If you like articles from The Big Con, hit the like button, subscribe, comment, and recommend us in your Substack recommendations. It really helps get the newsletter to more people.
Sarah Wynn-Williams, who served as Meta's Director of Global Public Policy from 2011 to 2017, presented evidence that Meta maintains an $18.3 billion business in China while repeatedly claiming it doesn't operate there. She described how the company developed custom censorship tools for the CCP, provided Chinese officials with briefings on artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology, and negotiated to share user data with Chinese authorities.
"The greatest trick Mark Zuckerberg ever pulled was wrapping the American flag around himself and calling himself a patriot and saying he didn't offer services in China while he spent the last decade building an $18 billion business there," she told senators.
Her testimony significantly expands on both former Facebook data scientist Frances Haugen's testimony and WSJ’s "Facebook Files" disclosures and former Meta engineer Arturo Bejar's testimony from November 2023. While all three whistleblowers highlighted Meta's pattern of prioritizing profit over user safety, each brought unique perspectives and evidence.
Haugen's disclosures focused on internal research showing Instagram's harmful effects on teenage mental health, with Meta's own studies finding it "makes body image issues worse for one in three teen girls." Wynn-Williams corroborated this and added disturbing details about Meta's deliberate targeting of emotionally vulnerable teens for advertising, particularly when they were in distress.
Bejar, who served as director of engineering for "Protect and Care" at Facebook, revealed that "over a quarter of young teens, 13 to 15 years old, report receiving sexual advances on Instagram" and that the company takes action on harmful content only 2% of the time. Wynn-Williams confirmed this pattern, noting that one in eight children aged 13-15 experienced unwanted sexual advances within a seven-day period, and one in three had experienced them overall.
While Bejar emphasized that Meta executives ignored his warnings about user harm and disregarded safety recommendations, Wynn-Williams revealed that Meta had deliberately adopted a Big Tobacco-style strategy to delay regulation and "change the narrative" surrounding the company's negative impacts.
Together, these whistleblowers have established a comprehensive picture of Meta's internal knowledge of harm, deliberate targeting of vulnerable users, and systematic deception of Congress, regulators, and the public—all to maximize profit regardless of consequences for user safety or national security.
Measures Used to Silence the Whistleblower
Meta employed extraordinary tactics to prevent Wynn-Williams from testifying or discussing her experiences. Notably, the company declined to participate in the hearing itself, despite being invited to send representatives to respond to the allegations.
Wynn-Williams appeared before the committee at considerable personal risk. "This may be the last time I'm allowed to speak," she told senators, explaining that her testimony could trigger massive financial penalties under Meta's legal actions against her. Senator Hawley emphasized in his opening remarks that "Facebook has tried desperately to prevent today's testimony" and had "gone scorched earth" in its efforts to silence her.
In addition to attempting to prevent the publication of her book, the company unleashed a barrage of aggressive tactics against Wynn-Williams. They secretly obtained an emergency gag order through arbitration, blindsiding her by sending notices to an obsolete email address from 2007, leaving her without knowledge or legal representation.
To top it off, they launched legal claims against her that could potentially amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, wielding their financial might to silence her voice. The company threatened her with staggering $50,000 penalties for every "disparaging" remark about Meta—even if the statements were undeniably true. They went further, cautioning that she could face liability if legislators or their aides dared to echo her factual claims publicly.
"Meta has said if I were permitted to communicate with legislators, such actions would create an exception to non-disparagement that would eat the rule," Wynn-Williams testified. "They were very clear that even coming to speak to you about the truth... would have not only $50,000 for each truthful statement, actual damages for breach of confidentiality, actual and punitive damages for fraud and other claims."
Senator Blumenthal noted that this case exemplifies problems with forced arbitration, highlighting his sponsorship of the Forced Arbitration and Justice Repeal Act (FAIR Act) to prevent such abuses.
The Long Road to Regulation
The hearing featured remarkably strong bipartisan alignment, with both Republicans and Democrats expressing alarm over national security implications and Meta's attempts to silence whistleblowers through aggressive legal tactics. Democrats like Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, and Klobuchar emphasized the need for broader tech regulation and Section 230 reform, while drawing parallels to past struggles with Big Tobacco. Republicans, including Senators Hawley and Grassley, focused more intensely on the national security threats posed by Meta's collaboration with China and the specific instances of collusion with the CCP.
Despite these differences in emphasis, committee members from both parties were unified in their condemnation of Meta's deceptive practices regarding user data, its pattern of misleading Congress, and its exploitation of children and teens. This rare bipartisan consensus underscored the seriousness of Wynn-Williams' revelations and signaled potential for legislative action across party lines. I encourage my readers to watch the full hearing to see where they land.
