The Social Reckoning and our changing relationship with Zuckerberg and Meta

I'm Adrienne Arsono, CBC News' Chief Correspondent and your host for When It All Went Wrong. It's an investigative podcast about the people who get hurt when the systems meant to protect us fail. It features original reporting from some of Canada's best journalists. Each series unravels the moment it all went wrong, not by accident, not from poor planning, but because someone chose to do wrong and others chose to do nothing. And then follow When It All Went Wrong, wherever you get your podcasts. Look, when the social network came out 16 years ago, it became an instant classic, and that's because it wasn't just a movie but the origins of Facebook and its founder Mark Zuckerberg. It was a movie that understood how social media was changing us. Now we have the follow-up, it's called The Social Reckoning, and our relationship to Facebook has changed. And this is commotion, Fran Hoffner is here, Vast Bednar is here, and Rad Simon plays here. Hello to all of you. Hello. It's nice to have you here. Listen, we'll get to the social reckoning in a moment, but I think we should maybe plant our feed for a moment in the social network when that movie came out because I love this movie. I love the social network a lot. It's a movie that came out in 2010. I don't just love it because it's so iconic. I love it because it has a lot of different small parts that actually make it a much grander hole. Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg, you got David Fincher directing the thing. Aaron Sorkin wrote the script for that one based on the book Accidental Billionaires by Ben Meserick. I should note Aaron Sorkin, my man, one-on-oscar, one-on-oscar for that script, which is I feel important to return to, so we're going to turn to that in a moment. But Fran, I'll start with you on this one. Talk to me about the place of the social network occupies for you as a movie. I mean, I love that movie. I agree that it's completely iconic. It came out when I was in college, and I remember it being a huge moment. And the idea of like every 19-year-old I knew at the time going out to see this movie about a website being founded now seems kind of insane to have that kind of monoculture. But it was this big moment, and it was also a moment because it was a movie that people would disagree on and get into arguments about. And I thought that was part of its genius, and I think it also holds up really well. I re-watched it about a year and a half ago and found myself equally entranced and drawn in. My husband was busy that night. He was supposed to be working. He was like, "I'll come in and out of the room." And then came in maybe 15 minutes in to get something out of the fridge, sat down, and watch the rest of the movie. It's a really hard movie to like just passively watch. It really pulls you in. And it's by no means a perfect film, but I think that's part of what has made it age well is watching how it moves through time. Rad, part of our charm, you and I, is that we don't agree on a lot, so you know that we have very different sort of, we react differently to a lot of movies. This is a movie where we're both on the same page. You see this movie as like one of the founding documents of 21st century cinema. Talk to me about what makes this movie work for you. I mean, first of all, just why I feel like it is such a definitive movie for 21st cinema is because like, I mean, here's a movie about this white, entitled, toxic male energy in the interactions between these people that then they disseminate online, right? And it's about how that, that very toxic male energy is now the defining trait of social media. So it was kind of prophetic in those terms. And then there's the David Fincher of it all, right? The cinephile of me is going to love exactly how he crafts this movie and how like the form meets the content, because you do have a movie that accelerates to our times, basically, right? I mean, you think about that movie, the opening scene, that date, where there are Rudy Mara's character, Jesse Eisenberg's character Zuckerberg, they're having a conversation. He's talking about a bunch of different things and she's like, this is exhausting dating. You was like dating a stare master, I think is the line. And that's like a good valentine. And then the movie goes from there to that very slow walk across the campus. It's all very still. And then as soon as he hits the keyboard, everything accelerates, there's multiple conversations happening one time. There's multiple. The time starts collapsing, things are going back and forth. It's almost like he, he made the world come up to his temple, catch up to his temple, right? And that's what David, David Fincher did with that movie. He accelerated the way that the storytelling to be this sort of like, this is the temple of our times. You all need to catch up. Yeah. I'm feeling the pull to go like, let's just spend the rest of the time. You're talking about the social network, the movie that came out from 2010. But we will get to the social reckoning in a moment, Fran, maybe set us up a little bit in like how the social network presents us with Mark Zuckerberg because that is the first time we meet him as a sort of a pop culture figure, as a larger cultural figure. The film really sets out to depict him as this kind of isolated, toxic male nerd. And I think Jesse Eisenberg is bringing a lot of wounded pathos to this character that this is a character who has not been able to find a way to connect, who has actually kind of pushed people away and found a kind of irony in otherwise connecting people, but still kind of can't manage to maintain these relationships. It's a really humane performance in a lot of ways, well, even though the character is frequently behaving quite monstrously. And I think it's interesting because the Zuckerberg we knew at the time, I think, was really trying to deflect that reputation by being like, I'm actually quite chill. I'm pretty normal and to prove my own kind of chill normalness, I'm going to bring all my employees to see this movie and just do my own coolness. I forgot about that. Yeah, yeah, to be like, I can live with this. I'm okay with this. I can go watch a movie about the founding of the company that I founded with everyone who works there right now. I will say that like that idea of a humane performance