Aaron Sorkin's latest film, The Social Reckoning, is revisiting the controversy surrounding Facebook files which put the social media company's priorities under scrutiny five years ago. As the company pursues the next phase of growth under the new name ‘Meta’, its approach to accountability, user engagement and the bets on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies remain an important part of conversations.
A sequel arrives as Meta enters a new era
The movie comes as a natural sequel to Sorkin and David Fincher's The Social Network, which dramatised the founding of Facebook, and became one of cinema’smost prominent stories surrounding technology, money and power. It had bagged three Oscars in 2011.
The new movie shifts the focus from the origins of social media to whistleblower revelations that prompted debate about allegations concerning Facebook's commercial priorities and their possible implications on society.
Mark Zuckerberg, in a long post on the social media platform denied any wrongdoing. "We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It's difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don't recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted," he wrote, while defending the company's strategies.
He further said accusations that the company prioritizes profit over safety and well-being was not true. "The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don't want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction," he added.
Some critics have questioned the film’s dialogue-driven approach and whether Fincher’s absence affects the depth with which it explores complex issues.
The Social Reckoning follows Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a former employee at the tech firm, and Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) as they probe Facebook's internal research and decisions. The movie raises a question that has been publicly talked about for a while now: What happens when a platform allegedly amplifies harmful content?
The answer, for Zuckerberg and Meta, has been found over years of regulatory investigations, different strategic calls and quite an expensive fight to stay at the top of the AI race.
What happened in 2021?
In September 2021, The Wall Street Journal published the Facebook files, a series of investigations based on the tech company's internal documents. The reports examined issues including alleged links between Instagram usage and mental health concerns among teenage girls, the potential spread of misinformation and claims of uneven enforcement of rules.
Haugen, who was a product manager at Facebook, provided documents to WSJ and became a public whistleblower. She later testified before the US Senate's subcommittee and argued how the firm had prioritised interests over public safety, repeatedly.
One issue raised was the connection between the platform's business model and how it engaged customers. Facebook's recommendation systems allegedly decided what users would be seeing, while the company sold advertisements. The content was alleged to have provoked fear, outrage and anger, thereby generating interaction on its platform, according to the reports.
The allegations were not restricted to having harmful content online. It challenged if Facebook understood the risks and whether it decided to act responsibly.
The company disputed aspects of WSJ's reporting and even Haugen's characterisation of its work. It argued that documents were building a narrative and showed a selective picture. It further said that the company was investing sufficiently in safety. These disclosures brought corporate accountability, content moderation and internal research into the public debate.
Following this, Facebook faced a reputational challenge, amid scrutiny overprivacy, political interference and misinformation.
The disclosures also drew attention to potential business and governance risks. Facebook's advertisement model allegedly involves connecting advertisers with users across its platforms. The revelation through the reports prompted debate about the company’s handling of potential harms and the role commercial considerations may have played in its product decisions.
How did Meta respond?
Other than Zuckerberg's post, in a broad strategic shift which was not limited to the revelations response, Facebook in October 2021 said it would rebrand itself as Meta in a bid to grow into something beyond social media.
Meta then began cutting costs and slashed its workforce. It declared 2023 as the "year of efficiency." The company's major advertising business recovered and continued expanding. Then came artificial intelligence.
Meta began using AI to improve how advertisements performed, to recommend content to its users and make new products. Zuckerberg, last year, improved the firm's push towards advanced AI and this has now become one of its core strategies.
The company also altered how it approached content moderation. Early last year, Meta announced it would end third party fact-checking in the United States and begin a Community Notes model. It initially began doing this for Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
What is Meta's business model today?
Meta's earnings reflect how it has moved beyond the five-year old controversy. Its 2025 revenue gained 22% to $201 billion and advertising is what generated around $196.2 billion.
The numbers tell us how Facebook Files failed to deter Meta's commerces. Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, Threads and Messenger generate a massive worldwide audience and AI is helping the company decide what users see and which ads will most preferably garner a response. By June, Meta's apps had an average of 3.6 billion daily active people, while second-quarter revenue rose 28% year-on-year to $60.8 billion.
However, there is a cost caveat here. In July, Meta raised its annual capital expenditure expectations to a range of $130-145 billion as it is now investing heavily in data centers to leverage growth in its AI ambitions. Markets are focussing if Meta turn its AI spending into sufficient advertising revenue and new products to justify its capex growth. The raised AI spending outlook reinforced concerns around the scale, duration, and return profile of incremental investment, S&P Global said in its analysis from May.
The shadow of the disclosures still looms large over Meta. The company still flags continuous regulatory scrutiny, litigation while focussing on safety, mental health and content moderation. These still remain sources of both operational and financial costs.
What does the Social Reckoning get right - and wrong?
The film, however is not a documentary. It is a dramatic retelling of the entire controversy and its antagonistic portrayal of Zuckerberg risks reducing broader institutional questions to an individual conflict. Film critics have argued that Sorkin's direction lacks the visual complexity and psychological tension that Fincher gave The Social Network.
However, the broader matter surrounding the controversy is bigger than whether the film succeeds as cinema. Meta's financial performances does not, by itself, tell us if the five-year old concerns were resolved. On the other side, the revelations do not prove that all business decisions were taken to maximise engagement at any cost.
Five years onwards, Meta is richer, more invested in AI and still dealing with questions of regulation, user trust and responsibility. The film revisits the entire controversy but the more impactful reckoning maybe if Meta can keep its growth pace while convincing its investors, users and regulators that business incentives are ,in fact, compatible with public interest.