No, this is about a book.
This book, actually.
I was loaned a copy of it by McColleague and for the first time in ages, started and finished it in a few days. It helped that I was off work for a couple of weeks.
I stayed away from reading what others had said about the book online, preferring to leave that until I'd had the chance to read for myself. Glad that I did as I think I'd not have bothered based on what others have said.
This does not mean that the book is rubbish. Okay, it's okay writing, but it's the validity of the style - and content - that left me wondering. How much is true? I have no idea.
It's likely that there's bits of the book that are true, and plenty that's rumour, conjecture or just fiction. I have a problem with that - as the book is being presented as a likely retelling of what happened - and I'm sure plenty people will read that as "this is the whole truth, but Mr Zuckerberg wouldn't confirm it, 'cos he's got something to hide". The Guardian report about the book (before it was published) offers some insight.
A look at the Facebook fan page for the book (ironic, isn't it?!) are covered in the news that the books being made into a film. Adapted by Aaron Sorkin. He who created the West Wing, Studio 60 and What is that all about? Does that lend credibility to the content of the book - or simply confirm that there's a story people will pay money to watch?
I have a tendency to believe what I read. Mainly because in the past, I have only read things that were true - or at least telling you how *true* things were. I'm learning to become more objective in my reading - and questioning what's there. It challenges me to find out more about the subject and not just believe everything at face value.
That said, I don't want to turn into a cynic. The world has enough of them...