Ben Whitelaw 0:08

Hello, and welcome to Ctrl Alt Speech, the podcast where you make sense of the major debates shaping online speech, platform power, content moderation, and the future of the internet. Today is the 5th of November 2026, although this is a special film review episode that we've recorded in advance. Today, Mike and I are gonna do our best impression of film critics and take a good hard look at the big blockbuster movie that has interest many of our listeners, "The Social Reckoning." My name is Ben Whitelaw. I'm the founder and editor of Everything in Moderation, and I'm joined, as ever, by Mike Masnick, founder and editor of Techdirt. Today's episode is primarily for Patreon supporters, although if you're listening on the free feeds, you're getting a teaser of a full episode as well. to hear the rest of it, you can become a supporter of the podcast at patreon.com/ctrlaltspeech. You get extended episodes and early episodes right in your feeds whenever you want them every week. Mike, this has been something that we've been wanting to do for a while. I was very early to see "The Social Reckoning," and we can talk about how that panned out. I saw a, a screening in London, and we were just waiting for you to kind of get round to seeing it basically before we, we sat down and chewed it over.

Mike Masnick 1:19

Yeah, you, you were smart about it and used your status as a journalist to actually see a screening. I actually went and paid for a ticket and saw the movie along with three other people, which gives you a suggestion of how popular the movie is, a few days after it opened,

Ben Whitelaw 1:39

Oh, like three people in the whole

Mike Masnick 1:41

In the entire theater,

Ben Whitelaw 1:43

Ooh, okay. I was thinking it might be your family, but no, you got like actual paying customers.

Mike Masnick 1:48

went by myself and there were three other people in the entirety of the theater, so

Ben Whitelaw 1:52

Interesting, interesting. That gives a sense of the kind of critical reaction to the film, which I think is, maybe where we'll start. you know, for people who don't know, who are kind of just tuning in, The Social Reckoning" is the big follow-up to "The Social Network," a film by Aaron Sorkin that came out kind of early 2010s now, I think it was. very widely acclaimed portrayal of Zuck's creation of Facebook in the very early days. Sorkin had, has talked about kind of wanting to find a, a reason to kind of close the loop on that story, and they've been waiting around for, a kind of narrative to emerge. And Frances Haugen's whistleblowing, which many of our listeners will be familiar with, I guess provided a reason to, dive back into that story and, and retell the kind of intervening 15 years or so. were you surprised, first of all, that this film kind of happened? Did you think it could have happened sooner? Like, was that hook of, Haugen blowing the whistle, justifying a film in itself? Like, what was your thoughts?

Mike Masnick 2:52

Yeah, I don't know. I, I mean, I don't know that I had any direct expectation, but I could see where, if he spent the past decade or so looking for a hook for something new, You know, there were books that both Francis Hogan and our recent guest host Jeff Horwitz had written about that experience. and so he would have a whole bunch of source material to use. And I think that just, you know, taking a step back and, thinking about it, it feels like it could be a good hook for a different kind of story. And I know Sorkin didn't wanna just retell the exact same story over again. And so if this one was more focused on the investigative reporting, and you have a, a sense that, you know, could you make a movie like "All the President's Men," where it's, like, really about the dogged investigative reporter and the secretive insider blowing the whistle, that you could make a compelling film that isn't just a repeat of what he did with "The Social Network." So, you know, just as, bare bones material, it certainly seems like the kind of thing that could be good. whether or not he succeeded in that, I, I have some, some concerns.

