3 ms·

"I'm basing this on the movie". Sigh. You know the movie isn't accurate. It's good story, it's not reality. Why would you make any comment on the motives of th

by emmett 16y ago

"I'm basing this on the movie". Sigh. You know the movie isn't accurate. It's good story, it's not reality. Why would you make any comment on the motives of the players or the justice of the case using the movie as your primary source? The movie is basically historical fiction that happens to be set in the present day. I knew that when the movie came out everyone would begin assuming that it was the true story of Facebook (despite protestations like "I have no idea if it's true"), but I'm literally seeing it in action here and it makes me sad. You don't get to start from the movie as a "good guess" as to what happens. You don't get to use the movie as evidence at all.

geebee 16y ago
I agree. I can't use the movie as evidence. Even the things presented as facts (for instance, I read an article that said the dilution of shares wasn't as bad as the movie presented). That said, when someone (like me) makes a false statement based on the movie, you should refute the statement itself. For instance, did Zuckerberg agree to work on the site, and give the winklevosses the runaround for a month?
- geebee 16y ago
  just as another aside - I've made a similar objection to the one you pointed out here. When Oliver Stone made the movie about the JSF assassination, he created some footage that looked like the "real" footage and presented it in the movie, with full acknowledgements that it was just a version of reality. While I'm making no assertions about the truth of Stone's point of view, the controversy made me aware of how stories can become so powerful that they become reality even in the minds of people who are aware that they are stories... this is just another way of saying - I do appreciate your comment, and it's reminded me of the danger of thinking I'm always in control of my own ability to consciously separate fiction from reality... "seeing it", in spite of intellectual awareness that it's "just a story", has a powerful effect on the mind.

by emmett 16y ago

geebee 16y ago

I agree. I can't use the movie as evidence. Even the things presented as facts (for instance, I read an article that said the dilution of shares wasn't as bad as the movie presented). That said, when someone (like me) makes a false statement based on the movie, you should refute the statement itself. For instance, did Zuckerberg agree to work on the site, and give the winklevosses the runaround for a month?

geebee 16y ago
just as another aside - I've made a similar objection to the one you pointed out here. When Oliver Stone made the movie about the JSF assassination, he created some footage that looked like the "real" footage and presented it in the movie, with full acknowledgements that it was just a version of reality. While I'm making no assertions about the truth of Stone's point of view, the controversy made me aware of how stories can become so powerful that they become reality even in the minds of people who are aware that they are stories... this is just another way of saying - I do appreciate your comment, and it's reminded me of the danger of thinking I'm always in control of my own ability to consciously separate fiction from reality... "seeing it", in spite of intellectual awareness that it's "just a story", has a powerful effect on the mind.