How to Build a Slingshot to Take on Big Tech Goliaths

Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Silenced No More Act into law, making his state the first in the union to prohibit non-disclosure agreements that stop employees from talking about illegal harassment and discrimination.

The bill was championed by Ifeoma Ozoma, a former Pinterest employee who went public with racial discrimination she experienced at that company. She has since helped others to step forward as the founder and principal of a consultancy called Earthseed. The best practices she pulled together now inform the the Tech Worker Handbook, which is billed as "a collection of resources for tech workers who are looking to make more informed decisions about whether to speak out on issues that are in the public interest."

You can think of the handbook, Ozoma writes, as instructions on how to build a slingshot "when needed for battle with a Goliath."

I had the chance to speak to Ozoma-- who has also held policy roles at Facebook and at Google-- for the Tech Policy Press podcast. Below is a lightly edited transcript.

Justin Hendrix:

Can you tell us first about Earthseed, and then, what is the Silenced No More Act?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Earthseed is the consulting firm that I founded after leaving Pinterest that focuses on tech accountability and is the umbrella under which I've done all of my work over the last year- so the Tech Worker Handbook, the Bill and the work that I'm continuing now. The Silence No More Act is legislation that I co-sponsored in California that was recently passed by the California legislature and signed by Governor Newsom. It addresses the use of nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreements in employment situations.

Justin Hendrix:

So this effort, particularly to help whistleblowers, has been obviously in the news. It hit it almost exactly at the right moment. You couldn't have possibly predicted of course, that Francis Haugen would come forward at precisely the moment that you were planning to roll this out, but how has that new cycle affected your project?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Well, it's definitely been part of the conversation around the handbook, but I'd been working on the handbook for over a year. There were a number of reporters I spoke to who over the last year have been eager for the handbook to come out because they wanted to share it with their own sources and with folks who they speak to regularly who need more advice and more information, but of course can't get it from them because of the reporter source relationship.

Justin Hendrix:

So folks can check it out at techworkerhandbook.org. I'm going to ask you just a couple of diagnostic questions on it, just so that people understand what it is. And maybe first I'll just start with the question, who is this handbook for? What types of workers, and at what types of companies?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

The Tech Worker Handbook is for workers- all of the workers, not just full-time employees, not just contractors or part-time employees- but anyone who provides labor in any way, whether you're a dishwasher or a bus driver or a senior engineer or a counsel at a tech company. So whether that's a startup or a publicly traded company, I think it's important for folks to have access to resources about how to find counsel, how to talk to reporters, how to establish the guidelines for a conversation with a reporter, how to share their own story, how to share information with government agencies, and most importantly, how to protect themselves. Because if you're working for a tech company, you're essentially working for a surveillance operation. And so you want to make sure that you're protecting both your digital information, and then also your physical self, because there are companies that have been known to send private investigators after people whether to find information or to harass them, but companies don't ever say.

Justin Hendrix:

And are we seeing that even more so right now amid some of these pushes to unionize?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Absolutely. Especially with unionization drives, there's a ton of physical intimidation that's taken place. Most recently- or most recently reported at least-- with the Amazon drives both in Bessemer and in New York.

WE DID IT!😭

Words can't fully capture what this means but we named the bill Silenced No More so I’ll say a bit.😂

Abusing workers then forcing silence - under the threat of lost income and healthcare - is depraved. As of Jan 1, 40 MILLION people no longer have to stay silent. https://t.co/WS8PvmkgKa

— Ifeoma Ozoma (@IfeomaOzoma) October 8, 2021

Justin Hendrix:

So I want to ask you just quickly for a couple of highlights. You've got four guides, essentially, in the handbook-the legal, the media, the security, and the stories that you just mentioned. As far as the legal piece, are there a couple of high notes that you would hit in terms of the first thing? You know, there could be possibly a person listening to this who thinks 'I have something that should be known in the world.' What would be the first piece of advice that you give them?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

The first thing that I would say for legal is definitely look through the handbook, and look through the information that's there. But you want to first establish what your goals are, if you're even considering whistleblowing, and get a sense for what your risk tolerance is. So there's a personal assessment there. I worked with The Signals Network, an organization that provides legal guidance and media guidance to whistleblowers and folks who have already come forward about information in the public interest. But you want to establish what your personal situation is, and that's both looking at your finances and determining whether you can even afford to do this. So can you afford to be out of a job? Can you afford to pay for your health insurance when you lose your job? Can you afford to pay for counsel if the counsel that you found or you want to go with is not willing to work on contingency. There are all sorts of things, really practical things that often aren't part of the conversation, but are very much things that whistleblowers and tech workers should be thinking about because they're burdens that are placed on the individual and their family when they're all of a sudden going up against a multi-billion or trillion dollar corporation.

Justin Hendrix:

Have you seen cases where it's gone wrong, where someone's stepped forward and has faced those types of repercussions?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Everyone I know who has stepped forward and certainly those who have raised concerns internally ahead of time have faced various repercussions, whether that's being sued whether that's losing your job, losing your health insurance. There's a whole range of repercussions that people face. And even when it's not the repercussions that people think of most commonly, how many folks who step forward then are able to find a job and what was their career or their chosen field after they've spoken up.