Ben Whitelaw 4:00

Yeah. Yeah, for sure. And it's worth, with, it's worth going back and having a listen to our recent episode that, I did with Jeff, who is the now Thomson Reuters reporter, but was a Wall Street Journal reporter at the time, and whose Facebook files really kind of showcased the material that, that Frances Haugen extracted from Facebook at great risk and, with a lot of fanfare, by the end. he, he's very kind of good, I think, about explaining what's real and what's not about the film, which is, is something we'll, we'll no doubt talk about. and talks about, like, movie Jeff being very different to real-life Jeff. he was very funny actually in the, in the recording 'cause he apparently, I basically found him. He logged on and he was, like, completely reclined on his sofa. Um, and he was like a head, like a basically just a forehead on the screen. And I was like, Jeff, is everything okay?" And it turns out that he actually wrote the whole of Broken Code, which is the book on which, The Social Reckoning is based, the one that you referred to just then. he wrote it in a state of, like, almost fully horizontal recline. Like, that's how he, he did it, which I thought was fascinating, and he's a very interesting guy, and some of the q- his quirkiness I don't think comes across in the film, which, happens, I guess. But very good, very good listen. let's talk a bit about how the, the film's been received then, first of all. I mean, I wrote about it fairly soon after for Everything in Moderation. I was looking up a bunch of reviews. They were not very positive at all, and I, I don't imagine they've got very more positive since then. just to give you a flavor, like, the Financial Times said it was, Frustratingly flat and a hacky, frustrating sequel." IndieWire said it was a draggy so-what journo-drama," which there are plenty around. I'd have to, I'd have to be honest about that. And The Guardian said it was jittery and had some false notes. So where do you sit in your reaction to it, kind of broadly speaking?

Mike Masnick 5:54

Yeah. I mean, my general summary is that it was okay. Uh, you know, it wasn't horrible. I didn't regret seeing it, but I don't know that I would recommend anyone rush out and see it. I don't know that I would care to ever see it again. I don't think it is a movie that I will remember all that well. You know, I don't think if we were going with the pure Siskel and Ebert thumbs up, thumbs down, you know, I, I would kinda do the, the thumb sideways thing leaning towards down. it's just okay. and I should, I should say upfront, like I actually like a lot of Sorkin's work. I, I enjoy watching it, but mainly the stuff that he has written that somebody else has directed, which was the case with "The Social Network," which was directed by David Fincher, and Sorkin has said repeatedly that he wished David Fincher was able to, direct this. I guess there was some discussion about it, but Fincher is on a contract with Netflix and Sony owns the rights to this film, so they couldn't make it work. And Sorkin has directed a few films recently, so he was like, "I can do it." Though just as we're recording, the day before we were recording, Sorkin came out and basically said, "It turns out I have no visual sensibility." And he sort of was admitting that maybe he's just not a very good director and that he just doesn't have innate talent for directing. And I think to some extent that maybe comes through in the movie. the thing I'll say, I mean, what Sorkin is famous for is his dialogue. and he, you know, writes incredible, often memorable, catchy dialogue. And even there I found that the movie came up a little bit short. I felt that there were a few moments where, there was very clever dialogue. You know, there's clearly a Sorkin, written thing in there. But it actually took me out of the movie, which was a little bit surprising to me. You know, the, the thing that I think Sorkin is really great at, even with the sort of unrealistic, incredibly clever dialogue, is that it sort of gets you into this world and it sort of pulls you in. And yet in this movie, it actually did the opposite and it sort of pulled me out. Every time there was a bit of like super clever dialogue, I was like, "Oh, there's Sorkin being Sorkin." And it took me out of the movie rather than keeping me, pulled into the movie. And so I found that part of it to be a little bit disappointing.

Ben Whitelaw 8:18

Yeah. Yeah, and I think, um, that's probably reflected in, in the reviews and some of the ratings as well, is that it feels at times a bit hammy, I would say. Like it feels a bit forced. it's kinda lumpy in parts, I think, where you... They have like a couple of really good moments of, of very dramatic dialogue and action and, there's one I have in mind where Zuckerberg is preparing for his kinda Senate, testimony, and, there's sort of good moments there, and you kind of are fairly gripped. But, I couldn't tell you kinda what happened afterwards because it kinda subsides very quickly and that, tension, yeah, disappears, I'd

