At the risk of violating Goodwin’s Law, I feel obliged to point out that Trump wasn’t the first person to figure out that if your lies are brazen enough people will think you can’t possibly be that brazen. Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Propoganda minister) famously articulated the concept of the Big Lie decades ago.
(Thank you for tuning into your irregularly scheduled daily nitpick)
I've read a couple of reviews of this book now but no one seems to be trying to answer the question: how true are these anecdotes? How much do they fit in with portraits of Facebook's executives that others have painted? I, for one, find it hard to believe that Sandberg asks her aides to sleep next to her. Would this really have been okay in the #metoo world? Surely, Sandberg had many enemies at Facebook who would have been delighted to get this exposed? The media would have jumped at it publishing this at the height of metoo and the techlash, no?
I worry that this book is just selling us exactly that everyone in the techlash *wants* to think about Facebook and its execs. And of course, by trying to gag the author, they have given the book even more publicity.
That's a fair comment. I personally don't see any real way for me to judge the truth or untruth of claims like that, and I think it's hard for professional journalists to do so given that the involved parties are all either conflicted or under NDAs/gag orders. But it would definitely be welcome.
I have to believe that everything in the book is true, or at least every statement of fact about anything to do with Facebook. Sarah Wynn-Williams is clearly no dummy, so I can't imagine she would risk putting anything in the book that she could be successfully sued over.
I was initially surprised by the way Sandberg came across, too. But as the book went on, it occurred to me that this would not be the first time that I had learned about the sordid underbelly of a megarich hypocrite.
I don't even mean the book's incidents are lies; but it could be that they are vastly exaggerated or they could be fifth-hand; perhaps someone (who heard of it third-hand) told the author this about Sheryl Sandberg and she is just repeating it (I haven't read the book so I don't know if she tells the source or not). (Also, we know that US courts have a very stringent standard on libel so unless Facebook can prove that the author is willfully lying while knowing otherwise, they will not convict. Seems to me like that's why they are suing over the NDA instead.)
All I can say is that the reactions I hear in the reviews is something like: "we knew they were awful and this proves it" but this seems awfully convenient to me. E.g., take Myanmar; could Facebook have actually done anything about what happened there? I would like someone who actually followed what happened and who knows how content moderation works (and how tough it is) to read this account and actually try to tell us whether the "if only Zuckerberg had done X then, we would have saved thousands of lives" narrative (which I'd say is the one that's strongly implied in the book as per the reviews) is correct or not.
Jeremiah says in his review that the author shouldn't be excused herself but again, this whole book seems to be the author's way of saying: I was right all along but no one listened to me. Very convenient.
Sorry, that's a lot of commentary from someone who hasn't read the book. Maybe I will read it.
I appreciate your disclaimer about not yet having read the book. All I can say is that I strongly encourage you to read it.
I went into the book with no strong feelings about Facebook except for a dim view of Zuckerberg, so I wasn't looking to have my preconceived notions confirmed. In fact, I was kind of laughing during the first third of the book, because except for a teaser/prologue, there was nothing about Zuck, because the author did not have anything to do with him when she first started. Almost never even saw him.
As to the rest, I will say that I am a fairly skeptical reader, especially when it comes to things like tell-all books. But there was nothing about this book that even gave me pause. It all comes across as rock-solid.
I disagree with you somewhat about the legal aspects. Yes, libel can be hard to prove at times, but those high hurdles usually have to do with subjective claims. Statements of fact can more easily be disputed; i.e., a libel claim can be made to stand if the plaintiff can provide evidence to the contrary. And there is also the reality that a libel plaintiff with deep pockets can ruin a defendant's life even without being able to win in court; see, for example, what Peter Thiel did to Nick Denton/Gawker Media. So, I think there is pretty much nothing false in the book.
The part about Myanmar came across as completely plausible to me. Again, you will have to read the book to see what I'm saying. Facebook's irresponsibility here is just jaw-dropping. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the blood of thousands of people are on the hands of the C-suite people at Facebook.
Finally, as to the author's culpability, I don't have a short answer. Given where she started from, as completely idealistic about the good that she believed Facebook could do for the world, I can understand why she stuck it out for the first few years, and I could see why it didn't seem completely crazy for her to think she could make things better if she stuck it out. And then there were some harsh personal realities: health problems combined with not being a US citizen combined with being pregnant put her in a position where she felt like she had to stick around for just a bit longer, or she would have been in deep trouble, perhaps even fatally so. I am not exaggerating here.
At the same time, I did think, several times, couldn't she have made an exit plan sooner? Been a little smarter regarding family planning? Removed the rose-colored glasses and admitted that things were never going to get better? Which, also admittedly, is easy for me to say, watching from outside, knowing generally how it's going to come out.
I just finished reading this myself. I mostly agree with your review. Not this part, though: "There’s no denying that he’s in some ways brilliant ..."
I have never thought that about Zuckerberg, and nothing in this book gave me any reason to change my mind. I see him as someone who had a couple of good ideas which were lucrative enough for him to hire all of the brilliant people he needed to make things grow.
