← Back

What Leaked Google and Meta Memos Reveal About Power, AI, and Control

Sergey Brin, the billionaire co-founder of Google, returned to the company's artificial intelligence unit with a sense of urgency and a hint of desperation.

His leaked memo appears to be a hastily written manifesto for a dying empire, calling for longer working hours, less oversight and a complete disregard for nuance.

Brin's message to his employees:

·Work harder. A sixty-hour workweek is the "ideal" option, but hey, don't be afraid to burn out after that.

·Be present and collaborate. Remote work is a thing of the past. You will be in the office every weekday – no exceptions.

·Speed ​​at any cost. If a process slows you down, stop it—even if the process exists for a reason, such as to make sure your I/I doesn't accidentally break reality.

·Forget about security. Google has been "building nanny products" for too long. The future of AI belongs to those who let it run free.

What if you work at Google Deep Mind?

Well then, congratulations.

Now you work in a monastery, but instead of worshiping a real higher power, your devotion is measured by daily pilgrimages to the office and an unwavering commitment to "turbocharged efforts" - whatever that means.

And while Google demands loyalty from its AI employees, Mark Zuckerberg's team at Meta is taking a different approach to solving its own existential crisis.

Zuckerberg's right-hand man, CTO Andrew Bosworth, wants every employee to understand one thing very clearly:

If it leaks, you're done for.

No context. No exceptions.

"We just fire such people."

Meta Strategy for maintaining control is not about inspiring your employees to take action on the company. It is about managing through fear.

·More than 20 people have already been fired.

·Investigations are ongoing to further clean up.

·It doesn't matter how "innocent" the leak was - you are no longer there.

Meta has always loved dystopian narratives. Their platforms thrive on division, paranoia, and algorithmic manipulation. But now they’re not just building it for their users — they’re enforcing it within their own walls.

What's happening here is not just some isolated overreaction by two powerful companies facing internal turmoil.

This is a shift.

A rejection of everything they thought they stood for.

·Google, once the leader of the "Don't Be Evil" movement, is now putting the pedal to the metal in the field of artificial intelligence, ignoring ethics.

·The meta that once epitomized Silicon Valley "transparency" (...eye roll) is the rise of secrecy, surveillance, and authoritarian rule.

These companies are abandoning their old, carefully crafted ideals and embracing a raw, unfiltered strategy for corporate survival.

They are no longer interested in shaping the future.

They are desperately trying to hold on to their place in it.

…And this is despair?

This is where things get dangerous...

So here's lesson 1: The future belongs to those who work the land

Sergey Brin has some ideas about how to solve Google's AI problems, and shockingly, they mostly involve squeezing every last drop of productivity out of employees, like a tired dishrag.

Brin's vision of the future is not focused on breakthrough ideas, innovative leadership, or long-term sustainability.

No, no, no.

According to one of the richest people on the planet, the secret to winning the AI ​​race, like any other race, is to work longer hours, cut security, and be present in person, since no one can probably code properly unless they breathe the same artificially filtered office air.

Here's what he told the team...

·A 60-hour workweek is the "perfect" option. After all, why stop at a 40-hour workweek when you can squeeze in an extra 20 hours of exhaustion-induced mistakes?

·Be in the office - every weekday. His words:

"Location - It's important to work in an office because being physically together is much more effective for communication than being together, etc. And therefore, you need to be physically close to other people working on the same thing. We need to minimize the lines of command between countries, cities, and buildings. I recommend being in an office at least every weekday."

...As if employees are supposed to come to work on weekends, Brin???

Not three times a week.

Not for key meetings.

Every. Separate. Weekday.

…Because apparently nothing spurs innovation like working in an open office next door to a guy who still doesn't cover his mouth when he sneezes.

·Speed ​​is more important than accuracy. I can't wait for "20 minutes to do some Python". Just ship it! Who cares if it's broken? Move fast and... well, let's be honest, you'll probably break more than just things.

·Drop the safety nets. No more "nanny products" or ethical oversight. If an AI system produces horrific, dangerous, or downright inaccurate results - well, let's just trust the users to figure it out.

...Well, that's interesting. This isn't the kind of strategic genius you'd expect from the co-founder of one of the most powerful tech companies on Earth.

It's corporate panic disguised as bold leadership.

Let's stop for a moment and admire the blatant hypocrisy of it all.