Perhaps most revealing was Wynn-Williams' account of Meta executives deliberately adopting a strategy modeled after Big Tobacco to delay effective regulation:
At a board meeting, Meta executives specifically discussed "how to head off regulation and change the narrative surrounding Facebook," seeking a model for companies that had successfully navigated criticism for "being a danger to society, extracting large profits, pushing all the negative externalities onto society and not giving back." The model they ultimately selected was Big Tobacco.
Senator Durbin highlighted this comparison in his opening statement: "Like Big Tobacco decades ago, Big Tech tells us their products do no harm, like Big Tobacco Big Tech tells us they can be trusted." Drawing on his experience fighting tobacco regulation in Congress, Durbin noted that after his initial legislation banning smoking on airplanes passed, it led to broader restrictions that ultimately "turned the tide against smoking in America."
Wynn-Williams also revealed a striking similarity to the tobacco industry's hypocrisy: Meta executives strictly limited their own children's access to the very products they marketed to others. "That was one of the things that shocked me when I moved to Silicon Valley," she testified. "It's a place full of wooden Montessori toys and executives would always speak about how they have screen bands in the house or I would say, 'Oh, has your teen used the new product we're about to launch?' And they're like, 'My teenager's not allowed on Facebook. I don't have my teenager on Instagram.'"
Senator Durbin expressed hope that, similar to how the children of tobacco executives eventually became advocates against smoking by confronting their parents with the health risks, the children of Silicon Valley executives might similarly become a "moral force" pressuring their parents to address the harms of social media. "Eventually, the children of tobacco executives became my greatest fans and supporters and they would basically shame their parents," Durbin noted, suggesting this generational shift could help push for meaningful regulation of tech platforms.
This historical parallel suggested that targeted regulation of tech could similarly lead to broader accountability, while Meta has spent "millions and millions of dollars in ad campaigns, lobbying and other opposition" to fight any attempt at regulation.
Meta's China Operations and Pattern of Congressional Deception
"Time and again, despite congressional hearings, its own pledges and numerous media exposés, the company didn't fix them," Senator Durbin noted, referencing the pattern of problems identified internally at Facebook but never addressed. The absence of consequences for misleading Congress undermines the legislative branch's oversight role and creates a dangerous precedent where powerful corporations can strategically deceive lawmakers without repercussion, effectively placing them above the law and weakening democratic checks and balances.
The hearing laid bare a shocking double game. Meta executives, led by Mark Zuckerberg, fed Congress a steady stream of lies about their China dealings while secretly cultivating an $18.3 billion empire there—now their second-biggest market—through hush-hush projects and cozy partnerships with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), all while swearing they were locked out of the country.
Wynn-Williams pegged Zuckerberg as a master of reinvention, slipping into "many different costumes" to snag power—fawning over China’s president with Mandarin lessons and censorship one minute, then strutting as an MMA-loving free speech warrior the next—claiming to be America’s champion while quietly boosting China’s tech edge and stomping out critics with legal threats.
Backed by internal documents, her testimony exposed blatant lies to Congress. In 2018, Zuckerberg claimed ignorance of China’s operating requirements, insisting Facebook had been "blocked since 2009," despite years of negotiations with Chinese officials. Likewise, when Senator Rubio pressed Facebook’s General Counsel Colin Stretch on whether China pressured them to delete dissident Guo Wengui’s account, Stretch denied it, citing "regular procedures." Documents proved otherwise—the CCP’s explicit demands had driven the decision.
Meta’s Chinese ventures were deliberately hidden from Congress and the public with a mix of stealth and misdirection. Back in 2014, they rolled out Oculus VR in China, guided by an internal playbook that dubbed their approach "playing dumb." Then came "Project Aldrin," a push to crack the Chinese market, and a partnership with tech giant Tencent.
And Meta's collaboration with the CCP went far beyond market access. The company crafted an intricate web of censorship, deploying custom tools equipped with "virality counters" that flagged any content surpassing 10,000 views to an Orwellian "chief editor" with the power to erase it at will. These systems sprang into action during democracy protests in Hong Kong and Taiwan, tightening their grip on free expression, while at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party, they abruptly deleted the Facebook account of Chinese dissident Guo Wengui—despite his residence on American soil—demonstrating a chilling willingness to bend to authoritarian demands.
She also warned of plans to build a physical pipeline connecting the US and China that could provide backdoor access to American data. When Facebook's security team warned that these actions could expose American data to Chinese surveillance, they were overruled. As one security engineer noted in internal documents, "my red line is not Mark Zuckerberg's red line."
