Jeremy Strong’s slow-talking Facebook founder turns into a cameo, background to a thriller about a whistleblower that somehow never mentions Trump

Here is a film for all those people who solemnly deplore social media in conversation but haven’t quite got round to deleting their accounts. Sixteen years have gone by since The Social Network, written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher; this was the addictive, obsessive-compulsive movie about the birth of Facebook in Harvard’s macho-competitive cauldron of student sexism and nerdy self-pity, starring Jesse Eisenberg as the fast-talking, arrogant, not-necessarily-evil genius Mark Zuckerberg. Now Sorkin is back with a sequel of sorts, directing his own script – and now Zuckerberg is basically evil, but also weirdly slow talking, as if all the zinging, smart-alecky Sorkinesque dialogue energy of the first film has been siphoned away in early middle age and dispersed among the insurgents in the new cast.

Sorkin’s jittery, funny, syncopated style is unmistakable, as distinctive in its way as David Mamet, although he has one joke about “spatula” being a Yiddish word that he has borrowed from Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint. It is the story of how in 2021, Zuckerberg’s Facebook empire was challenged by courageous whistleblower-employee Frances Haugen and Wall Street Journal investigative reporter Jeff Horwitz, who were on a mission to tell the world how Zuckerberg, scared by falling revenue, changed the algorithm so that engagement was supercharged by rage bait and hate speech, malice and envy. Facebook, moreover, didn’t factcheck political ads, thus driving a huge, nationwide surge in extremist groups and teen bullying and becoming a major player in the Capitol riots. (Having said that, this film does not say aloud the word “Trump” and rather cravenly declines to specify Maga activity.)

Dow Jones convicted of one count of deterring Selina Cheng from role at Hong Kong Journalist Association but cleared of second charge

A Hong Kong court has convicted the publisher of the Wall Street Journal of deterring a reporter from taking up a trade union role, in a case that raised concerns about press freedom in the city.

The newspaper dismissed Selina Cheng just weeks after she was appointed chair of the Hong Kong Journalist Association (HKJA) in 2024. She was told at the time her termination was officially due to restructuring.

Obama-appointed judge seemed unmoved by Trump attorneys’ arguments in case also naming Murdoch

A federal judge in Florida seemed skeptical of arguments from Donald Trump’s legal team on Wednesday over whether the court should allow a $10bn defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal to move forward.

Trump sued the Journal and the News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch over a July 2025 article about a “bawdy” letter reportedly from Trump that was included in a 2003 birthday book for disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Trump has denied authoring or signing the letter, and his attorneys have argued that the Journal published the story despite having been told it was false.

Axel Springer boss has ‘bold vision’ for the media group, but identifying a gap is no guarantee of stateside success

As he addressed staff at the London headquarters of the Telegraph Media Group last week, Mathias Döpfner, the German chief executive of Axel Springer and latest proprietor of the most traditional of conservative British newspapers, referred to his company’s decades-long pursuit of the venerable titles.

As staff nibbled Axel Springer-embossed biscuits, Döpfner also exchanged some distinctly European ribbing with the Daily Telegraph’s editor, Chris Evans, about Germany’s World Cup exit. However, it was clear to all that Döpfner’s ambitions for the titles were focused on another country and another continent.

In 2025, the tech journalist invited artificial intelligence to do nearly everything for her, including editing the book she was writing about the experiment. Some of it was useful, some not – but it was her time with a chatbot companion that really shook her

For a year, Joanna Stern decided to turn herself into a “lab rat” – the object of her own experiment. Throughout 2025, she invited artificial intelligence into “every corner” of her life. She let AI answer her texts, decide what she ate and cooked, mow her lawn, fold her washing, drive her places, parse her mammograms and even, in the darkness of a burner phone, be her lover. The resulting book, I Am Not a Robot: My Year Using AI to Do (Almost) Everything, asks all the big questions, including: what happens when AI can do everything humans can do? And what comes after that?

