Aaron Sorkin, the master of sharp dialogue and incisive media-driven storytelling, is set to write and direct The Social Network Part II, a follow-up to his 2010 Oscar-winning film about the founding of Facebook.
Announced on June 25, 2025, by Sony Pictures, the project, inspired by the Wall Street Journal’s 2021 The Facebook Files, promises to tackle the darker side of Meta’s global impact, with Sorkin openly blaming Facebook for the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Backed by producers Todd Black (Being the Ricardos) and Peter Rice (Slumdog Millionaire), who specialize in socially charged films, this isn’t shaping up to be a light biopic but a bold political statement.
For fans, Sorkin’s signature blend of witty dialogue, deep societal reflection, and cinematic polish is cause for excitement. Yet, the sequel’s apparent aim to demonize Mark Zuckerberg as a cynical, profit-driven media mogul could ignite a cultural firestorm, potentially pushing him further into the arms of the political right and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy with far-reaching consequences.
Sorkin’s Vision: From Awkward Genius to Villainous Tycoon
The original Social Network, directed by David Fincher and written by Sorkin, portrayed Zuckerberg as a socially awkward prodigy—a flawed but compelling antihero navigating the cutthroat world of tech. The film’s critical and commercial success ($226 million globally, eight Oscar nominations) cemented Zuckerberg as a cultural figure, but its sympathetic lens, shaped by Sorkin’s script, clashed with Fincher’s colder, more critical direction, as some X users have noted.
Liberal media and traditional outlets, wary of Zuckerberg’s meteoric rise, never fully embraced him, partly due to this portrayal as a “duckling” outsider. Fast forward to 2025, and Zuckerberg is no longer the hoodie-wearing upstart. He’s a tech titan leading Meta, a $1.5 trillion empire, and making overt political moves: attending Trump’s inauguration, appointing Trump ally Dana White to Meta’s board, scrapping fact-checking, and dismantling DEI programs. His recent deal with Anduril to develop military AR glasses further signals alignment with conservative interests.
Sorkin’s sequel, however, seems poised to cast Zuckerberg as a calculating villain whose platform’s algorithms fueled division and violence, particularly the January 6 Capitol attack. In a 2024 podcast, Sorkin declared, “I blame Facebook for January 6,” citing its algorithm’s prioritization of divisive content to drive engagement, or what Meta insiders call “the infinite scroll.” The Facebook Files revealed Meta’s awareness of its platform’s harms—amplifying misinformation, harming teen mental health, and enabling violence in countries like Myanmar—yet doing little to act. Sorkin’s film, produced by Black and Rice (now with A24 after his Disney exit), appears ready to frame Zuckerberg as a morally compromised mogul prioritizing profit over integrity, a narrative that dovetails with liberal Hollywood’s critique of unchecked tech power.
The Paradox of Blame
Sorkin’s focus on Facebook’s role in January 6—where 650,000 posts allegedly called for political violence—raises a paradox. The same platform that Sorkin condemns for radicalizing Trump supporters also empowered Democrats in 2020, helping Joe Biden raise a record $1 billion and amplifying the Black Lives Matter movement. If social media is a tool for mobilization, is it only “evil” when used by the “wrong” side?
Much of the January 6 planning occurred on fringe platforms like Parler and Gab or in encrypted chats, with Facebook serving more as a megaphone for broader sentiment. By singling out Meta, Sorkin risks oversimplifying a complex issue, ignoring systemic factors like economic inequality, the decline of traditional media, and racial tensions that fuel polarization. As one observer might quip, it’s easier to vilify one guy (and maybe Elon Musk) than to dissect America’s deeper divides.
The artistic license of a fictional film lets Sorkin sidestep accusations of bias, much like the first Social Network took liberties with Zuckerberg’s story (he called its narrative arc “completely wrong”). But this freedom could amplify the sequel’s impact, painting Zuckerberg as the face of digital dystopia. With producers like Black, who collaborated with Sorkin on Being the Ricardos, and Rice, known for socially resonant hits, the film is primed to be a cultural lightning rod, blending Sorkin’s rapid-fire dialogue with a damning critique of Meta’s global influence.
A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?
Here’s where things get dicey. By demonizing Zuckerberg as a threat to democracy, Sorkin and Hollywood may inadvertently push him further right, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Zuckerberg’s recent moves—lobbying Trump to avoid antitrust scrutiny, aligning with conservative figures, and scaling back content moderation — suggest he’s already seeking protection from a new political establishment. If liberal and centrist circles, including Hollywood, reject him as a pariah, where else can he turn? The right, eager to embrace tech allies, offers a ready refuge. A scathing film could accelerate this shift, transforming Zuckerberg into a figure akin to Musk—wielding control over billions of users’ information flows with an openly partisan bent.
This dynamic mirrors a broader cultural trap. By framing Zuckerberg as the villain, the film risks reinforcing the very polarization it critiques, alienating him from moderates and entrenching his alignment with conservative power. If Zuckerberg, already worth $208 billion and leading a platform with 3 billion users, “radicalizes” further, the consequences for global discourse could be profound. Meta’s algorithms shape what billions see daily, and a more ideologically driven Zuckerberg could amplify division on an unprecedented scale.
Also read:
- AI-Generated Songs and Fake Listeners: A New Wave of Fraud on Music Streaming Platforms
- Warner Bros. Discovery Shareholders Revolt Against David Zaslav’s $51.9 Million Payday Amid Business Struggles
- The Dawn of "Character Creation" for Babies: Nucleus Redefines Parenthood
Why It Matters to Viewers
For audiences, The Social Network Part II is thrilling news. Sorkin’s knack for weaving media, politics, and human drama into electrifying narratives—seen in The West Wing, The Newsroom, and the original Social Network — promises a film that’s both entertaining and thought-provoking. His razor-sharp dialogue and ability to unpack complex issues without sacrificing cinematic flair make this a must-watch. But the film’s ambition to pin societal woes on Zuckerberg raises stakes beyond entertainment. It could reshape perceptions of Meta and its CEO, influence public discourse, and even affect regulatory debates, like the looming antitrust battles against Big Tech.
The irony? Sorkin’s critique of Facebook’s role in division might mirror the film’s own potential to polarize. By focusing on Zuckerberg as a scapegoat, it sidesteps the messy reality that social media is a tool, not the root of society’s fractures. The real question is whether the film will spark meaningful reflection or simply fuel the outrage cycle it claims to critique. As Sorkin himself might say, “You’ll have to buy a movie ticket to find out.” But one thing’s clear: this sequel could be as explosive as the events it portrays, with consequences that ripple far beyond the screen
