A Fish Rots from the Head

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg used the power of her position to threaten a newspaper and suppress a story about her boyfriend, because she thought that news that her then boyfriend Bobby Kotick had a restraining order taken out against him by a former girl friend would, "Reflect negatively on her reputation as an advocate for women."

There are reports that she, "Threatened the Mail in 2016 by saying that such an article, if published, could damage the news organization’s business relationship with Facebook."

With Sandberg as COO, and Zuckerberg as CEO, they really epitomize rot at the top:

Meta Platforms Inc. Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg is facing internal scrutiny over two occasions in which she pressed a U.K. tabloid to shelve a potential article about her then-boyfriend, Activision Blizzard Inc. Chief Executive Bobby Kotick, according to people close to the executives.

In 2016 and 2019, Ms. Sandberg contacted the digital edition of the Daily Mail, which was reporting on a story that would have revealed the existence of a temporary restraining order against Mr. Kotick that had been obtained by a former girlfriend in 2014, according to people involved in the article and the campaigns to stop its publication.

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.

Facebook recently started a review of Ms. Sandberg’s actions and whether she violated the company’s rules, according to people close to her and to Mr. Kotick. The review started after The Wall Street Journal began reporting on the incidents late last year, those people said. 

I am certain that if they determine that Sandberg misused her position at Facebook for personal gain, that they will draft a VERY cross letter to place in her personnel file.

I'm just sh%$ting you.  Facebook has no problems with unethical behavior by its senior executives.

There are conflicting accounts about what Ms. Sandberg said and whether she directly invoked Facebook in her communications with the Mail. Mr. Kotick has told people that Ms. Sandberg threatened the Mail in 2016 by saying that such an article, if published, could damage the news organization’s business relationship with Facebook, according to people familiar with his comments.

In a written statement, Mr. Kotick told the Journal: “I never said anything like that.” He also said that the Journal’s other reporting about the matter was inaccurate, without providing further details. He said it was his understanding that the Mail didn’t run the story because it was untrue. Asked about the restraining order and his ex-girlfriend, he said that the matter had been put to rest long ago and that they remain friends.

People who worked closely with Ms. Sandberg at the time said a direct threat would have been out of character, but that even a phone call from her would have likely been viewed with alarm given Facebook’s influence in the news business. Some executives inside Facebook assert that any intervention by Ms. Sandberg over a news article, no matter her specific words, could well be perceived as a threat, given the social-media giant’s power over web traffic and Ms. Sandberg’s power and influence, according to people with knowledge of these incidents.

Anyone with a modicum of self-awareness would know this, but at Facebook's it's, "Ethics, schmethics."

Of course, if the Mail Online were a real news organization, getting leaned on by the , "Lean In," woman would had made them even more determined to pursue the stories, which clearly did not happens.