A former Meta executive has accused the tech giant of jeopardizing national security to expand its business in China. Sarah Wynn-Williams, former head of global public policy at Facebook, testified before U.S. lawmakers that the company’s leadership shared sensitive user data with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), including personal information of American citizens. She alleged that Meta’s goal of an $18 billion revenue stream in China led it to comply with Beijing’s censorship demands. Meta has denied these claims, calling them false, though it continues to generate significant revenue from Chinese companies.
Meta’s Alleged Compromise of National Security
In a testimony before Congress, Wynn-Williams stated that Meta’s executives made strategic decisions to share user data with China to pursue its business interests. She alleged that this cooperation with the Chinese government posed a risk to U.S. national security. According to Wynn-Williams, Meta’s willingness to comply with China’s requests was a crucial part of its strategy to build a profitable presence in the country. The company reportedly aimed to generate $18 billion in revenue by catering to Beijing’s demands. Despite the severity of her allegations, Meta spokesperson Ryan Daniels dismissed her claims as misrepresentations and inaccurate. He emphasized that Meta does not operate its services in China, although the company continues to profit from advertising revenues generated by Chinese businesses.
Censorship Cooperation with Beijing
Wynn-Williams’ testimony also revealed that Meta allegedly worked directly with the Chinese government to develop tools for censorship. She pointed to the deletion of Guo Wengui’s Facebook page, a Chinese dissident living in the U.S., as an example of Meta bowing to Chinese pressure. Meta argued that Guo’s content violated its internal community standards, not that it removed his page due to external influence. However, Wynn-Williams insisted that Meta acted under Chinese pressure and that it chose financial gain over defending the principles of free speech. She claimed that both Mark Zuckerberg and the Chinese Communist Party shared an interest in suppressing dissenting voices.
Meta’s Efforts to Silence Wynn-Williams
Earlier this year, Wynn-Williams published a memoir titled Careless People, in which she criticized Meta’s internal policies and decisions. In response, Meta sought a court order to block the release of the book, arguing that it contained false and defamatory information. The company went so far as to prevent Wynn-Williams from promoting the book. Senator Josh Hawley, during a Senate hearing, accused Meta of using aggressive tactics to prevent her from testifying about her experiences. He compared her to other whistleblowers, such as Frances Haugen and Arturo Béjar, who have also spoken out about the company’s questionable practices. Hawley questioned why Meta was so determined to stop Wynn-Williams from sharing her story.
Legal Threats and Emotional Strain
In addition to blocking the book, Meta allegedly threatened Wynn-Williams with severe financial penalties for publicly referencing the company. According to Senator Hawley, the company threatened to fine her $50,000 for every mention of Facebook, regardless of the truth of her statements. Meta clarified that these penalties applied to breaches of a separation agreement Wynn-Williams had signed when leaving the company in 2017. Meta explained that an arbitrator—not the company—had warned that making exceptions to the non-disparagement clause would undermine its legal structure. Despite these challenges, Meta confirmed that Wynn-Williams was legally allowed to testify before Congress.
Wynn-Williams shared that the past month had been emotionally taxing for her, and that the decision to testify was difficult but necessary. She acknowledged the personal strain caused by the legal battles and public scrutiny but emphasized the importance of revealing what she believed were significant ethical issues within Meta.
Wynn-Williams’ testimony sheds light on troubling allegations of censorship, corporate collaboration with authoritarian regimes, and the potential dangers to national security posed by large tech firms operating internationally. While Meta vehemently denies these claims, the revelations have raised serious concerns about the company’s practices and its willingness to prioritize profit over democratic values. As investigations continue, this story may have lasting implications for both the tech industry and U.S. foreign policy regarding China.