of a nerd who's just trying to connect that idea of Mark Zuckerberg vast. I'm interested in how much you feel that depiction reflects how we understood Mark Zuckerberg back then. Well, I think for us, I mean, also as the consumers, right, when we are just probably started using that platform and it kind of was still a very techno-optimist moment, like anyone can do anything. You could do this in your mom's garage, your basement, like you just need a computer. That was the zeitgeist of the time. And you know, it was powerful. It was powerful to be able to, I mean, spy on your crush at any time of day. That's what I first used. What else would you use it for? But also to, you know, for democratic movements, for learning, for building empathy, for, you know, sharing images was very powerful and it is good to remind ourselves that life wasn't always like that, right, that there was a before time, before that kind of always on. Again, this, the idea that the company originates from just wanting to connect people or is maybe still winking at us with that promise, I think is kind of hilarious now. It does feel like that was like the days of innocence, you know, there was a little bit gone. 21 photos from 1 night out. I was looking. I am tempted to just spend the rest of the show recreating the crash cause of these, but however, I will instead, that's got to be it. On the social network, I could talk about that movie forever, but we actually have to get to the social reckoning. We are going to take a quick break and then when we come back, the follow up. I'm Adrian Arsino, CBC News chief correspondent and your host for When It All Went Wrong. Find and follow When It All Went Wrong, wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, we are back. My name is Elabine Abdul Mahmoud and this is commotion and friend Hoffner is here, and Vass Bedanar is here, and Rads, I'm in plays here. And okay, now we're going to talk about the reason we're all gathered and that's the social reckoning. Aaron Sorkin also wrote the screenplay, except this time he directed it. Also we don't have DC Eisenberg back as Mark Zuckerberg this time is Jeremy Strong. Let's just play a little bit of the trailer. You love your work. Yes. Connecting people. It's a virtuous mission because some people are awkward and they get to be their best self when they're alone at their keyboard. So what's the problem? Something changed. I wanted to find out who radicalized my friend. And? We did. Facebook wants you to stay on the site for as long as possible. And two years ago, the algorithm was stretched. Wait. Mark, we're trying to address hate speech and go to amplify and turbo-target. The debate is over. The debate is over. Brad, would you please set up this movie for us? What is this movie about? So this movie, Aaron Sorkin adapts Broken Code, which is the book by Jeff Horowitz, who is the Wall Street Journal reporter who published the Facebook files, right? Which is his investigation into Facebook and its algorithms. The movie has Jeremy Allen White from the bear playing Jeff Horowitz and it's about his relationship or his working relationship with Francis Hogan. Hogan? Hogan. Hogan, who is played by Mikey Madison, the Oscar winner from Anora. And so she is the whistleblower in the situation, leaking documents to Jeff Horowitz, that [BLANK_AUDIO] to spell out how Facebook has been juicing its algorithm so that the most divisive, the most polarizing content gets amplified and how that has led to radicalization. You know, the movie kind of maps out how it leads to January 6th, where like everyone, every, every once in a while, yeah, but the January 6th based off of like because of Trump posting these, these false allegations that the election was rigged. Yeah. And so, yeah, that's basically how he maps things out. Uh, this is where you and I will begin to differ in this conversation. Tell me how this movie works for you. You know, I'll give you, I'll give you some credit in terms of this. I'll give you like, I'll give you a straw man scenario of maybe, maybe where I could feel like this movie is functional, which is like, look, uh, I, you know, I'm imagining some of my cousins or some of my conspiracy theorist uncles who are getting all of their information off Facebook. And so don't know this story and don't know any of any, any of the background about what's going on and what is in a sense, radicalizing them. Um, so I think, you know, we can give, uh, Aaron Sorkin, uh, uh, uh, you know, credit for services rendered in terms of like, you know, drama time and yeah, invodumping that, uh, whether those, those that audience will see this movie, that's a whole other matter. Yeah. Uh, but for me, no, it didn't work for me at all. Um, I think, you know, the previously we were saying how the social network was kind of the defining movie of the 21st century, whereas this movie is like Aaron Sorkin making a very 20th century movies, trying to take the 20th century story and trying to fit it into the mold of a 20th century movie. I was saying like, this is the movie he made for like all the people who've made the king's speech win best picture instead of the social network. Um, this is the, you know, derogatory. Yeah. And like, I mean, because you see it and I mean, you know, this is a movie where he, like, the, some of the characters are citing like, uh, Frank Capra who made, uh, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, or they cite the reporters behind Watergate, who were, of course, the subjects of all the presidents. Exactly. Exactly. And he wants to make that kind of movie to the point where he has his characters who are clearly as, as sinophilic as he is, citing those movies because everyone in this movie is, is speaking in Aaron Sorkin speak, right? They're all his ponds so that he can corner the argument so that he can be preachy and lecturing and tell, and, and, and tell us all these things without any real complexities or nuances. Um, so yeah, that's basically where the movie kind of fell apart from me. So I feel like there's a, maybe a thing that we should clarify before we move forward in this conversation, which is that sometimes people use Aaron Sorkin-esque as an adjective, and they don't necessarily mean it in the kindest way. Usually the referring to something that is like overly explaining, relatively moralistic, uh, relatively willing to commit to a specific