""This ruling affirms that Sarah Wynn Williams’ false and defamatory book should never have been published,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement.""

Whistleblowing is often a traumatic experience for whistleblowers and it's often a last-ditch resort done out of desperation after a long struggle with their conscience and or after they've tried to right wrongs and have failed.

To make matters worse it's almost inevitable those who are the subject of the whistleblowing (employers, institutions/entities or persons) will attempt to make life very difficult for the whilstleblower by discrediting both the person and everything he or she says. Add to all that the fact that the target of the whistleblowing is inevitably the more powerful of the parties.

Whistleblowing isn't for the fainthearted. For the most part, whistleblowers aren't aware of all the problems they'll encounter let alone their full extent, thus they'll often be stressed and emotionally traumatized by events, some of which are quite unexpected.

First, is that employees with whom they're friendly and who also know the issues will often turn against them and side with employers with the result that few will publicly support the whistleblower's claims. This is often unexpected and comes as quite a shock. Effectively, whistleblowers are usually on their own. Second, they'll likely have considerable difficulty in seeking further employment. Third, whistleblowing legislation in many places is grossely inadequate which leaves whistleblowers exposed, for them the law offers little or no protection. There's more but that'll do for now.

That said, not all whistleblowers are lily-white and some seek vengeance for various reasons; there may be a modicum of truth in what they say but with these people sorting fact from fiction is often difficult. Also, whistleblowers with a genuine grievance do themselves and their cause harm by exaggerating the facts for emphasis. There's also another class of whistleblower who exasperates just about everybody, they're the people who have a genuine complaint but which turns out to be trivial or inconsequential.

I'm of the opinion they're one of the reasons why whistleblowing legislation is lacking. As it is, it's often hard to know where to draw the line. That which constitutes an issue of enough importance to warrant whistleblowing and to not only draw public attention but also bring on an investigation is often not clearcut and these 'nuisances' muddy the waters.

Moreover, that whistleblowing is often viewed negatively as tittle-tattle even by those who welcome the whistleblower's revelations is another factor whistleblowers have to contend with. Both the distaste and ambivalence that a large percentage of the US public showed towards Snowden is evidence of that.

Eventually, truth will out and we will learn whether Sarah Wynn-Williams’ claims are false and defamatory or are factual—either in full or in part. If her claims are genuine, well motivated and factual she'll nevertheless be in for a pretty rotten time.

Unfortunately, that's the usual lot for most whistleblowers, very few benefit from having been one and many end up regretting having so acted.