Aaron Sorkin's Facts and Fictions

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg reacts to the social network:

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has been doing an deceptive little dance when it comes to his movie's accuracy. Usually he takes the position that he's an artist, not a journalist. As he told New York magazine, "I don't want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to story-telling." And that's fair enough. But when he's challenged on his storytelling choices, Sorkin falls back on a that's what really happened defense, even when he has his facts wrong.

A couple of weeks ago, for example, Sorkin offered this defense of how the film depicts women:

It's not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about....I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)

That's a familiar cliché, but it's hard to square that picture with Irin Carmon's earlier comparison of the film to the facts:

Never mind that [Mark Zuckerberg] has had a serious girlfriend since 2003, which includes the time when the movie was set. That would make it hard to show Asian girls blowing him and his friend because Facebook was so cool!

In real life, plenty of members of Zuckerberg's inner circle are and were gay men. And Facebook's current success has also been predicated on the hard work of women Zuckerberg trusts, including COO Sheryl Sandberg (also a Harvard grad, profiled in The Times today) and his sister....

The fictional Mark Zuckerberg starts Facemash, a site where girls can be cruelly judged on their looks, the only thing they're good for. In real life, Facemash was criticized by groups representing women of color, but it was also equal opportunity judgment: It had men and women on it, which you'd never know from the movie. The real life Sean Parker may be a womanizer, but unlike the character played by Justin Timberlake, he didn't find out about Facebook from a nubile co-ed in Stanford panties who was thrilled to find out she'd scored with a Silicon Valley celeb -- he found out about it from his roommate's girlfriend.

It makes you wonder why the filmmakers tried so hard to create a world so hostile and diminishing to women, where -- aside from a small character for real-life Harvard grad Rashida Jones that seems to have been designed to preempt criticism -- the choices are being a stern bitch (like the ones in the administrative board hearings) or dropping your panties at the sight of power. I don't know from personal experience, but that sounds a lot more like Hollywood.

This is slightly off -- the cast includes one more woman who rises above those caricatures, though she appears in only two scenes. But Carmon's core critique is correct. Sorkin selected (and sometimes invented) the facts that would allow him to paint the digital world he despises as the spawn of a bunch of sexually frustrated misogynists. He ignored the facts that would undermine that tale. If this were journalism, it would be indefensible. As art, it reveals a writer who's guilty of some of the very sins he's trying to pin on his target.

The cuddly nerds we made movies about in the '80s.By the way: Has Sorkin seen the movies about cuddly nerds that came out in the '80s? Rent Revenge of the Nerds sometime. It's got geeks, jocks, and cheerleaders, and its sexual politics ain't gonna win any awards from NOW. I'm just sayin'.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Oliver Stone||

    I've seen the picture. Everything in it is true.

  • ||

    Mark Zuckerberg should be tried for crimes against humanity.

  • ||

    Sounds like he's a shitty storyteller then if he can't represent the truth in a creative way without yelling "boobies!"

  • ||

    Don't tell me you were offended by the "Eat a Pi" sale.

  • Jesse Walker||

    I enjoyed that movie as much as the next guy, but you've got to admit, the way Lewis gets the girl is pretty damn creepy.

  • ||

    Come on Jesse. Everybody's gotten laid by deception at least once in their life. And if she couldn't tell that was Lewis instead of Stan Gable when she went down on him, then shame on her anyway.

    I'm a little more concerned with the liquid heat stunt. That was pure evil.

  • robc||

    Not just creepy, Im pretty sure it is rape.

  • waffles||

    you can't rape someone on a moonbounce; it's so fun it has to consensual!

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH RAPE BY MOONLIGHT! THAT SAME THING?

  • ||

    Close enough for gov't rape.

  • ||

    Im pretty sure it is rape.

    You can't consent to something you don't know you are consenting to.

  • ||

    But we can't know what's in it till we pass it!

  • robc||

    Well, the "pretty sure" is due to the fact, as sloopy pointed out, that she had to know it wasnt Stan, so it very well might have been consensual.

  • ||

    I love the fact that there is a discussion going on regarding whether a sex scene in Revenge of the Nerds constituted rape.

