, hell yes! Total crap. I sniffed it out from the beginning and Im gonna say it this way: Bunch of white elitist crap and clearly Sheryl Sandberg never practiced what she preached.
One final point to Katie Harbath that someone else made. Your defense of Joel Kaplan is so incredibly dismissive of Sarah's experience, it made me gasp outlook. That kind of behavior is what keeps predators like Joel safe. Please do better.
In hindsight, it is easy to criticize others decisions. We all make them. Some of us just have more impact than others. Humanity is flawed. The point is to do better.
She didn't criticize her own decisions, in hindsight. She seems to consider herself better than the people she wrote about. I firmly disagree that she is.
Grab your copy of the banned Wynn-Williams book now — only $9.99 on Amazon ! Don't miss out ! https://amzn.to/3GdbGgy
I found this article while searching for some of the responses to the book and I am so disappointed in this take. Particularly your inference that because you did not experience your boss in a certain way, then that is not how he was. Just because he did not exhibit the behavior with you, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I agree with the many takes that some of the details you mentioned aren’t important to the whole of the story and shouldn’t be the cause of you painting it as in accurate. And then ending with your conclusion that since you viewed the book as inaccurate, the conclusions drawn about those in leadership should be questioned. As if the world didn’t know before this, how horrible Facebook execs have been.
The same happened for me! I was looking for other reader’s take on it. Seems Meta did a good of attempting to block it. If it weren’t true they would not care so much. And yet, here we are. Discussing it. 😼
Exactly that. And if it weren’t true, they’d be suing her with proof that it’s not 😅
Can you confirm the section on Myanmar? This is where the amoral nature of the business is most devastating. The internal politics are amusing but the core message of the indifferent power of big business and the monsters running it, is the point.
I found it interesting how the employees are locked in to their jobs by their need for health insurance. Despite her claimed revulsion she could not leave with her health issues and small children. A shocking indictment of American culture.
Zuckerberg comes across as a feudal lord.
Sadly these people , without ethics or a moral compass, appear to be in charge.
Definitely care less.
How much did Facebook pay you to discredit this book? 🙃