At the risk of violating Goodwin’s Law, I feel obliged to point out that Trump wasn’t the first person to figure out that if your lies are brazen enough people will think you can’t possibly be that brazen. Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Propoganda minister) famously articulated the concept of the Big Lie decades ago.
(Thank you for tuning into your irregularly scheduled daily nitpick)
I have the same nit to pick :) but I greatly enjoyed reading this one.
I'd argue careless people have ruled over most of human civilization as long as humans have been "civilized".
I've read a couple of reviews of this book now but no one seems to be trying to answer the question: how true are these anecdotes? How much do they fit in with portraits of Facebook's executives that others have painted? I, for one, find it hard to believe that Sandberg asks her aides to sleep next to her. Would this really have been okay in the #metoo world? Surely, Sandberg had many enemies at Facebook who would have been delighted to get this exposed? The media would have jumped at it publishing this at the height of metoo and the techlash, no?
I worry that this book is just selling us exactly that everyone in the techlash *wants* to think about Facebook and its execs. And of course, by trying to gag the author, they have given the book even more publicity.
That's a fair comment. I personally don't see any real way for me to judge the truth or untruth of claims like that, and I think it's hard for professional journalists to do so given that the involved parties are all either conflicted or under NDAs/gag orders. But it would definitely be welcome.
I have to believe that everything in the book is true, or at least every statement of fact about anything to do with Facebook. Sarah Wynn-Williams is clearly no dummy, so I can't imagine she would risk putting anything in the book that she could be successfully sued over.
I was initially surprised by the way Sandberg came across, too. But as the book went on, it occurred to me that this would not be the first time that I had learned about the sordid underbelly of a megarich hypocrite.
I don't even mean the book's incidents are lies; but it could be that they are vastly exaggerated or they could be fifth-hand; perhaps someone (who heard of it third-hand) told the author this about Sheryl Sandberg and she is just repeating it (I haven't read the book so I don't know if she tells the source or not). (Also, we know that US courts have a very stringent standard on libel so unless Facebook can prove that the author is willfully lying while knowing otherwise, they will not convict. Seems to me like that's why they are suing over the NDA instead.)
All I can say is that the reactions I hear in the reviews is something like: "we knew they were awful and this proves it" but this seems awfully convenient to me. E.g., take Myanmar; could Facebook have actually done anything about what happened there? I would like someone who actually followed what happened and who knows how content moderation works (and how tough it is) to read this account and actually try to tell us whether the "if only Zuckerberg had done X then, we would have saved thousands of lives" narrative (which I'd say is the one that's strongly implied in the book as per the reviews) is correct or not.
Jeremiah says in his review that the author shouldn't be excused herself but again, this whole book seems to be the author's way of saying: I was right all along but no one listened to me. Very convenient.
Sorry, that's a lot of commentary from someone who hasn't read the book. Maybe I will read it.
I appreciate your disclaimer about not yet having read the book. All I can say is that I strongly encourage you to read it.
I went into the book with no strong feelings about Facebook except for a dim view of Zuckerberg, so I wasn't looking to have my preconceived notions confirmed. In fact, I was kind of laughing during the first third of the book, because except for a teaser/prologue, there was nothing about Zuck, because the author did not have anything to do with him when she first started. Almost never even saw him.
As to the rest, I will say that I am a fairly skeptical reader, especially when it comes to things like tell-all books. But there was nothing about this book that even gave me pause. It all comes across as rock-solid.
I disagree with you somewhat about the legal aspects. Yes, libel can be hard to prove at times, but those high hurdles usually have to do with subjective claims. Statements of fact can more easily be disputed; i.e., a libel claim can be made to stand if the plaintiff can provide evidence to the contrary. And there is also the reality that a libel plaintiff with deep pockets can ruin a defendant's life even without being able to win in court; see, for example, what Peter Thiel did to Nick Denton/Gawker Media. So, I think there is pretty much nothing false in the book.
The part about Myanmar came across as completely plausible to me. Again, you will have to read the book to see what I'm saying. Facebook's irresponsibility here is just jaw-dropping. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the blood of thousands of people are on the hands of the C-suite people at Facebook.
Finally, as to the author's culpability, I don't have a short answer. Given where she started from, as completely idealistic about the good that she believed Facebook could do for the world, I can understand why she stuck it out for the first few years, and I could see why it didn't seem completely crazy for her to think she could make things better if she stuck it out. And then there were some harsh personal realities: health problems combined with not being a US citizen combined with being pregnant put her in a position where she felt like she had to stick around for just a bit longer, or she would have been in deep trouble, perhaps even fatally so. I am not exaggerating here.
At the same time, I did think, several times, couldn't she have made an exit plan sooner? Been a little smarter regarding family planning? Removed the rose-colored glasses and admitted that things were never going to get better? Which, also admittedly, is easy for me to say, watching from outside, knowing generally how it's going to come out.
I just finished reading this myself. I mostly agree with your review. Not this part, though: "There’s no denying that he’s in some ways brilliant ..."
I have never thought that about Zuckerberg, and nothing in this book gave me any reason to change my mind. I see him as someone who had a couple of good ideas which were lucrative enough for him to hire all of the brilliant people he needed to make things grow.
Instabuy