    But shouldn't we be more concerned about the inherent racism of their MJ party to convince Jefferson to allow them into the Tri-Lams?

  • ||

    Was it as bad as the Asian stereotype or the gay stereotype?

    Oh, and I don't think their pot put them over the top with U.N. It was the pigs sent in by the AB's and the Pi's and the way they mocked the Mu's that caused U.N. to sympathize with them. If anything, it shows the black stereotype's willingness to do anything to get back at the oppressive white "master" that was personified in Stan Gable and the entire AB apparatus including John Goodman in an outstanding portrayal of the football coach.

    Even the Dean cowers at the end when approached by the Tri-Lambdas on stage because all white people are afraid of the strong black man seeking righteous vengeance even if it is not directed at them.

    Yeah, some serious shit going on in this movie.
    [rolls eyes]

  • ||

    Now that's what I was looking for.

  • ||

    If she didn't know it wasn't her boyfriend until she was engaged in sexual contact, then it is unconsensual. It's a marginal case, agreed. YouTube won't cough up the scene so I can watch it again.

  • ||

    Doesn't that mean that having sex with a blindfolded woman, who doesn't resist or say no or give any indication she's not consenting, or (parallel with the movie scene) actually initiates the copulation, is ipso facto rape, because she doesn't have full knowledge of the penetrator?

  • ||

    That's exactly what NutraSweet is saying, Booger.

  • ||

    Does she not know who you are? Does she think you are someone else?

    Consent is not acquiescence.

  • ||

    What about glory holes?

    If a chick went to the womens room and thought it was her boyfriend's cock she was sucking when it popped out of a hole in the wall, but later found out it was some other dude's cock, would she have the right to charge the guy with rape once she found out who it was?

    I'm gonna have to say no. If she initiated the contact with the person then she initiated it, period. The fact that she didn't take off the guy's mask or make sure she recognized the cock through the glory hole is the same thing, IMO. She initiates contact. She takes responsibility.

  • ||

    No, because she was consenting to sucking whatever dick came out of a hole in the wall; the not knowing whether it was her boyfriend's dick is part of the glory hole experience.

  • ||

    But what if her boyfriend told her he was gonna stick his dick through a hole, but there were two holes and she sucked off the other guy's dick and didn't notice the second hole (where her boyfriend's phallus emanated from)?

    Anybody man who's ever been in a glory hole situation realizes they may not have the only dong in the game. A first-time female participant may only notice the first thing that pops up, especially if there's strobe lights going and techno playing.

    Either way, there would be no intent to rape by the guy who just stuck his dick in a hole, so I guess it'd be a dilly of a case for prosecutors to prove.

  • ||

    No, there wouldn't be any real legal recourse.

    Anybody man who's ever been in a glory hole situation realizes they may not have the only dong in the game.

    I'll take your word for it.

  • robc||

    In the case of RotN, she (possibly) knew it wasnt her boyfriend. Beyond that, she had no clue, but it didnt stop her. In the case that she knew it wasnt Stan, she was consenting to whoever it was. If she is such a ditzy airhead that she actually thought it was Stan, then it was rape.

  • robc||

    Although I guess the "reasonable chick" standard could be applied.

    [Dont make obvious joke. Dont make obvious joke]

  • ||

    In the case that she knew it wasnt Stan, she was consenting to whoever it was. If she is such a ditzy airhead that she actually thought it was Stan, then it was rape.

    Agreed on both counts.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I cant believe i read this whole thread...with rapt attention too.

    No...words

  • ||

    Oh God, here we go with robc turning everything in the universe into fraud.

  • robc||

    Im the one arguing, at least partly, that is wasnt fraud. SF, on the other hand.

  • prolefeed||

    Never mind that [Mark Zuckerberg] has had a serious girlfriend since 2003, which includes the time when the movie was set. That would make it hard to show Asian girls blowing him and his friend because Facebook was so cool!

    You do realize that there have been one or two men in the history of the world who have had a serious relationship going on, and one or more girlfriends / FWBs / fuckbuddys / string of one night stands on the side.

  • Jonas||

    Sure, but they usually aren't computer-programming social retards.