Justin Hendrix:

So a couple of points then on talking to the media. Are there particular things that you think that people should think about before they come and talk to someone like me?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

I think it's really important again, to think about what your goals are, and that helps determine which type of reporter you speak with, which type of outlet you go to how you share your story even something as simple as deciding whether to talk to a reporter or whether to post your story on Medium or on Twitter first is important for folks, because when you're doing something like this and making yourself a public figure, especially if you're coming forward with your name and your identity you really want to stay in control of your own story and understand what it means to put your story in the hands of any given reporter. And so working with Lioness, one of the things that I wanted them to address in this guide was the different choices that people have, because I think for a lot of folks who don't have experience working with reporters or working with the media there's a power imbalance right away, because it feels like if someone asks you something, you have to answer everything, you have to speak on the record. That's not the case. And so it really is about empowering people with the options that they have.

Justin Hendrix:

I want to ask you about the kind of volume of queries that you're getting-- not for the analytics on the website or something-- but you've mentioned in public reporting that you're getting lots of DMs, of course, all the time, and that may not be necessarily a sustainable channel for you to offer this advice. But what's it been like these last couple of months, particularly since whistleblowers have been in the news?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Since coming forward a year and a half ago now I have received probably thousands of messages on LinkedIn. Sometimes people get my phone number and text me. Email, Twitter, for sure Instagram-- basically wherever I have a presence, people reach out. And it's not just tech workers. I hear from people across all sorts of industries. I've heard from doctors, I've heard from lawyers, from people who work in government who are interested in all of the types of information that I've included in the handbook. And that's one of the reasons why I thought it was important for it to exist, because none of the information is new. All of it has existed, but not in one place and not in one place where it's organized so that it can be useful for people. And I know even though I've heard from hundreds, thousands of people at this point there are many more who probably don't feel comfortable reaching out for whatever reason. And I want to make sure that they have access to the same information too.

Justin Hendrix:

I wanted to get your sense of the potential for change. I mean you're a case in point of what can go right-- blow the whistle, get involved in legislative process, actually contribute to change in law. But you know, there are a lot of folks out there who are skeptical that even the most well-placed whistleblower can necessarily lead to the type of change that some think is necessary in this country. What would you say to the skeptics who are not convinced that anything will lead to a moment of change?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

I mean, I don't think that things happen spontaneously. You said at the beginning of the question that I'm an example of things going right. I lost my job. I lost my health insurance. There've been quite a number of repercussions that I faced coming forward. So, 'go right' is certainly subjective. But with my case, I knew from the beginning that I wanted to both speak up and push for actual change. I don't think that's the responsibility, certainly, of anyone who has decided to come forward. Coming forward is enough, and entails enough risk and responsibility, that the burden shouldn't be on them to push forward the actual change. But this is where I sort of agree with the skeptics-- and I said this on a panel I was on earlier today-- that hearings are just hearings. Hearings are not bills. Hearings are not reform. They're not the actual regulation that we need. And I think particularly in this country, a lot of people want and hope for things, but don't actually do anything. And we need more of the doing, less of the hoping. And that's where I've tried to play my own role. And doing things, I saw a need for resources. So over the last year, I put together the handbook, working with a number of partners. I saw where the law was lacking in California and in employment situations, so I pushed for things there. But I mean, I hear from people all across the country all the time saying, 'oh, I can't wait until my state takes this up.' And my question to them is, 'why aren't you reaching out to your lawmaker to ensure that that's the case?' Things don't just happen magically.

Justin Hendrix:

Are there are other misconceptions people have about whistleblowers, maybe similar to my own?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

I mean, I think that they're not necessarily misconceptions, but people only see what they see. You only know what you're able to read, what you're exposed to. And most of people's stories aren't told. You can have a 3000 word profile-- which I haven't seen one about a whistleblower-- but you could have one that long that is still not going to include everything that someone's faced, everything that they did before the point at which it became a story. And so there's just so much context that is going to be missing that I think it's important for folks to just put themselves in the shoes of someone who has had a job that they liked-- or liked at some point, at least-- is living in a capitalist society, needs to pay bills, and is still deciding to put all of that aside and speak up because something has gone so terribly wrong that it's the only option that's left to them.

Justin Hendrix:

I just want to ask you a couple of questions in particular about how people make these kinds of ethical judgements. One of the things I've been talking to people about lately with regard to the revelations around Facebook is how what we seem to have learned about that company is perhaps different from maybe even some of the other tech firms. That there's a founder CEO in place, who also controls the board, who does not seem to answer to anyone. And when faced with an ethical decision about whether to reduce harm on his platform or to sustain his profit, he often chooses the latter, or perhaps mostly chooses the latter. What would you say to employees there who are faced with that dilemma?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

My approach to all of this is, unless you're an executive, you've got to work to pay your bills, to support your family-- that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. So I'm not going to tell anyone to leave their job, because okay, you leave Facebook and you go to Alphabet? Are things any different there? I think the control is less loose over the board at the very top. That's the only difference that I see. Even at Facebook, the focus is often on Mark-- as it should be, because the buck stops with him. But he's surrounded by people who are making decisions all of the time, like the head of policy, like his head of content policy, like his COO, who are all-- in my mind-- equally responsible for the harm that's taken place there. And so I think for folks who are there or who are looking to join, my question would be, what is it that you can do in your role on your team to change things? And if you have the freedom to go somewhere else or do something else, then you should do that. I think where I have the biggest issue with people who work at a place like Facebook, the ones who push forward the false marketing and the honestly misinformation about the good that the company is doing while either ignoring completely or lying outright about the harm that's taking place. If you're honest about what's going on, that's about all that we can ask of rank and file workers anywhere.

