A reader writes:

In an interview with Tom Ashbrook last week, Aaron Sorkin stated that his screenplay was based almost entirely on three sets of sworn testimony by the parties involved in the Facebook legal conflicts. These three sets of individual testimonies were not only given under oath, but also directly contradicted one another in critical ways. When Sorkin says that he wants his fidelity to be to the story, not to "the truth," it's because in this story the Truth is impossible to know. According to Sorkin, he and David Fincher went to great lengths to be as accurate to the three stories presented as possible while maintaining their subjectivity, and without attempting to conflate them into one unifying "Truth."

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this seems like a much more compelling idea for a film. I mean, seriously, who the hell wants to watch a docu-drama about effing Facebook?

Or an autobiographical film about Zuckerberg?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.