  • prolefeed||

    If you're rich enough, you can attract a GF or three on the side.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    If only West Wing was still on the air, Sorkin could write an episode where he passive aggressively insults Jesse Walker and Irin Carmon through his characters.

  • ||

    I don't know. I saw the movie, and I didn't come away with the idea that they were misogynists. For Sorkin to defend it by implying that the tech world is full of angry woman-haters is a more offensive stereotype than throwing some chicks in panties into a movie.

  • Inquiring Minds||

    At the risk of blowing my own horn (get your mind out of the gutter) Lawrence Lessig has a related criticism you can find linked to on my blog, referenced two lines up. I don't agree with Lessig on Net Neutrality, but he converges with the fundamental point Carmon is making--Hollywood just doesn't get the net.

  • T||

    No, screenwriters and the people greenlighting projects don't get the net. The tech side of Hollywood, on the other hand, is the net. The special effects come from people who live and breathe technology in all of it's forms.

  • rctl||

    Inquiring Minds, excuse me, but there is only room for one blogwhore this morning, and it doesn't matter I'm off topic.

  • ..||

    I've upped my standards. Now, up yours.

  • rctl||

    Be a man, use your fucking name-and visit my blog :-)

  • ||

    Ken Burns should have done this one. He never lies.

  • JLE||

    The lie was in the suggestion it was an original idea. It copied from others who copied from others. Just another copycat sitcom in social networking programming. A formula. There will be more and no one will remember Facebook in ten years.

  • ||

    5 people like this.

  • ||

    Did they twit about how much they like it though?

  • ||

    Uh, all movies about "real events" are fictionalized. So seeing sex, chicks, and drama added to a film is par for the course, and complaining about it is stupid.

    My main complaint with the movie is that it completely failed to showcase David Fincher's style. He has an amazing eye, and usually picks phenomenal cinematographers, but the palate in this was boring as shit.

    When I go to a Fincher movie, I want to be wowed visually, and that just did not happen here.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Uh, all movies about "real events" are fictionalized. So seeing sex, chicks, and drama added to a film is par for the course, and complaining about it is stupid.

    "Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has been doing an deceptive little dance when it comes to his movie's accuracy. Usually he takes the position that he's an artist, not a journalist. As he told New York magazine, 'I don't want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to story-telling.' And that's fair enough. But when he's challenged on his storytelling choices, Sorkin falls back on a that's what really happened defense, even when he has his facts wrong."

  • ||

    Right. And I listen to what Sorkin says, ever, why...?

    I mean, if Michael Bay used a that's what really happened defense for Pearl Harbor, would you laugh, or laugh so hard you fell over? Or just die laughing?

  • ||

    I kinda wish Bay had done The Social Network. That would have been gold!

  • ||

    5 people li *BOOOOOOOOOM*

  • ||

    I kinda wish Bay had done The Social Network. That would have been awesome.

    Bombs going off over Silicon Valley. Love triangles that have nothing to do with the plot. Fucking comedy gold!

  • ||

    Considering how flat Fincher directed it, I almost would have rather seen the circus that would have been a Michael Bay The Social Network as well.

  • ||

    I got a buddy who teaches history here in central Cali. He shows most of Pearl Harbor to his kids every year when they are "learning" about WW2 and the reasons we got into it. I asked him why not Tora Tora Tora, and he said the kids thought it was too boring.

    It's a sad state of affairs when a Michael Bay asploision-fest trumps an excellent and rather entertaining movie about the lead up to WW2. I guess it speaks to our education system in general when an administrator even gives a teacher the option of using Pearl Harbor over Tora Tora Tora.

  • Jonas||

    Southern Gothic short-story writer Flannery O'Connor once wrote that, when deciding what (literature) to teach to students, "Their taste should not be consulted; it is being formed."

    Wiser words about education were never spoken, so it's no wonder that administrators, teachers, and other edjumicators have probably never come across them.

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    "Their taste should not be consulted; it is being formed."

    Fail. The older generation often claims the prerogative of forming the younger generation's tastes, but it never truly earns it. Schoolteachers should not presume it's their job to cultivate a taste for Shakespeare and Dickens unless they fear that Shakespeare and Dickens can't sell themselves to each new generation, in which case they're hypocrites as self-appointed priests of universalized good taste.