Justin Hendrix:

Is there any difference in the way you think about ethical responsibility between perhaps, you know, engineers or others who are faced with decisions that push large numbers of people in one direction or another, versus someone who's, say, got a very commercial job. Maybe their job is to sell ads or, as you say, mind the grounds of these companies or something like that. Is there an ethical difference in the way that you think about their responsibilities?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Not really, because I actually think that from my perspective, working on the public policy teams at all of these companies, there's sometimes more harm taking place on the sales side than on the engineering side. So I think that depending on the role, there's harm possible everywhere. And so I wouldn't make that sort of delineation. Where folks have more power than I think they recognize is a team like the site reliability engineers who have actual control over the way that the platform functions and whether it functions or not. And that's where I think if there were more collective action-- if a team like that, or even a large proportion of the team decided to go on strike-- that would be the type of thing that would get the attention of company leaders. If the sales team, or a large vertical within the sales team decided to go on strike, that would be the type of thing that I think would change things in a way that we haven't seen from all of the hearings, from all of the lawsuits and whatever else that's taking place externally.

Justin Hendrix:

I hate to ask a very basic question, but I'm going to. There's so much reason to be sort of pessimistic right now about tech. A lot of people are down on the sector, down on the potential of change inside these behemoth companies. They only see things headed one way. Where do you net out? Do you maintain optimism? And what's the time horizon for that?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

I get this question a lot. I'm really practical. I don't think I personally don't spend time hoping for anything. I just like... What can be done? Is that something I want to focus on? Then I do it. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about how terrible things are, will continue to be. I just am not built in a way that to answer that is satisfying, but I wish more people were focused on action. Then maybe there would be less doom. For all of the things that people are depressed about, what are they doing to actually change it? I think that if people were pushing their members of Congress as hard as Facebook's 15 lobbying teams both internally and externally were then maybe we would have more progress. Those folks are all being funded by Facebook, even though they're sitting up there on either side of the aisle, pretending to actually care about regulating the company. Those folks all have constituents who could also be hounding them, but their constituents aren't.

Justin Hendrix:

Well, that seems to be a problem very broadly with the American political system at the moment, not just to do with tech.

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Right.

Justin Hendrix:

Are there any shout outs or any other entities that you would direct folks who are interested in this question to? I know you've got a bunch of contributors and partner organizations.

Ifeoma Ozoma:

All of the contributors to the handbook are excellent, and their organizations-- especially if you're a tech worker and you're considering speaking up and you want one-on-one help-- they are the first folks to go to. I think, I mean-- this is sort of an anti-shout out, or a call out. I guess there are a lot of organizations that say they're invested in tech accountability and are taking this moment when there's a lot of focus on whistleblowing and on "accountability" to add their names to the coverage, and I haven't seen much from many of them. I personally spoke to a number of the organizations that have been named prominently as part of the Facebook Papers and everything that's happening with the whistle blowing right now to support the Silence No More Act, and most of them were not interested. So I really wonder what it means to be focused on accountability, and whether that stops with the report, whether it stops with the broadcast news interviews and the hearings, and what that actually means and where it extends to when we're talking about actual change. My basic thing is if more people actually did more than talk about things, we would see change. And I just don't know what it is going to take to push people to that point, because I know a lot of people want things to be different, but again, wanting isn't enough.

Justin Hendrix:

I think this is a problem across the country right now. It's so many different issues, and I wonder sometimes if the issue is not that people feel simply overwhelmed with the number of things that seem intractable.

Ifeoma Ozoma:

It's true. And there are so many things, you just find the one thing that you're interested in and want to change enough, and then move forward.

Justin Hendrix:

Well, you found that. What's next for you? How long will you stay working on this?

Ifeoma Ozoma:

What I'm working on right now actually is engaging shareholders. So going from the legislative side to the private side pushing companies to adopt the policies from the Silence No More Act to their global workforces. And that has resulted in some wins, like Expensify and Twilio deciding to extend the policies because it makes sense and it's the right thing to do, and also you're going to have to do it in California, come January. So why not? And then other companies like Apple basically saying to 'F off.' And so we filed a shareholder resolution against them. We're going to duke it out with the SEC and see what comes of that.

Justin Hendrix:

Well, I think I'll be more optimistic knowing that you are in the fight, so thank you very much.

Ifeoma Ozoma:

Thank you.