If anyone can produce answers, surely it’s Stern. Last February, she ended a 12-year stint as a personal technology columnist at the Wall Street Journal. During her tenure, she won an Emmy for her short documentary E-Ternal: A Tech Quest to “Live” Forever, which explored digital legacies, and built a reputation for product reviews that were outlandishly creative and fiendishly stringent. She once took an Apple watch jetskiing on the Hudson river to evaluate its connectivity.

Vice president says Donald Trump is ‘improving military quality of life’ and says America’s ‘adversaries are studying this country every day’

• Sign up to the Breaking News US email

In one of the opinions shared by the Supreme Court Thursday morning, the Court has ruled in favor of a Black man who claims that there was racial bias in the make up of the jury that convicted him.

In Pitchford v Cain, five of the Court’s justices sided with Terry Pitchford, a man sentenced to death for his part in killing a grocery story owner in Mississippi, over 20 years ago, reported AP.

Trump v Cook: Donald Trump’s case for firing Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, as he continues to exert greater control over the US central bank.

Trump v Slaughter: A case which examines the legality of Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member, Rebecca Slaughter.

Trump v Barbara: In which the court will decide if the administration’s attempts to restrict birthright citizenship are unconstitutional.

Editor-in-chief of Wall Street Journal says those with deep pockets are launching legal challenges as a PR strategy

Powerful figures are increasingly threatening to sue media outlets before they have even published a story, the editor of the Wall Street Journal has said.

Emma Tucker, whose title is being sued by Donald Trump over its reporting of his relationship with the late child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, said the act of reporting itself was now under threat from the use of lawfare.

Judge rules complaint fails to outline malice after Trump argued lewd drawing allegedly sent to Epstein at heart of story was fake

A Florida judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed last summer by Donald Trump over a Wall Street Journal report that he had sent a “bawdy” letter to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, though the judge has given the US president two weeks to refile the case.

Trump, who has had a habit of suing media companies inside and outside the White House, had argued that a lewd drawing at the heart of the story was fake. The lawsuit was especially notable because one of the defendants was Rupert Murdoch, one of Trump’s top media allies, whose News Corporation media empire owns the Journal.

Zuletzt hatte es Berichte gegeben, Christine Lagarde wolle ihr Amt vorzeitig niederlegen. In einem Zeitungsinterview sagt sie nun, sie wolle bleiben.

Die Entscheidungen des legendären US-Finanziers gelten vielen als wegweisend. Jetzt setzt er auf das Zeitungs- und Mediengeschäft. Andere Techaktien verkauft er überraschend.

The US president has repeatedly targeted American media in an attempt to muzzle debate and scrutiny. His attempt to export the bullying must be resisted

On the day that the government launched a high-stakes consultation to consider fresh ways of funding the BBC in the digital era, the corporation could have done without another difficult news event of its own. Donald Trump’s decision to follow through on threats to sue over the content of a Panorama programme broadcast in October 2024 may not have come as a surprise, given Mr Trump’s litigious record in the United States. But it will add to the general air of beleaguerment at the corporation and further embolden its domestic political enemies.

A terse BBC statement on Tuesday suggested that there would be no backing down in the face of White House bullying. That is the right response to absurd claims of “overwhelming financial and reputational harm” caused to the US president, and a fantastical request for damages amounting to $10bn. The BBC has rightly apologised for the misleading splicing together of separate clips from Mr Trump’s rabble-rousing speech on January 6 2020, prior to the violent storming of the US Capitol. A serious error of judgment was made in that editing process – though the House of Representatives January 6 committee concluded that Trump did use his speech to incite an insurrection. But the claim that a programme not broadcast in the US was part of a malicious plan to defame Mr Trump and subvert the democratic process ahead of last year’s election is utterly specious.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Special forces veteran Bryan Stern says he told US defence officials some of his planned route to reduce airstrike risk

The most dangerous moments came when salvation seemed finally assured.

Many miles from land, the small fishing skiff carrying the Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel prize laureate María Corina Machado had been lost at sea for hours, tossed by strong winds and 10ft waves. A further hazard was the ever present risk of an inadvertent airstrike by US warplanes hunting alleged cocaine smugglers.