  • Supa||

    Throw a teacher under the bus will ya!

  • Jesse Walker||

    I mean, if Michael Bay used a that's what really happened defense for Pearl Harbor, would you

    ...put up a blog post mocking him for it? Yes, probably.

  • ||

    I suppose I may have been conflating your attitude with Carmon's, because he's not mocking so much as complaining.

    And please, mock both Sorkin and Bay more. Much more. Every day.

  • ||

    I think Jesse Walker is a pretty cool guy.
    Eh makes fun of retarded people and doesn't afraid of anything.

  • ||

    Whoa, whoa, did you stroke out on the last sentence?

  • ||

    Quick! Administer the STR test!

  • waffles||

    I think sloopyinca is pretty cool guy.
    Eh, thinks H&R is /b/ and doesn't afraid of anything.

  • ||

    Hey, give me a little credit. At least I said Michael Bay was retarded.

  • PedoBear||

    This movie was piss. All the girls were much too old.

  • ||

    It makes you wonder why the filmmakers tried so hard to create a world so hostile and diminishing to women, where -- aside from a small character for real-life Harvard grad Rashida Jones that seems to have been designed to preempt criticism -- the choices are being a stern bitch (like the ones in the administrative board hearings) or dropping your panties at the sight of power. I don't know from personal experience, but that sounds a lot more like Hollywood.

    The second sentence explains the first, so what's there to wonder about?

  • Tony||

    The misogyny was my biggest complaint about the movie, though I liked it overall. The problem is that fictionalized accounts of real events still need an underlying narrative, and Sorkin chose Zuckerberg's being burned by a woman as the character's motivation. Not a terribly interesting or convincing narrative, but I'm not sure what else he could have come up with either.

  • Franklin Harris||

    This is where I usually point out that "Sports Night" was unfunny, pretentious crap.

    "Sports Night" was unfunny, pretentious crap.

    Thank you.

  • ||

    "I finally get Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night. Its a comedy that's too good to be funny!"

  • ||

    Who is this Aaron Sorkin you speak of, and has he ever done anything relevant I may have heard of?

  • cynical||

    He's the one who did the hilarious bizarro world government show, where our political class were intelligent people driven to pursue good, rather than craven, lazy, power-hungry dumbfucks focused on pimping out their countrymen to the highest bidder.

  • robc||

    I agree with your assessment but I still kind of liked it.

  • ||

    I agree, and I was one of the few people who enjoyed Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip but never saw a single episode of the West Wing. So maybe I shouldn't talk.

  • ||

    I have not seen the film yet, but as far as the portrayal of women are concerned ...

    First of all, it's a completely mischaracterization of women to suggest they all want to date football jocks or something.

    There's a pretty wide range between the dumb as a post linebacker and the intelligent, but overweight nerd who spends his free time playing video games.

    It is actually still possible to find skinny geeks.

    Although the one thing that I will say is that some computer nerd type guys have developed overcompensating egos that are actively repellent. Really, the last thing I want from a man is for him to lecture me on how ignorant I am for not knowing how to program in SQL.

  • robc||

    some

    ???

  • ||

    Hazel, I think you're gonna be waiting a long time before you hear this conversation:

    Coed 1: Oh my god. Did you see Herbert blow up that equation? I mean he fucking killed it.
    Coed 2: Yeah, right. I'm so wet.
    Coed 1: Well you better back off cause I'm gonna fuck him at the party after the Science Olympiad.
    Coed 2: Fine. I've got Irving coming over after physics practice anyway.

    Yeah. I think the linebacker is safe for a few more decades.

  • ||

    Only certain types of women go for linebackers. And they aren't all the good looking ones.

    The linebackers may still be getting laid, but it doesn't mean there aren't good looking women out there who are attracted to intelligent guys.

    The operative issue is that you can't be an ugly, overweight, nerd. Unless you have a *really* great personaly.
    But even then, the nerd part isn't the biggest factor.

    In general, if you are an overwieght asshole, women aren't going to fuck you, regardless of whether you're a nerd or not.

