logo
Lean In, said Sheryl Sandberg – but after this week, can we ever see her or Facebook in the same light again?

Lean In, said Sheryl Sandberg – but after this week, can we ever see her or Facebook in the same light again?

The Guardian12-03-2025

Many years ago, when Facebook was an entity most people had warm – or at least neutral – feelings towards, I visited the company's HQ in Menlo Park, California. I admired the free restaurants and leisure facilities. I sneered at the 'graffiti wall', where Facebook employees were invited to grab a felt-tip and answer the question: 'What would you do if you weren't afraid?' (Say something negative about Facebook, perhaps.) And I attended a presentation by then chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, who was surprisingly nervous; I recall noticing how her voice shook as she addressed the smirking European hacks. Then I went to the gift shop and bought Facebook-branded hoodies for my kids.
Obviously I wouldn't put them in Facebook gear now. Over the past decade or so the evolution of Facebook (now Meta) in general and Sandberg in particular has been one of slow then fast descent from corporate brave new world to something much grimmer and more familiar. In the New York Times this week, details of a new memoir by a Facebook whistleblower, the very existence of which was kept under wraps by the publisher until a few days before, were shared and – how else to put this: bloody hell.
That Zuckerberg is a men's rights shill for Trump, running a company with a profit model reliant on hate speech and false information, is something we already know. What I hadn't seen coming was the exposure of Sandberg for reportedly running up $13,000 in lingerie purchases and allegedly trying to persuade the author, Sarah Wynn-Williams, to join her in the only bed on the corporate jet on the way back from a work trip to Europe. The author's response, detailed in her book Careless People: A Story of Where I Used to Work, might generously be described as lean out.
Wynn-Williams worked for Facebook for seven years, rising to the role of director of global public policy before being fired in 2018. Her revelations about Sandberg are the book's most lurid and at the same time least consequential; for the most shocking details, see claims about Zuckerberg sucking up to China, lying to Congress and failing to stop hate speech fuelling genocide in Myanmar against the minority Rohingya ethnic group.
Still, as a portrait of Sandberg it marks a strange end point to the public image of a woman once hailed, if not as a feminist hero or even as a feminist at all beyond the narrow confines of self-interest, then as a person advancing the credible cause of raising the number of women in the C-suite. Sandberg always seemed uptight and uncomfortable in her public role, a decade older than the men she worked for and not a tech person but a corporate nerd. I once overheard her describe herself during a photoshoot as a 'suburban mom', which was as nauseating as her other ploys for relatability during the my-kids-get-nits-too PR drive for her book Lean In.
And yet, while Sandberg's dive into corporate feminism was maddeningly ahistorical and apolitical, I still think it was broadly sincere. It is routine, now, to refer to her as a piece of liberal camouflage behind which Zuckerberg advanced his antidemocratic designs, but I suspect that wasn't the plan back in 2013 when Lean In was first published. Was the book mired in bullshit? Yes. Was it part of some grand evil plan? I doubt it.
Still, here we are. Sandberg, who is estimated to be worth over $2bn, left her job as COO of Meta in 2022, quit the company's board two years later and has reportedly fallen out with Zuckerberg, who, it can be said with some confidence, failed to onboard the lessons of Lean In. According to a piece in the New York Times in January, the CEO of Meta badmouthed Sandberg to Stephen Miller, Trump's ghoulish adviser, for creating Facebook's culture of inclusivity, adding to his other complaint that corporate culture has become too 'feminine'.
And now this further twist! Just when one might be tempted to side with Sandberg as the least gross of a very grim group, along comes Careless People – named for the line about Tom and Daisy, the wealthy wreckers in The Great Gatsby – and back we go to square one. The author claims to have witnessed a 26-year-old assistant sleeping in Sandberg's lap and the pair stroking each other's hair. And then came the demand from Sandberg for Wynn-Williams to join her in the bed on the jet. (Wynn-Williams demurred.)
Sandberg hasn't commented on any of this publicly yet, but Meta put out a statement calling Careless People 'a mix of out-of-date and previously reported claims about the company and false accusations about our executives', and trashing Wynn-Williams as someone who was 'fired for poor performance and toxic behaviour', who is working for 'anti-Facebook activists'.
What to make of it all, beyond the fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? In the book, Wynn-Williams, who was a true Facebook believer when she joined the company in 2011, came to see Sandberg's Lean In persona as a 'shtick' covering up what she really wanted from other people: obedience – something that rings true not only for Sandberg, but in the wider political and corporate culture in which we now live.
Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under field bought from farmer
Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under field bought from farmer

Powys County Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Powys County Times

Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under field bought from farmer

A Napoleonic prisoner of war camp buried under a field in Cambridgeshire has been bought by a trust with the intention of preserving it as a historic site. Norman Cross, the world's first purpose-built prisoner of war camp, was privately owned by a farmer, and has been bought by Nene Park Trust. Located near Peterborough, it contains the remains of around 1,770 French, Dutch and German soldiers captured in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars fought between the French and other European nations. The trust says it wants to preserve the site and make it available to the public as a historic and green space. The camp now lies barely visible under a field used for arable crops and grazing. But it previously held a self-contained town, with barracks, offices, a hospital, school, marketplace and banking system, according to historian Paul Chamberlain. It operated from 1797 to 1814 and housed around 7,000 French prisoners. The location was chosen because it was far from the sea, making it difficult for any escapees to return to France. Prisoners made intricate models from bone, wood and straw to sell at the camp market and trade for food, tobacco and wine. Around 800 of these artefacts, which include miniature ships and chateaus, are on display at the nearby Peterborough Museum and Art Gallery. The trust received £200,000 of grant funding from Historic England and £50,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to buy the camp following years of negotiations. Its acquisition was fought for by resident Derek Lopez, who owned the Norman Cross Gallery near Yaxley and was an advocate of Peterborough's history. He died last year before seeing the sale complete. Duncan Wilson, chief executive of Historic England, said: 'The Norman Cross prisoner of war camp represents a pivotal moment in our shared European heritage that deserves to be better known.' Matthew Bradbury, chief executive of Nene Park Trust, said he was 'delighted' to take on the ownership of Norman Cross and wanted 'to share its green space and unique stories for generations to come'. Heritage minister Baroness Twycross said: 'Norman Cross represents a poignant chapter in our shared European story. 'The remarkable stories of those held in what was the first purpose-built prisoner of war camp should be remembered now and in the future. 'This partnership has secured this valuable heritage site for generations to come.'

Has deporting illegals become illegal?
Has deporting illegals become illegal?

Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Spectator

Has deporting illegals become illegal?

The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store