There's quite a bit of competition out there ,,,

This is just one of countless obvious examples.

The same Joel Kaplan who was involved in a coup?

This did not happen and I’m not aware of any evidence or allegations that it did. Williams claims that Meta indicated they would accept China’s demand to give the Chinese government access to Chinese users’ data, as a condition of being allowed to operate in China. This is not the same as access to “all of Facebook”, and it didn’t happen at all because operating permission was never granted.

So, the author is a liar who distorts facts to make for a more interesting article. Don’t waste your time listening to people with no integrity.

What else that this article claims is distorted bullshit, I wonder?

Next time you read an article from “Pluralistic”, ask yourself, are they telling the truth or are they lying to push an agenda?

I have no particular connection to Zuck or Meta. I just find this behavior incredibly obnoxious and hypocritical.

Disgusting set of human beings Zuck and company.

Read the book and then decide if it's worth continuing on FB.

How ... how is that legal? Why would that ever be made legal?

Apparently businesses can use contracts to opt out of regular public courts and agree on using a neutral decision-maker; an arbitrator.

But then the post says:

> Meta got its arbitrator – a lawyer who is paid by Meta to adjudicate contractual disputes instead of an actual judge

Huh? How's that legal?

Turns out, the law requires arbitrators to be neutral, but not the people choosing the arbitrators.

Arbitration services are businesses. So even though Meta doesn't directly pay the arbitrator, they pay the business picking the arbitrator.

Meaning, Meta has a long-term relationship with the arbitration service provider. They can choose to take their business elsewhere, if unhappy.

Imagine being Wynn-Williams, having a company of this size put a target on your head. I wonder how many live in silence because the paycheck is too good or the punishment too bad.

But an even larger point: most of HN is probably employed by a company that aspires to be Meta; HN is run by a VC fund that wants to make many Metas; and worse, unfortunately, I sometimes dream of being a Zuckerberg.

I am thoroughly seduced by a power I've never felt, even if I see it as poison.

The valid point Meta has is the argument that if she accepted a payment in exchange for signing an NDA and then violated it, the remedy should be that she returns the money.

Which doesn't change the fact that Zuckerberg should be ashamed of using NDAs as a weapon like this. It's very small minded from a man who clearly wants to see himself as a great man of history.