  • ||

    If by *really* great personality, you mean a huge bank account, then I agree with you.

    Jocks always get more ass, all things being equal. It's changing, but not too quickly.

  • zoltan||

    Of course jocks always get more ass--THEY'RE ATTRACTIVE. If a woman is turned on and wants to really have sex, she will pick the most attractive person willing.

  • JEP||

    Coed 1: Well you better back off cause I'm gonna fuck him at the party after the Science Olympiad.

    I did make out with a chick in the school parking lot after Spanish Convention...

  • cynical||

    To be fair, you also don't usually hear:

    "Wow, she looks like someone with whom I could eventually settle down and build a stable family because she appears to be a grounded, responsible, intelligent, psychologically healthy person who could manage a household and competently raise children while also providing an income proportional with the reasonable demands she makes on our budget."

  • ||

    select 'ignorant' as Hazel from ChicksTable where SQLKnowledge = 0

  • Derp||

    1 result(s)

  • ||

    Comic Book Guy: Someone has mixed an "Amazing Spiderman" in with the "Peter Parker - The Spectacular Spiderman" series. This will not stand.

    Woman: Pardon me, but I wish to tender a serious cash offer for this stack of water damaged Little Lulus.

    CBG: Huh, "A" that is not water, it is Diet Mr. Pib, and "B" I... (CBG turns to look at the woman) Ohh... Err... Tell me, how do you feel about 45 year old virgins who still live with their parents?

    Woman: Comb the Sweet Tarts out of your beard and you're on.

    CBG: Don't try to change me baby.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

  • hmm||

    Reason is doing shitty movie reviews now?

    I'd say focus on Zuckerberg more and his company, the increase of information his idea created, or his political leanings. But a review of a shitty movie about the above seems like a waste of virtual ink.

    He forgot to mention that making billions was surly a factor after they figured out how to monetize the idea. I'd be more impressed if he came out and said I made it cause it was kool and I thought I could make a fuckin' fortune.

  • ||

    Trying to care. Trying. . . .

    Nope. Just can't.

  • Trespassers W||

    Everybody clap your hands
    Come on everybody now clap your hands

  • ||

    In really shitty movie news, Colossus: The Forbin Project may get the Will Smith treatment.

    http://www.avclub.com/articles.....ouv,46648/

  • ||

    Hasn't he done enough to science fiction as this point? Does he really have to search out the last little scrap of it he hasn't wiped his ass on yet? Fucking Scientologists.

  • ||

    The only thing worse would be Denzel Washington yelling at the computer, or casting Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johansson as the leads.

  • ||

    ...or casting Josh Hartnett Ashton Jutchner/Sam Worthington and Scarlett Johansson Cameron Diaz/Julia Roberts as the leads.

    I could pretty much stare at Scarlett for most of the day and be happy, even if she was just cutting the grass.

  • ||

    Will Smith isn't a Scientologist.

  • ||

    Just like people who donated $70,000 to to Catholic support groups aren't in any way a Catholic.

  • ||

    If you're gonna go by his donations, then Will Smith is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, and Scientologist to varying degrees.

  • ||

    But when accused of being a Scienctologist, Smith immediate stopped all donations to the "church."

  • ||

    FWIW, a friend of mine does estate planning for a number of high profile clients. She worked for Will Smith the past couple of years and said everything she saw made her think he is indeed a Scientologist.

  • hmm||

    We're all scientologists now.

  • ||

    Oh god...not that Colossus was a masterpiece or anything, but is there nothing Will Smith won't destroy? And, like Steven Soderbergh, he deserves as much ridicule as possible for never making an original film any more. What retread shitheels.

  • ||

    It was genuinely interesting and chilling. This will be a cavalcade of soporific stupidity.

    The Informant wasn't bad.

  • ||

    Awwwww...HELL no!

  • ||

    What next abomination? Logan's Run? Barbarella?

  • ||

    Yes. All of those, and more than you can imagine, are either in the works or are trying to find a production company.

    Enjoy the next ten years in scifi film.

  • ||

    If Hollywood has shown us anything is that it can take any well done movie, any cherished memory, and turn it into complete shit.

