Controversial insider account by former Meta official has strong first-week sales
A former Meta official's explosive insider account sold 60,000 copies in its first week and reached the top 10 on Amazon.com 's best-seller list amid efforts by the social media giant to discredit the book.
Released last week by Flatiron Books, a Macmillan imprint, Sarah Wynn-Williams' 'Careless People' alleges cruel and otherwise disturbing behavior by Mark Zuckerberg, Joel Kaplan and other executives and describes Zuckerberg's alleged efforts to win favor with Chinese officials. Meta has countered that Wynn-Williams, a former director of global public policy who left what was then Facebook in 2017, violated a severance agreement and wrote a book filled with inaccuracies.
According to Flatiron, first week sales include print audio and digital editions. On Wednesday, 'Careless People' ranked No. 3 on Amazon.
In response to a complaint filed by Meta, emergency arbitrator Nicholas A. Gowen last week placed a hold on Wynn-Williams' promoting the book or making further "critical claims" about her former employer. In his ruling, Gowen wrote that Meta had 'established a likelihood of success on the merits of its contractual non-disparagement claim' against Wynn-Williams. Flatiron can still publish and promote 'Careless People.'
A statement from Meta praised the arbitrator's decision, saying it 'affirms that Sarah Wynn Williams' false and defamatory book should never have been published.' Meta has otherwise called 'Careless People' a "mix of out-of-date and previously reported claims about the company and false accusations about our executives.'
Flatiron also issued a statement, saying it "was appalled by Meta's tactics to silence our author through the use of a non-disparagement clause in a severance agreement.' The publisher added that the arbitrator had not addressed the allegations made by Wynn-Williams.
'The book went through a thorough editing and vetting process, and we remain committed to publishing important books such as this. We will absolutely continue to support and promote it," the statement reads.
Flatiron did not announce the book until just days before its release. Meta's response has included queries to media outlets, among them The Associated Press, over their plans for coverage. Washington Post critic Ron Charles wrote last week that he had received repeated messages from Meta.
'In my 27 years of reviewing and editing newspaper books sections, no company has ever done this with me,' he noted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Minister accused of cosying up to Big Tech admits that Artificial Intelligence DOES lie
The Technology Secretary yesterday admitted that AI is 'not flawless' – but defended snubbing attempts to beef-up copyright protections. Peter Kyle acknowledged the fast-emerging technology 'does lie' as he insisted the Government would 'never sell downstream' the rights of artists in the UK. He also admitted 'mistakenly' saying his preferred option on AI and copyright was requiring rights-holders to 'opt out' of their material being used by Big Tech. Sir Elton John last week described the situation as an 'existential issue'. He has also branded the Technology Secretary 'a moron'. Mr Kyle has been accused of cosying up to Big Tech chiefs, meeting with Apple, Google, Amazon and Meta – Facebook 's owner – ten times in little more than three months. The Government is locked in a standoff with the House of Lords, which demands artists be offered immediate copyright protection as an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Without this, the new law would hand a copyright exception to firms developing AI. Critics warn the Government's proposed 'opt out' system would allow the current 'Wild West' set-up, in which copyrighted material can be 'scraped' from the internet to 'train' AI models, to continue. Speaking to Sky News, Mr Kyle said: 'I mistakenly said [the opt-out clause] was my preferred option... I've now gone back to the drawing board on that.' When asked about the risk of AI producing unreliable content, Mr Kyle said: 'AI is not flawless... AI does lie, as it's based on human characteristics.' The Government has said it will address copyright issues after the 11,500 responses to its consultation on AI's impact have been reviewed, rather than in what it has branded 'piecemeal' legislation such as the Lords' amendment. UK film industry jobs at risk in tech revolution By Daily Mail Reporter The use of AI in the UK screen sector risks jobs, copyright breaches and creative integrity, a report has warned. The British Film Institute report, which analysed how the sector is using the technology, warned the industry must safeguard human creative control, with job losses likely as roles are replaced by AI. It warned that the 'primary issue' is the use of copyrighted material – such as film and TV scripts – in the training of AI models, without payment or the permission of rights-holders. The issue has been highlighted by the Mail's 'Don't let Big Tech steal it ' campaign, which calls for the Government to protect the UK's creative genius. Rishi Coupland, the BFI's director of research and innovation, said: 'AI could erode traditional business models, displace skilled workers and undermine trust in screen content.'
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
Campainers urge UK watchdog to limit use of AI after report of Meta's plan to automate checks
Internet safety campaigners have urged the UK's communications watchdog to limit the use of artificial intelligence in crucial risk assessments following a report that Mark Zuckerberg's Meta was planning to automate checks. Ofcom said it was 'considering the concerns' raised by the letter following a report last month that up to 90% of all risk assessments at the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp would soon be carried out by AI. Social media platforms are required under the UK's Online Safety Act to gauge how harm could take place on their services and how they plan to mitigate those potential harms – with a particular focus on protecting child users and preventing illegal content from appearing. The risk assessment process is viewed as key aspect of the act. In a letter to Ofcom's chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, organisations including the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC and the Internet Watch Foundation described the prospect of AI-driven risk assessments as a 'retrograde and highly alarming step'. 'We urge you to publicly assert that risk assessments will not normally be considered as 'suitable and sufficient', the standard required by … the Act, where these have been wholly or predominantly produced through automation.' The letter also urged the watchdog to 'challenge any assumption that platforms can choose to water down their risk assessment processes'. A spokesperson for Ofcom said: 'We've been clear that services should tell us who completed, reviewed and approved their risk assessment. We are considering the concerns raised in this letter and will respond in due course.' Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion Meta said the letter deliberately misstated the company's approach on safety and it was committed to high standards and complying with regulations. 'We are not using AI to make decisions about risk,' said a Meta spokesperson. 'Rather, our experts built a tool that helps teams identify when legal and policy requirements apply to specific products. We use technology, overseen by humans, to improve our ability to manage harmful content and our technological advancements have significantly improved safety outcomes.' The Molly Rose Foundation organised the letter after NPR, a US broadcaster, reported last month that updates to Meta's algorithms and new safety features will mostly be approved by an AI system and no longer scrutinised by staffers. According to one former Meta executive, who spoke to NPR anonymously, the change will allow the company to launch app updates and features on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp more quickly but would create 'higher risks' for users, because potential problems are less likely to be prevented before a new product is released to the public. NPR also reported that Meta was considering automating reviews for sensitive areas including youth risk and monitoring the spread of falsehoods.
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Telegraph
Gerry Adams's lawyer to pursue chatbots for libel
The high-profile media lawyer who represented Gerry Adams in his libel trial against the BBC is now preparing to sue the world's most powerful AI chatbots for defamation. As one of the most prominent libel lawyers in the UK, Paul Tweed said that artificial intelligence was the 'new battleground' in trying to prevent misinformation about his clients from being spread online. Mr Tweed is turning his attention to tech after he recently helped the former Sinn Fein leader secure a €100,000 (£84,000) payout over a BBC documentary that falsely claimed he sanctioned the murder of a British spy. The Belfast-based solicitor said he was already building a test case against Meta that could trigger a flurry of similar lawsuits, as he claims to have exposed falsehoods shared by chatbots on Facebook and Instagram. It is not the first time tech giants have been sued for defamation over questionable responses spewed out by their chatbots. Robby Starbuck, the US activist known for targeting diversity schemes at major companies, has sued Meta for defamation alleging that its AI chatbot spread a number of false claims about him, including that he took part in the Capitol riots. A Norwegian man also filed a complaint against OpenAI after its ChatGPT software incorrectly stated that he had killed two of his sons and been jailed for 21 years. Mr Tweed, who has represented celebrities such as Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford and Jennifer Lopez, said: 'My pet subject is generative AI and the consequences of them repeating or regurgitating disinformation and misinformation.' He believes statements put out by AI chatbots fall outside the protections afforded to social media companies, which have traditionally seen them avoid liability for libel. If successful, Mr Tweed will expose social media companies that have previously argued they should not be responsible for claims made on their platforms because they are technology companies rather than traditional publishers. Mr Tweed said: 'I've been liaising with a number of well-known legal professors on both sides of the Atlantic and they agree that there's a very strong argument that generative AI will fall outside the legislative protections.' The lawyer said that chatbots are actually creating new content, meaning they should be considered publishers. He said that the decision by many tech giants to move their headquarters to Ireland for lower tax rates had also opened them up to being sued in Dublin's high courts, where libel cases are typically decided by a jury. This setup is often seen as more favourable to claimants, which Mr Tweed himself says has fuelled a wave of 'libel tourism' in Ireland. He also said Dublin's high courts are attractive as a lower price option compared to London, where he said the costs of filing libel claims are 'eye-watering'. He said: 'I think it's absurd now, the level of costs that are being claimed. The libel courts in London are becoming very, very expensive and highly risky now. The moment you issue your claim form, the costs go into the stratosphere. 'It's not in anyone's interest for people to be deprived of access to justice. It will get to the point where nobody sues for libel unless you're a billionaire.'