A Billionaire's Definition of Hard Work

Sergey Brin, worth an estimated $135.4 billion, requires employees to work 60-hour days, sacrifice their lives, and ignore safety precautions, all while he works from a yacht, a private jet, or an exclusive vacation spot where “work” means browsing Slack before lunch…

There's a certain phenomenal irony in watching a man who hasn't had to worry about work-life balance for decades lecture engineers on the virtues of long hours, face-to-face collaboration, and "turbo-boosting efforts."

Brin doesn't have to work himself to pay the rent.

He doesn't have to worry about a 12-hour workday draining him to the point where he can't have a fulfilling personal life.

But what about the people who actually do the work…?

This exhaustion is the business model.

And here's the real surprise:

This won't work.

Decades of research in cognitive science, organizational psychology, and human performance studies have shown that productivity does not increase linearly with hours worked. In fact, after about 50 hours a week, cognitive ability plummets. Mistakes increase. Creativity plummets.

But Brinane is interested in reality...

He's interested in a nostalgic fantasy about Google in 1999, when engineers slept under desks, fueled by Red Bull and dreaming of getting rich on stock options. Only now the stock is owned by Brin, and the people who work there are just trying to avoid being laid off.

Yet behind all this absurdity lies a cruel logic.

Because Google is lagging behind.

Google's AI Panic: The Real Story

Let's be clear about what's really going on here...

Google doesn't push its employees to the limit because it genuinely believes that's the path to better AI breakthroughs. It does it because it's afraid.

They are afraid of Open AI. They are afraid of Microsoft. They are afraid of AI, Grok-3 and Elon Musk. They are afraid that after many years of dominance in the AI ​​field, they are about to lose their throne.

And this is not an irrational fear...

·Open A I caught the public's attention with his Chat GPT, GP T-4o, and now, two days ago, GP T-4.5.

·Microsoft has placed its bets on AI, integrating it into all levels of its business.

·Amazon-backed AI startups Anthropic, Mistral and others are proving that agility and innovation are now more important than size.

Meanwhile, Google's artificial intelligence products are lagging behind.

The release of Gemini was a real disgrace.

The bard was a joke.

And now Brin is urging his teams to move faster, no matter what, as the window of dominance closes.

This is not leadership...

…This is despair.

Lessons learned…

If you run a company—especially in AI or technology—be especially careful.

1.And And is no longer a means of responsible development - it is a territorial grab.

For the past few years, companies have pretended that AI development is a matter of responsibility, ethics, and careful implementation.

This pretense has disappeared.

The first company to hack AGI won't be the one that does it safely. It will be the one that does it first. Bryn's post makes that clearer than ever...

Google will no longer pretend.

2. Your well-being is a rounding error in corporate calculations.

Brin says 60 hours is the "sweet spot."

Every neuroscientist, psychologist, and burned-out software engineer would say otherwise.

Long working hours do not contribute to the best ideas.

They create exhausted, error-prone teams that rush half-baked products to market.

But does this matter to Google?

Not really…

Because if the Yi Yi gold rush is won within the next two years, the human losses will be just collateral damage.

3. The fences are removed.

In his memo, Brinot openly criticizes Google's AI-powered products for being over-filtered, over-moderated, and too slow to market.

In other words…

Get ready for much more aggressive and unfiltered AI models to become available to the public.

Forget about "alignment".

Forget about "bias reduction."

Forget about any attempts to slow things down for the sake of responsibility.

The official directive from above is to act faster and stop worrying about the consequences.

Homework…

· Decide whether you are playing offense or defense in the A&I race. If you are in A&I, I believe you need to develop fast and ship faster. Otherwise, prepare to be gobbled up by companies that do.

·Create a workplace that won't destroy your own team. If your strategy for staying competitive is "work harder" instead of "work smarter," you've already failed.

·Be prepared for an AI landscape with fewer safety measures. The public desire for “responsible AI” is about to be crushed by profit-oriented pragmatism.

In the next two years, the deciding factor in artificial intelligence will not be who has the best ideas.

They will depend on who is willing to put in more effort,

the fastest,

and the most reckless.

Google just made it clear whose side they are on.

There is only one question left…

…What happens when the brakes are released?

Lesson 2: Corporate empires require total control—even if it means destroying your own team.

Google's approach to dominance is brute force acceleration: push harder, work longer, break things and fix them later...

…Goal?

Meta's strategy is pure authoritarian rule.

Forget about AI superiority—Zuckerberg's team is focused on keeping its own people in line.

Image + Source | The Verge, Alex Heath

CTO Andrew Bosworth, who just finished his new role as Meta's unofficial Minister of Information, made a statement to all Meta employees:

·More than 20 people were fired for leaking information.