    That said, I am SO stoked for the Blu-Ray release of Inception. But, not until Dec. 7. /kicks pebble

  • ||

    Inception was shit.

    You have failed the test.

  • ||

    I don't think I'm the one who's failed here.

  • ||

    When some moron greenlight the remaking of Psycho, the entire film industry nuked the fridge.

  • ||

    Agreed.

  • ||

    Alex Garland is doing the screenplay for Logan's Run. I hear it's gonna be much truer to the book that the first.

    I'm actually looking forward to that film.

  • ||

    Please tell me Scarlett has the title role in Barbarella. please please please.

  • ||

    I think it's supposed to be Rose McGowan since Rodriguez is doing it. That's the last I heard of it.

    Update!: The project is dead.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What's with the Will Smith hate?

  • ||

    You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.

  • ||

    Will Smith is a shitty actor in that he doesn't stop being Will Smith when he's playing a character. In movies where watching Will Smith play a character that is basically Will Smith this is not really a problem. When the role calls for anything other than Will Smith (99.999999999999999999999999999% of science fiction films, for example), then Will Smith is uniquely unsuited for the role. And yet he still keeps getting them.

    (See also, Kevin Costner)

  • ||

    Costner is fine in sports-based love stories. The only other film he was in that was worth a fuck was The Postman.

    Preparing to get ripped for liking that movie, but I don't care.

  • Jesse Walker||

    He was good in Clint Eastwood's A Perfect World.

  • and||

    Mr Brooks

  • ||

    And Open Range

  • ||

    The "cuddly nerds of the 80's" may be referring to some of the characters in "Real Genius".

  • ||

    Not only is Real Genius great, there's no rape!

  • ||

    BTW dude, Tenebrae is getting a blu-ray release:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003NEQ71G/reasonmagazineA/

  • ||

    I no longer buy discs of any kind, dude. Since Netflix signed that recent deal with the studios, soon enough everything is going to be on HD streaming, and I can get rid of yet more stuff that I have lying around.

  • ||

    Details, details, the important thing is that's there'll finally be a decent transfer available.

    BTW, have you scene the euro-trash classic Mascara yet?

  • ||

    Chris Knight: I'm sorry, but have you ever seen a body like this before in your life?

    David Decker: She happens to be my daughter.

    Chris Knight: Oh. Then I guess you have.

  • ||

    I guess you'll pound later?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    "Can you nail a six inch spike through a 2 x 4 with your penis?"

    "No, but I am working on it."

  • ||

    A segment of the audience is eager to consume movies allegedly based on true stories. Writers' main goal is self expression, but they can't get paid unless lots of people buy tickets/rent. Thus, they fudge it, advertising as factual plots which are actually the products of artistic imagination.

    I get all that. The part I don't get is why some of us put a premium on seeing supposedly factual/historical movies.

    I'm not being critical of this desire, I just don't understand the (added) attraction.

  • ||

    I'm not being critical of this desire, I just don't understand the (added) attraction.

    Facebook is fucking HUGE!!!!
    There is not a general desire to see factual/historical movies...there is a general desire to see factual/historical on really popular subjects.

  • ||

    "There is not a general desire to see factual/historical movies...there is a general desire to see factual/historical on really popular subjects."

    I think tommy was asking why people prefer factual/historical movies on really popular subjects over fictious movies about really popular subjects. Just my .02

  • ||

    I love to say I told you so, but ... I told you so.

  • ||

    What I don't understand is if Sorkin was trying to make a hit piece on Zuckerman then why did he portray the victims of Zuckerman as such shit heads?

    First you had the twins and they were assholes from the start then you had his CFO friend and he was portrayed as a dud who did nothing for the company aside from the initial investment and he pulled that investment without notification at a crucial time which could have destroyed facebook.

    The only sympathetic victim of Zuckerman's villainy was his ex-girlfriend and the worse thing that happened to her was Zuckerman posted some mean things on the internet about her....on his personal blog that no one but his friends read.

    Oh no your ex-boyfriend talked crap about you to his friends after you dump him....oh the humanity.

    Pretty mild stuff.

  • sorkin||

    The truth doesn't make a great movie.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement