For a tech giant that supposedly understands the internet, Meta seems to have forgotten how information actually travels in our digital age.
The company that built its empire on connectivity has just made a stunning miscalculation. After years of half-hearted apologies for various controversies, Meta has apparently grown tired of saying sorry. Their latest move? Attempting to silence former high-level employee Sarah Wynn-Williams and her tell-all book “Careless People.”
In what feels like a plot from yesterday’s corporate playbook, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution ruled that Wynn-Williams—who worked directly with CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former COO Sheryl Sandberg, and current policy chief Joel Kaplan—cannot promote her book. This textbook case of the Streisand Effect (where attempts to hide information only amplify it) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of modern information flow.
Who tries to censor a book in 2025? It’s not just futile—it’s counterproductive. In our hyperconnected reality, suppressing critical narratives only intensifies public curiosity. The book has already received coverage in The New York Times and remains available on Amazon and through its publisher, Macmillan. While Meta has attempted to discredit Wynn-Williams by claiming she was fired for incompetence, Macmillan has stood firmly behind their author.
This censorship attempt isn’t happening in isolation. It reflects a systematic approach from a company led by someone who displays concerning leadership patterns—a CEO who’s apparently decided to abandon apologies in favor of cover-ups and threats against whistleblowers. For years, Meta has issued public apologies for questionable decisions that raised serious ethical concerns. Now, this attempt to silence “Careless People” represents desperate censorship aimed at keeping damaging secrets buried.
The irony is delicious. A corporation known for its unscrupulous behavior finds itself caught in a trap entirely of its own making. Their censorship efforts reveal both fragility and desperation—rather than owning their actions, they’re employing outdated tactics that simply don’t work in today’s information ecosystem. This counterproductive strategy not only highlights the futility of truth suppression but further cements Meta’s reputation for irresponsible, unethical behavior.
The lesson couldn’t be clearer: attempts to censor truth in the digital age will inevitably backfire, exposing the hypocrisy behind them.
Having finished reading “Careless People” myself, I can’t help but think this controversy presents the perfect opportunity to encourage more people to discover what Meta so desperately wants to hide.