·Meta has a whole team dedicated to tracking leaks.

·Investigations are ongoing, meaning the purge is far from complete.

And if anyone thought there was room for debate, Bosworth was quick to shut it down. Here's what he said:

“There are three different types of leaks. A lot of the time, leaks are accidental, people just being careless [and] clumsy with information. They’re trying to share it with a friend, a roommate, their mom, and they’re not paying attention to what they’re doing. The second type is people who are trying to be helpful. ‘If only the press would figure this out, they’d probably tell a good story about us.’ They won’t. And then there are malicious leaks, antagonistic leaks, people who are trying to push an agenda that they believe is more important to them than it is to the company.

All three of these leaks are misdemeanors that can get you fired. All three. And we take them seriously. We have a team that is dedicated to finding these leaks. And so we've done a bunch of investigations and fired over 20 people for leaks in the last couple of weeks. Over 20. That's not the full list. There are more investigations going on right now. So just to remind everyone, don't screenshot, don't write anything down. We're pretty good at finding these things, and these people are no longer... We just have zero tolerance. It doesn't matter what the excuse is. It doesn't matter how innocuous you think it is. We just fire these people. Good. Great. Fun. We're doing really well, guys. Nobody. We've fired people... And they're wondering why they gave me a Q&A."

It doesn't matter whether it was an accident or good intentions.

It doesn't matter whether anyone tried to explain the company's position to the public...

or an engineer complaining about how much worse Meta has become since management started treating employees like security risks.

No excuses.

No exceptions.

Speak and you will be gone.

Competitive advantage? No. It's management based on fear.

Let's be realistic...

Meta has always thrived on manipulation and behavioral engineering. Its platforms are built on algorithms that amplify outrage, encourage addictive interaction cycles, and produce social bubbles.

And now…?

They run their company in the same way.

The biggest lie in Silicon Valley is that tech giants leak information because of bad employees.

…This is a corporate PR stunt.

Companies don't allow leaks because employees are disloyal.

They leak out because employees don't trust their management.

If people believe in a company, they will protect it.

They don't take screenshots of internal memos and send them to journalists.

They don't risk their careers just to expose what goes on behind closed doors.

...Meta never inspired confidence.

For many years, the company has acted like a company that views its employees as a burden.

They fire employees like they're trimming a hedge.

·They change so often that entire teams disappear overnight.

·They pursue policies that appear arbitrary, dispassionate and increasingly hostile.

And when will the employees finally lose their temper and tell what's going on inside the company...?

Meta doesn't ask, "Why do our employees feel the need to leak information?"

It asks the question: "How do we punish them so that no one else tries to do the same thing?"

The Zuckerberg team is committed to fixing the root problem…

…They take care to eliminate people who expose this.

What's the irony of all this?

Meta's obsession with secrecy is not producing results.

They have been fighting information leaks for years - and here we are, reading about their repressions...

…because someone leaked the information.

The company's internal dysfunction is so severe that even massive purges cannot stop the flow of information leaving the building.

This is what happens when a company puts control before culture.

Liquors are not just people pursuing selfish goals.

These are people who feel powerless.

They leak information because it is the only form of influence they have left.

And the more Meta tightens its controls, the more leaks there will be.

Because the real problem wasn't the leaks.

The problem is in the company itself.

Let's not be Meta...

If you are running or starting a company, this is a scenario you should not follow.

1.Secrecy doesn't work if your employees don't trust you.

Paranoia is no substitute for leadership.

If your employees feel like they are being watched, hunted, and controlled, they will start looking for ways to fight back.

And what about leaks? That's their form of resistance.

2. Paranoia is not a leadership strategy.

You don't prevent leaks by firing people and threatening everyone else. You prevent leaks by making sure employees don't feel the need to leak in the first place.

When people believe in a company's mission, they don't talk about it - they're always on the defensive.

3. If your team is operating in fear, you have already lost.

Innovation does not happen in hostile environments. It does not happen in offices where employees spend more time looking back than looking forward.

You cannot build a future if you treat your own people as the enemy.

How can you become better?

/ Fix your internal culture before it becomes a safety crisis. If employees are leaving, you don't have a loyalty problem. You have a leadership problem.

/ Control the narrative by being proactive, not reactive. Meta's approach is pure damage control. They wouldn't have to fire employees for leaking if they weren't already playing defense.

/ Transparency beats surveillance. If your company spends money tracking internal dissent instead of solving internal problems, you've already lost.

Google makes its employees work tirelessly.

