I saw “The Social Network” and figured there was more to the story. I mean, can Mark Zuckerberg be that big of a jerk? Not only that, can he be that big of jerk and yet people say “I don’t really care, he added something to my life”? Since movies are so truncated and oftentimes nothing like the book, I was hoping the book would shed some light and go deeper into the inception of Facebook. Ah, no. At least not on the Mark Zuckerberg part and he declined any participation in the book, as well as the movie. All parts about him alone are “picture him in his dorm room, working on his website. He might be thinking…” Speculation and that is all.
The book is obviously the story of Eduardo Saverin (it is unclear how much he helped), Zuckerberg’s co-founder of Facebook. Saverin comes across without guile, perhaps a bit naïve and a loyal friend. At the end of the day, though, the overall picture seems that he worked with the author because he is mad (not going any further into that in case you don’t know the story). I can only assume one of the Winklevoss twins also was a source – there is just too much info for them not to be. All that said, read the book with a critical eye in which the main character of the book – the main character of Facebook – is not present. There is a side of this story which is not told in this book or given publicly. I do not doubt that there is a lot of truth to this book – it just can’t be the whole truth. (And, as another Aaron Sorkin character would say: “You can’t handle the truth!”)
I dig Aaron Sorkin. I loved his dialogue on “The West Wing” and “Sports Night,” and his script for “A Few Good Men” is outstanding. But with his script for “The Social Network,” I was disappointed that he seems to have purposely set up Zuckerberg to be an even bigger jerk than he may already be. He changed facts from the book to help this in his script (e.g. in the film, when Zuckerberg needs to launch The Facebook, he convinces Saverin to hand over his Final Club members’ emails, seemingly caring less that this may be reflect poorly on Saverin. In the book, it was Saverin’s idea. And when Saverin visits Zuckerberg in California, Zuckerberg did not strand him at the airport as he does in the film. Small details, yes – but it doesn’t help Zuckerberg.). If you saw the film and were wondering a bit, the book is certainly interesting.
All that said, Zuckerberg did not cooperate with the book or the film. In fact, he has remained very quiet about it. (The only comment I heard from him regarding the film was that he was impressed that he actually owns every one of the fleeces and hoodies his character wears in the film. Ha!) The guy is getting slammed in a New York Times Bestseller and an Academy Award winning movie. People think that this is the guy he is. Why is he not defending himself? Frankly, he can afford not to care.
Throughout the book, the author reminds us that Facebook was created to be the college experience to another level. It was stated in a plain, blunt and “this is how it is” kind of way – and I was bummed. I am a big fan of the old Facebook, but this made me sad. I hit 40 years old this August, I have been married for 17 of those years. I did not have the type of college experience that the instigated the inception of Facebook and there are those out there that would tell me that I should open my mind and accept that this is life. The Facebook buttons “Looking For. Relationship Status. Interested In. Those were the resume items that were at the college experience…. Online, it would be the same; the thing that would drive this social network was the same thing that drove life at college – sex” (94). That may be true, but I can’t believe that it is right or good for us. If it is, I am truly sad and scared for my kids. When busy students are thinking about social networking online, their main motivation is to meet girls “without the inefficient, time-wasting, wandering around campus that real life usually necessitated” (30). Wow. The point is that they wanted to spend their crucial hours in class, studying, at practice for rowing crew, not putting an effort into finding a person and getting to know them. For that, they want a shortcut. To communicate, to connect, to put the work into a relationship – skip it, please. I must say, I feel very old and out of touch writing this. I am fully aware that texting and, to a lesser extent, emailing is this next generation’s method of communicating and I am sure years ago parents were very frustrated by their children choosing to speak to someone over the rotary-dialed phone than face-to-face. But it seems that this new method takes away all effort and even though it is full-disclosure, it is also distanced. It is just really taking me some calm to get that it is now common to not need personal privacy, believe that “information is meant to be shared,” (53) (that one explains the rise in plagiarism), and is ok that the internet “wasn’t [in] pencil, it was pen” (57). I guess my concern is that this freedom will come back to bite us. Hard.
**Do not read this paragraph if you have not seen the film or read the book and don’t want to know.**
I asked David why Zuckerberg would settle with both Saverin and the Winklevoss twins, especially if – as seen in the movie – he believes he did nothing wrong. Doesn’t settling equal admission of guilt? He said that settling is not the same as admitting guilt. In fact, it is actually a wise idea at times. Attorney fees can/will get out of control and a lawsuit could drag on too long. And while the Winkelvoss were given a settlement of $65 million and Saverin an even larger amount, Facebook is worth between $6.5-10 billion – so Zuckerberg wins. He said the formula when for deciding when to settle is to figure out how much you stand to win, how much the lawyers’ fees will cost and determine if it is worth it. He told me one can’t think you can win on principle – that is not the issue. It does come to whether it is monetarily worth it (time and financially).I also asked David, Esq., about intellectual property. In the book there is a lot of talk about how every computer science major at Harvard was creating a social networking site – it was not a rarity and no one had a market on it (Friendster and MySpace were working on it at the time, but, as we all know, they never reached Facebook fame). So if Zuckerberg heard a great idea and then his visionary mind took off to places the originators never dreamed of it going, is he really guilty of stealing? He said that if there is any resemblance, it is considered theft of intellectual property, so they had every right to sue and should be happy with their settlement (although it seems like a small amount compared to how much Facebook is actually worth). Just recently heard that although the Winklevoss’s agreed to not sue again after receiving their settlement, they sued for more money and the judge threw it out.
All that said, it is a fast read and current with something that impacts our lives today. If you liked the movie and want a little insight into today’s culture, it is worth it.
3 = I would ask around to borrow it or hit the library. (A “4” if you really, really liked the film.)
No comments:
Post a Comment