Mike Masnick 8:52

Yeah. Well, let's-- talk about the Zuckerberg portrayal. because, I found it to be disappointing because it is, it is super dramatic, but it became very clear to me immediately that Sorkin does not like Zuckerberg. That is not a surprise. Sorkin, I forget how long ago, six or seven years ago, like wrote an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg I think it was in the pages of "The New York Times," basically saying, "You're doing all these bad things," which, like, lots of people recognize and agree with. But You know, I think to write a strong, compelling character, it helps if you write the best version of that character, and I don't think that Sorkin did here. And I think he might claim that he did, and he will say, like, "Oh, the representation of Zuckerberg was sort of defending his position." But it-- to me, it was a very, very weak defense and a very one-note defense of just, Zuckerberg looking, you know, the portrayal of Zuckerberg as extraordinarily robotic. And I know that, Mark has a reputation for being robotic, but this was, like, even more robotic than he really is, which is, like, tough to do. And then as such a one-note, like, trying to simplify everything down to, "I am a free speech absolutist." and I don't think that's an accurate portrayal, and I don't think it portrays the actual, difficult trade-offs, the stuff that we always talk about on this podcast. Which I disagree with Mark Zuckerberg and how he runs Meta and a whole bunch of the decisions that he has made regarding those difficult trade-offs, but I think he could describe the trade-offs much better than the character in the movie does. And so I thought it was a very false portrayal, and it made him a sort of one-note villain, which I found to be a little bit disappointing.

Ben Whitelaw 10:39

Yeah. I think that's fair. I d- I liked Jeremy Strong as Zuckerberg. I mean, Jesse Eisenberg was critically acclaimed for his portrayal of Zuck in "The Social Network" and, I kind of wondered if anybody could do as even good a job as, or half as good a job as he did. And I did like the kind of culture that you know, he seemed to create around him, where there are meetings where you have to kind of boil everything down to, one single stat and, whether it's me kind of wanting that to be the case or whether that was just, like, a, a kind of accentuated version of what life is like in a, massive company like Meta, I don't know. But I did like the kind of Caesar-style, you know, Roman emperor-style portrayal that he gave with, particularly with his, like, specific, uh, haircut that Zuck has now got rid of, but I think s- I, I still associate with him. so I, I liked Strong. I liked the fact that there was these kind of moments of very good dialogue, and he got very angry at points. but you're right; it wasn't, it wasn't a very kind of, like, complex portrayal. There wasn't, you know... He's made out to be this kind of very business-like, yes or no feature should go ahead or feature should not go ahead based upon whether it drives growth. And we know that there's, like, Zuckerberg has kinda moved into new areas in that late 2010 period. He gave that very public Georgetown speech in 2019, which comes within the, frame of, the chronology of the film but isn't mentioned at all. But it's actually a very significant moment for Meta. So there are parts that I would've liked Sorkin to kind of, I think, weave in, which he didn't. but there are lots of other very good characters, I'd say, around Zuck, um, that, I particularly liked. I think-- Let's talk about the Roger McNamee character, who's not actually called Roger McNamee, but

Mike Masnick 12:21

Charlie something p-played by Bill Burr, who's always wonderful.

Ben Whitelaw 12:25

Charlie Garrigan, yeah. A-and so Roger McNamee is, is obviously many people know an early advisor to Zuck, early investor to Zuck, has kind of done this massive U-turn. You'll know much more than I will, Mike, about, his kind of shift in views. and he's been very critical of the company. And, and actually I saw him on a panel after the screening in London, where he was talking with, Maria Ressa and a couple of other kind of civil society folks about what they hope this film will do. it was a little bit odd that he was in the film but not named as himself when everyone else was. I don't know what you made of that.

Announcer 13:00

This special bonus episode of Ctrl Alt Speech is available in full to our Patreon subscribers. Join us today by visiting patreon.com/ctrlaltspeech. That's C-T-R-L Alt Speech. If your organization is interested in sponsoring the podcast, contact us via our website at ctrlaltspeech.com. Thanks for listening