Meta treats its employees as a security threat.

And both companies are making the same fundamental mistake...

They think that this is how they can retain power.

But strength does not come from paranoia.

It comes from trust.

And if a company can't even trust its own people, what does that say about the future it's trying to build?

Zuckerberg's company is more obsessed with controlling information than creating it.

And this?

This is the biggest red flag of them all.

Lesson 3: Power is no longer earned, it is created

If Google is burning out its people and Meta is persecuting its own employees as corporate dissidents, what does that tell us about power in today's tech landscape?

He tells us everything.

For years, the myth of Silicon Valley was simple:

Power was obtained through sight,

innovations,

and risk taking.

And now?

This era is over.

Power no longer depends on what you create.

It's about what you control.

What about Google and Meta?

They no longer innovate on their way to dominance.

Onisami organize their survival.

·Google isn't trying to "win" the AI ​​race by building a better AI. They're trying to out-engineer, out-scale, and out-perform their competitors - by any means necessary.

· Meta is not trying to "build a better platform." They are developing an internal system where dissent is suppressed, narratives are controlled, and leaks are treated as threats to national security.

It's not about technology development...

…This is a consolidation of power.

And this shift is undeniable.

Today…

Power in technology has nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with control.

1. Labor control.

Google wants its AI teams to work 60 hours a week in the office, with no room for discussion.

Not because it is possible to create a better AI, but because it is possible to maintain dominance.

More hours. More surveillance. More pressure to get results at any cost.

Not the best job.

Just more work.

2. Information control.

Meta does not combat leaks because they pose a real safety risk.

They fight leaks because they expose internal weaknesses in the company.

Meta doesn't worry about its competitors. Meta worries about what its own employees think.

This is how you can tell if a company is rotting from the inside.

3. Control of perception.

Brin claims Google's AI products are overloaded with security measures.

Translation…?

The company that once led the debate on AI ethics is now publicly rejecting its own guarantees.

Why…?

Because the perception of "progress" is more valuable than actual progress.

Google is no longer trying to create a safe and responsible AI.

Google is trying to convince the world that they can deliver AI faster than Open AI.

What if they have to break their security protocols to do so?

Let it be so.

Let's also realize something...Google and Meta are not just companies anymore.

These are corporate states - autonomous, self-governing and completely unaccountable to anyone except their shareholders.

Think about it. They control…

/ Labor markets. Their hiring and firing decisions reverberate throughout the tech industry.

/ Public discourse. Their platforms shape what billions of people see and believe.

/ Infrastructure. They own the data, the cloud, the AI ​​models, and the systems that make the Internet itself work.

And now…?

They are tightening control.

Meta fights leaks. Google makes engineers work to the point of exhaustion.

Why…?

Because if you can control your workforce, your information, and your public opinion, nothing else matters.

You don't have to create the best products...You don't even have to make your employees happy...

You just need to control the game.

Conclusions…

If you run a tech company, understand this:

The rules of the game are changing.

You're not just competing with other companies.

You are competing against corporate empires that have spent the last two decades organizing their own survival.

So ask yourself:

1.Are you creating a product or a control system?

If your entire business model is based on aggressive scaling, constant turnover, and perception control, congratulations.

You have become a mini-Google or Meta.

But if you really want to create something that lasts, you need to move away from this model.

Because it is unstable.

2. Do you understand where real strength comes from?

Brinni Zuckerberg made one thing clear:

They don't see power as something to be earned.

They see it as something that you produce.

·They create pressure on their employees to work harder.

·They create fear - so the leaks disappear.

·They create a sense of urgency so that ethics and restrictions are thrown aside.

If you don't recognize this shift, it will crush you.

3. Are you playing the right game?

Most startups still think that innovation is the name of the game.

In my opinion: This is not true.

It's about who can consolidate the most power faster.

·Who owns the infrastructure.

·Who controls the platforms.

·Who dictates the narrative.

That's the point of the game...

What about Google and Meta?

They play to win.

Here's what you can do…

/ Reject the corporate empire model. If you create a company just to squeeze employees, control information, and play perception games, you are just another cog in the same machine.

/ Develop power the right way. True power comes from trust, not fear. From vision, not manipulation. From real innovation, not just tightening your grip on everything you already own.

/ Understand that the YI race isn't about YI - it's about control. Brin wants YI teams to be exhausted and not ask questions. Zuckerberg wants Meta employees to be scared and silent.

…Because I&I is not just a product.

This is the lever of power.

