Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she'd acted on her own, I'd say this isn't much of a story (even though I'm not a Sandberg fan and despise FB).

But if she involved FB staff? Problematic.

She wasn't acting on her own. She's the most powerful person at Facebook, a media company which basically controls journalism engagement. She's an unethical thug.

Nah, they really don't influence engagement the way they used to.

People try to spike stories every day, and this is the Daily Mail we're talking about.

This is not as big a deal as you'd clearly like it to be.

Oh, anyone can just randomly call up News Corp / Daily Mail execs and editors and get through and successfully pressure them to spike negative stories about their private life? Yeah, sure. She was successful because of her power at the top of FB, period. It is deeply unethical, unprofessional, an abuse of power, and it obviously wasn't her first rodeo.

I work in media. People with far, far lower profiles than Sandberg try to spike stories all the time and yes, execs and editors get involved.

I'm not at all defending what she did, but it's not unusual and if you think this scenario only happened because she's FB, you're incorrect.

The abuse of power lies in her involvement of FB staff on her personal issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like this is the key point:

Working with a team that included Facebook and Activision employees as well as paid outside advisers, Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Kotick developed a strategy to persuade the Daily Mail not to report on the restraining order, first when they began dating in 2016 and again around the time they were breaking up in 2019, the people said. Among other concerns, Ms. Sandberg’s legal and public-relations advisers, both inside and outside Facebook, worried that a story would reflect negatively on her reputation as an advocate for women.

Meta is a publicly traded company. Using Meta employees to protect Sandberg's personal reputation is very likely a violation of their corporate by-laws. Just because there are large public companies like Meta that are subject to the whims of the CEO and majority shareholder doesn't mean that public corporations are allowed to do whatever they want.

No it would not be a violation of bylaws. It could be a violation of their internal policies. But that will be murky. Nonetheless I do not think she survives this. This has all the makings of a disaster for Meta and they will dump her.

But presumably their by-laws say something about corporate officers abiding by internal policies? The question is whether this is just embarrassing or potentially an SEC issue. I think it might be the latter...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like this is the key point:

Working with a team that included Facebook and Activision employees as well as paid outside advisers, Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Kotick developed a strategy to persuade the Daily Mail not to report on the restraining order, first when they began dating in 2016 and again around the time they were breaking up in 2019, the people said. Among other concerns, Ms. Sandberg’s legal and public-relations advisers, both inside and outside Facebook, worried that a story would reflect negatively on her reputation as an advocate for women.

Meta is a publicly traded company. Using Meta employees to protect Sandberg's personal reputation is very likely a violation of their corporate by-laws. Just because there are large public companies like Meta that are subject to the whims of the CEO and majority shareholder doesn't mean that public corporations are allowed to do whatever they want.

No it would not be a violation of bylaws. It could be a violation of their internal policies. But that will be murky. Nonetheless I do not think she survives this. This has all the makings of a disaster for Meta and they will dump her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she'd acted on her own, I'd say this isn't much of a story (even though I'm not a Sandberg fan and despise FB).

But if she involved FB staff? Problematic.

She wasn't acting on her own. She's the most powerful person at Facebook, a media company which basically controls journalism engagement. She's an unethical thug.

Nah, they really don't influence engagement the way they used to.

People try to spike stories every day, and this is the Daily Mail we're talking about.

This is not as big a deal as you'd clearly like it to be.

Oh, anyone can just randomly call up News Corp / Daily Mail execs and editors and get through and successfully pressure them to spike negative stories about their private life? Yeah, sure. She was successful because of her power at the top of FB, period. It is deeply unethical, unprofessional, an abuse of power, and it obviously wasn't her first rodeo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she'd acted on her own, I'd say this isn't much of a story (even though I'm not a Sandberg fan and despise FB).

But if she involved FB staff? Problematic.

She wasn't acting on her own. She's the most powerful person at Facebook, a media company which basically controls journalism engagement. She's an unethical thug.

Nah, they really don't influence engagement the way they used to.

People try to spike stories every day, and this is the Daily Mail we're talking about.

This is not as big a deal as you'd clearly like it to be.

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this. FB/Meta is so corrupt and morally bankrupt. Naturally its leaders are that way and run their company that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she'd acted on her own, I'd say this isn't much of a story (even though I'm not a Sandberg fan and despise FB).

But if she involved FB staff? Problematic.

She wasn't acting on her own. She's the most powerful person at Facebook, a media company which basically controls journalism engagement. She's an unethical thug.

Nah, they really don't influence engagement the way they used to.

People try to spike stories every day, and this is the Daily Mail we're talking about.

This is not as big a deal as you'd clearly like it to be.

Agree with you except that she used Meta assets (PR) for her private purposes. Unless CEO or board approved then there is a problem. Subject matter does not help either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she'd acted on her own, I'd say this isn't much of a story (even though I'm not a Sandberg fan and despise FB).

But if she involved FB staff? Problematic.

She wasn't acting on her own. She's the most powerful person at Facebook, a media company which basically controls journalism engagement. She's an unethical thug.

Nah, they really don't influence engagement the way they used to.

People try to spike stories every day, and this is the Daily Mail we're talking about.

This is not as big a deal as you'd clearly like it to be.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like this is the key point:

Working with a team that included Facebook and Activision employees as well as paid outside advisers, Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Kotick developed a strategy to persuade the Daily Mail not to report on the restraining order, first when they began dating in 2016 and again around the time they were breaking up in 2019, the people said. Among other concerns, Ms. Sandberg’s legal and public-relations advisers, both inside and outside Facebook, worried that a story would reflect negatively on her reputation as an advocate for women.

Meta is a publicly traded company. Using Meta employees to protect Sandberg's personal reputation is very likely a violation of their corporate by-laws. Just because there are large public companies like Meta that are subject to the whims of the CEO and majority shareholder doesn't mean that public corporations are allowed to do whatever they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she'd acted on her own, I'd say this isn't much of a story (even though I'm not a Sandberg fan and despise FB).

But if she involved FB staff? Problematic.

She wasn't acting on her own. She's the most powerful person at Facebook, a media company which basically controls journalism engagement. She's an unethical thug.

Anonymous wrote:Love makes you do crazy things.

Anonymous wrote:Was this guy worth sullying her reputation on his behalf?

Hell no. A zillion other eligible guys for her to pursue and she chose this schmuck. Her deceased hubby is probably rolling over in his grave.