Meta also helped turbocharge China’s tech infrastructure. Wynn-Williams detailed how Meta offered briefings to CCP officials on cutting-edge technologies like facial recognition, AI, photo tagging, and data infrastructure. They pitched a compelling value proposition to free China from dependence on Western giants like Cisco or IBM, effectively aligning their interests with Beijing's ambitions. The company even made Meta's LLAMA AI model accessible, a move that fueled China's DeepSeek model—now powering AI-driven weapons—while laying plans to construct a physical pipeline, further solidifying their role as a willing partner in China's tech ascendancy.
Despite these documented instances of providing false testimony to Congress—a federal crime that can carry significant penalties—neither Zuckerberg nor other Meta executives have faced legal consequences for their misleading statements. This lack of accountability was a theme that emerged during the hearing, with several senators expressing frustration that powerful tech executives seem to operate with impunity.
The Profit Imperative: Meta's Strategic Pursuits from AI Dominance to Emotional Exploitation
Wynn-Williams' testimony painted a picture of a company driven by an insatiable profit motive that shapes every aspect of its business strategy, from high-level AI positioning to granular targeting of vulnerable teenagers. The common thread across these seemingly disparate activities is Meta's willingness to compromise ethics, user safety, and even national security in service of financial gain.
In the AI space, Meta has aggressively pursued an open-source model with its LLAMA system, strategically positioning itself against competitors like OpenAI that use closed-source approaches. "There's a lot of money on the line," Wynn-Williams testified, explaining that the competition between open and closed AI models represents a potential winner-takes-all market. Meta's collaboration with China appears calculated to strengthen this position.
By contributing to China's AI development—which has reportedly led to military applications through models like DeepSeek—Meta creates "a strong threat" that allows it to position itself as "the American open-source option." This creates a scenario that could "set up Meta in a very strong position" in the AI landscape, particularly if open-source models prevail. The strategy reveals how even apparent collaboration with adversaries can be motivated by competitive positioning in trillion-dollar markets.
This profit-at-all-costs mentality extends to Meta's most ethically questionable practices, particularly its targeting of emotionally vulnerable users. Wynn-Williams revealed that Meta explicitly identifies teenagers (13-17) when they are feeling "worthless," "helpless," or "like a failure" to serve them targeted advertisements at those vulnerable moments. The company tracks when teenage girls delete selfies as opportunities for beauty product ads, monitors young mothers' emotional states, and exploits indicators of poor body confidence to target weight loss products.
"They let advertisers know that these 13 to 17-year-olds were feeling depressed and saying now's a really good time to serve them an advertisement," Wynn-Williams testified. When questioned about why a trillion-dollar company would engage in such practices, the answer was simple: "One of the business leaders explained to me, 'We've got the most valuable segment of the population. Advertisers really want to reach 13 to 17-year-olds, and we have them. We should be trumpeting it from the rooftops.'"
This relentless pursuit of profit explains Meta's consistent pattern of behavior across disparate domains—from building censorship tools for China to exploiting teenage insecurities, from misleading Congress to aggressively silencing whistleblowers. As Wynn-Williams summarized when describing Zuckerberg's motivations: "It's whatever gets him closest to power." In Meta's case, power and profit are inextricably linked, with ethical considerations consistently sacrificed when they conflict with financial interests.
Legislation Discussed
Several legislative priorities emerged from the hearing:
STOP CSAM Act (Hawley/Durbin) addressing child sexual abuse material
Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) (Blumenthal/Blackburn) which passed the Senate 91-3 and awaits House action
Section 230 reform to remove liability shields
Forced Arbitration and Justice Repeal Act (FAIR Act) to end abusive arbitration clauses
Take It Down Act (Cruz/Klobuchar) addressing non-consensual intimate images
Whistleblower protection legislation for the AI industry
Multiple senators, including Hawley and Blumenthal, pledged to seek votes on these measures before the end of 2025, responding to the urgency highlighted by Wynn-Williams' revelations about both Meta's China ties and its exploitation of children and teens.
"I have a message to Mark Zuckerberg," Senator Hawley concluded. "It's time for you to tell the truth. You should come to this committee and take an oath and sit where Ms. Wynn-Williams is sitting now and answer this evidence. Stop trying to silence her. Stop trying to gag her. Stop trying to hide behind your lawyers and millions in legal fees you're trying to impose on her. Stop threatening other whistleblowers. Come to this committee."
As the Senate continues its investigation, these revelations stand as the latest chapter in understanding how one of the world's most powerful companies has operated in secrecy while shaping global communication, commerce, and potentially compromising national security.
Share this post