And whoever controls the most AI, the most infrastructure, and the most people, controls the future.

The fourth and final lesson: the future is not just unfolding, it is being designed.

We've covered Google's brutal work culture, Meta's corporate authoritarianism, and how power in tech is made, not earned.

Now we need to ask the most important question of all…

…What will all this lead to?

Because make no mistake, this isn't just about today's AI race or Meta's latest anti-leak measures.

We are talking about the future of the technologies themselves.

And that future is no longer shaped by innovation, ethics, or even market forces.

It is dictated, controlled and manipulated by a few companies that have consolidated power over the past two decades.

Google and Meta don't just want to win the next stage of AI development.

They want to own the entire infrastructure of the future.

They want to become so deeply embedded in the global economy, its digital systems and decision-making processes, that they no longer need to compete.

Because once you control the system, you don't have to play by the rules.

You can make them.

New World Order of Technology: What Comes Next

So... what does this give us?

Simple.

We are moving towards a world where technology no longer serves people - it serves power.

And the changes we're seeing now—the acceleration of Google's AI, Meta's paranoia, the dismantling of safety measures, the disregard for workers, the obsession with control—are all symptoms of this future being built in real time.

Here's what this means for business, AI, and the future of the economy.

1. And And will become a tool of control, not just a product

Now, AI is still positioned as an innovation. A tool for automation, assistance and efficiency.

This is temporary.

Because once AI is fully integrated into the economy, government and everyday decision-making, it will cease to be just a tool.

This will be a control system.

·And it will determine access to financial systems—who gets loans, who gets jobs, who can participate in the economy.

·And And will shape public discourse, deciding which voices should be amplified and which should be suppressed.

·And And will control information—not just by identifying “disinformation,” but by controlling the flow of knowledge itself.

And the companies that own the AI ​​infrastructure—Google, Meta, Microsoft, Open AI—will actually own the levers of power.

simply because AND is not neutral.

It reflects the values ​​of the one who controls it.

And right now it's being run by the same people who think workers should be in the office every day, working 60 hours a week, and obeying without question.

This is not progress.

This is a digital prison that is about to happen.

2. The Death of Competition: How AI Will Block Everyone Else

For years, startups and small companies have been told they can compete with big tech companies.

This lie is coming to an end.

Because AI is not just a software product, it is an infrastructure game.

Google, Meta, and Microsoft don't just create AI models.

They create the digital highways, supply chains, cloud networks, and computing power that make AI possible.

Think about it:

·It is impossible to create an AI startup without having access to someone's cloud computing. (Google Cloud, AWS, Microsoft Azure.)

·You cannot distribute the product of the I&I without using the platforms of major technology companies (Google Play, Apple App Store, Meta ecosystem).

·It is impossible to train large-scale AI without access to huge centralized datasets (which only a few companies own).

This is not an open market.

Its economic stranglehold.

And as AI becomes more expensive, more computationally intensive, and more deeply embedded in everyday life, that grip will only tighten.

Big tech companies are not interested in competition.

They want to create a world in which competition is no longer possible.

Where all the major breakthroughs in the field of AI happen within their walls.

And where the smaller players not only lose, they don't even get a chance to start the game.

3. The End of the Myth of the “Technological Utopia”

For years, Silicon Valley has been selling fantasy.

A world where technology creates abundance, democratizes opportunity, and elevates humanity.

This fantasy is dead.

The real future of technology is not utopian - it is the consolidation of power.

And what we are seeing now – the exhaustion of workers, the erosion of ethics, the obsession with secrecy, the suppression of dissent – ​​is just the beginning.

·And it will not be an instrument of economic liberation - it will become a mechanism of corporate and state control.

·Big tech companies won't be the engine of competition - they'll be the fortress that eliminates threats before they arise.

·Your data will not give you any power - it will be used to shape your choices, limit your options and predict your behavior.

So what can we do about this…

Fine,

You can't beat Google for work. You can't beat Meta for scale. You can't beat Microsoft for costs.

But that doesn't mean you can't resist.

Because power - even when engineered - has limits.

And right now, those limits are being tested.

Here's what all founders, builders, leaders, engineers, and independent thinkers need to do right now to fight back.

1. Stop playing their game.

·If you are starting a company, don't copy it from Google or Meta.

·If you work in tech, stop believing that working 60-hour weeks will “earn” you power. It won’t. It will burn you out and make someone else richer.

2. Create alternatives - before it's too late.

·The only way to stop consolidation is to create new ecosystems.

