| I think the last sentence of the book review hits the narrative here well: > Ultimately, Careless People is a test for how you feel about Meta. For many, it only reaffirms the belief that the company’s leaders are ruthless, immoral capitalists. For others, it’s a hit job that bends reality to enforce a familiar narrative. I wish it challenged both sides. As always, the author has a vested interest in promoting the book, and getting sued for spreading lies is always a sure-fire way to get attention. I have no knowledge of the actual veracity of the events in the book, but neither does anyone else, except where it goes against sworn testimony. While I generally believe that companies like Meta would have acted ruthlessly to make money, history generally shows Meta specifically was quite ruthless. That said, I generally think poorly of people's books when they cash lucrative salaries for half a decade, only to later become critical when convenient. The author was previously a diplomat for New Zealand and the UN and the IMF (after being a law professor). She then worked as the director of public policy at Meta, and now criticizes Meta's stance on public policy for that same time period. This is clearly a high-agency individual with strong connections who worked many dream jobs already, so why she would spend years working and contributing to such an immoral place? https://www.weforum.org/people/sarah-wynn-williams/ |
I read Careless People, and if I was in the author's shoes and if what she says was accurate, I would've run away screaming within my first two years. The fact that she portrays herself as morally upstanding, and yet stayed so long even after seeing some truly reprehensible stuff is difficult to digest, and I do think that there were many signs that she knew she had neither the power or the means to actually make the changes she says she was seeking. She also makes excuses that she wasn't paid as much in her initial days because she didn't know about stock compensation and she just took the first offer they gave, but that rings a bit hollow to me, because that difference would've been amended within a few years, once she got promoted and figured out the general compensation range at Meta. Also it's not like she didn't have career options outside of Meta.
While the hypocrisy grinds me, I still feel that getting these stories out is important; morally upstanding people who quit early will not likely see and experience the full extent of the bad stuff companies do, and people who participate but stay quiet will not bring the bad stuff out in the open.