·Companies that break free from the grip of big tech corporations will not compete within their infrastructure – they will build it outside of it.

3. Expose hypocrisy - relentlessly.

·Brin, Zuckerberg, Musk, Pacha and Nadella are not visionaries, they are monopolists.

They do not lead us into the future - they fence it off from themselves.

·The more we uncover their tactics, the harder it becomes for them to maintain power.

4. Be ahead of the curve.

·The war between the I and I is just beginning. It is literally in its infancy.

·The companies that win the next phase of innovation will not be the largest.

·They are the ones who will understand where this is all heading and take action before the gates close forever.

Big tech companies are no longer in the business of building the future.

Their job is to own it, control it, and make sure no one else has a say in it.

But here's the thing...

Power doesn't last forever. Nothing really lasts forever.

And as soon as people stop believing in the inevitability of corporate dominance, everything changes.

The next five years will determine the trajectory of artificial intelligence, technology and digital governance for the next fifty years.

So the real question is:

Will we let companies like Google and Meta dictate our future?

Or should we build something better before it's too late?

Because the game is not over yet.

What if we wait too long?

We may not have another chance to play.

So, welcome to the new tech industry.

Here's something else to think about... It's not that simple: How Google and Meta might (accidentally) be right

Look, everything I said still stands.

Google is still recklessly accelerating the development of artificial intelligence, and Meta is still running its company like a digital police state.

But let's admit something...

Not all of their actions are 100% irrational.

In fact, if we step back, some of these decisions – although deeply flawed – are rooted in real dilemmas.

So before we write this all off as pure corporate madness, let's talk about what Google and Meta might actually (accidentally) be right about.

Brinan's attacks on Google's AI security filters resemble the actions of a billionaire in a state of complete panic and ready to shift responsibility onto himself, just to catch up with Open AI.

And yes, that is definitely part of it.

But here is the other side...

Google's AI products have been crippled by their own security measures.

·Users complain that Gemini avoids answering simple questions - sometimes refusing to discuss history, politics, or anything even slightly controversial.

·The developers claim that Google's excessive filtering makes it unsuitable for use in real applications.

·Even non-controversial queries are cleaned to the point that the AND can barely function.

So when Brin says:

"We can't continue to make products for nannies."

...he just guts the safety of the I&I for the sake of speed?

Or does he admit that Google's overly cautious approach has left its AI lagging behind in terms of usability?

The real problem...Google went too far in one direction - overly restricting AI. Now, instead of course correcting, they're yanking the wheel in the opposite direction.

The real danger is that they may overcorrect the situation, removing not only unnecessary filters but also critical security mechanisms.

If this shift were due to a sensible change in the balance between usability and AI security, great.

However, Google's desperation makes it much more likely that they will simply pull the brakes completely.

And this?

This is not a solution. This is free fall.

Now let's talk about Meta's war on leaks.

I made it clear that their approach was pure authoritarianism: mass layoffs, surveillance tactics, and treating employees like rebels.

But let's think about it:

What if not all leaks are innocent?

And it's an arms race. The first company to crack AGI, multimodal optimization, or hyper-efficient models wins billions in market dominance.

Leaks can be used as weapons. Not every leak by an employee is a whistleblower—some are calculated moves to undermine competitors or manipulate public opinion.

A single leak could cost Meta billions. Open AI, Microsoft, and Anthropic watch each other like hawks. If an internal document reveals a breakthrough (or a failure), competitors can instantly adjust their strategy.

So yes, Meta has real reasons to worry about leaks.

But here's where they failed miserably:

1️They treat leaks as a disease, not a symptom. If your employees are leaking information, it's because they don't trust management. Fixing that will do more for security than firing people.

2️⃣They weaponize fear instead of building loyalty. You can’t run a company like a surveillance state and expect innovation. Employees don’t do their best work when they’re constantly looking over their shoulders.

3️They act like paranoia is a strategy. Meta doesn't have a "leak problem." They have a culture problem — one that no amount of firing squads and internal witch hunts will fix.

So yes, some level of security is warranted.

But managing through fear is not a solution, it is a time bomb.

None of this lets Google or Meta off the hook. In fact, it makes their failures all the more damning…

Google isn't just lifting restrictions on AI - they're doing it recklessly because they're falling behind.

Meta doesn't just prevent leaks - they do it like a dictatorship, not a company.

Both take dangerous steps for real reasons, but implement them in the worst possible ways.

And that's what makes this moment in tech so dangerous...

Because when are billion-dollar mistakes made for the "right" reasons?

This is where everything gets out of control...