position and say, and here's why the other positions are wrong. This is why I go to Aaron's. This is what I want out of this man. These have never been sure come in. I have, I, I have rewatched the West Wing one million times. I watched the newsroom on HBO. All three seasons, some people didn't even know that there was not many seasons. Uh, so friend, let's talk about the, I guess like, let's talk about the Aaron Sorkin of it all, right? Cause like he has said this movie is not a sequel to the social network. You can't help but compare the two movies. Talk to me about like, what, what did you think of the social reckoning? Part of what's so frustrating about thinking about the social reckoning in context to the social network is that a movie like the social network has so many checks and balances, which is the nice part about a movie having one director, one screen writer, one, um, a cinematographer, and not someone trying to do it all themselves. And where I felt a lot of frustration with Sorkin as a filmmaker is that there's just not a lot of style. And I think a different director could really hone in some of his worst impulses as I think has been the case in movies that he's written and other people have directed. But in his directorial outings, um, he's really allowed himself to indulge in a lot of his worst tendencies. And I will admit that there is some kind of sick pleasure in my own viewing experience to watching his millennial characters quote Frank Capra at each other because I like they would never be doing this. This is very funny to me. But I find like his depiction of women in this movie particularly egregious. I think the way in which the camera portrays Mikey Madison and Francis Hagen to be like pretty insulting and demeaning, uh, as if she's a kind of like on Janu versus I think a pretty major figure in modern politics. And he has completely kind of indulged a 20th century sort of mentality to a story that is rapidly evolving beyond his own understanding of it. And it makes the social dynamics of just the film itself really frustrating to behold. I completely agree with that assessment. I think like I go to Sorkin for the extra drama of like I think this guy just wants to be a playwright to be honest with you. And I'm not really sure when he goes to make movies, I go like, are you sure you wanted to make this as a movie? Um, but I want to come back to that in just a moment and Vassel me go to you because you followed Mark Zuckerberg and met a very closely. You were the public policy. You sit down, you watch this movie. I saw you nodding along his friend was talking there. What did you make of the movie? So I kind of love how cringe it is. I think it's I think it's meta to make it cringe. Like compared to compared to what Facebook was kind of in 2010, right? I think I think there is something to be said there. I think that central character of Francis. I mean, she's she is she has two selves, right? She has like a work self who is very smart, but very meek and kind of silence. And then she has this other self we're supposed to believe, right? Who is much more kind of ballsy brave, but still fairly isolated. I also appreciated how she multiple times in the film claimed in the most deadpan way. I believe in the mission. And I was like, wow, this is so social media, right? This is so like, you know, you're sometimes putting something out there or making these claims. And you don't feel it at all. It's not true. So I was trying to find kind of elements to to appreciate that way. Kind of about the film. And as for how, you know, public policy is kind of sprinkled there, I think we'll get into that too. But I don't mind it. Let's get into now. I mean, like the idea of like this movie trying to take on some of this larger public policy to base. Like was there anything that it got right for you? Well, and I mean, here's where Aaron is probably better poised, right? Like an extremely offline man who brags about not having an email address. Probably this isn't exactly a layup for him, right? Let's be real. So I mean, early in the film, we had the section 230 platform regulation element brought up like, whoa, like what are you going to advocate for? That is still a live debate. That is still important for us to understand. Can a platform be held accountable for the content that it that it facilitates and also how it facilitates it? What cracks me up is the meaningful social interactions, MSI and how many times they set it in the film because even though that's Facebook's internal term for it, that is not how anybody experiences these platforms talks about it. So, you know, trying to understand the fact that the algorithmic amplification is a black box. And we've actually enshrined that into Kusma and our trade law. We've agreed that we will not reveal the algorithm. We're not. And that's I think a dangerous position. I think we've seen that. We did get a few more clues. We got a few more clues in the movie that a share from friends and family is one of the most highly valued types of interactions. An emoji was actually weighted more than just a like because it takes extra effort. So keep that in mind everyone when you get emojis for me. And then, and then also comments back and forth, right? So comments sort of going that element. So are they are we are people really spending less time or kind of what kind of time are they keeping on the platform? I'll just sort of close by saying this character subminimal character who's the former friend or acquaintance of Frances. It's a little bit weird how they know each other. Who knows? Maybe that's very Facebooky. I would have loved to see more of her over time throughout the film and her own interactions with the platform. I think that was really missing from the film in terms of our changing relationship. The platform has changed a lot. I'd love to go back to the 2010 version of Facebook. That would be fun. If they offered that, I would pay for it. Yeah. I mean, I think that there's something to be said about like the idea that like I watch this movie and go, I don't know if Aaron Sorkin knows what he wants at a Facebook either. You know, like after like sitting down and watching this entire thing, I want to play you guys actually a clip of Aaron Sorkin. He was on the New York Times interview podcast. So here he is talking with the host Louis Garcia Navarro about how he sees Mark Zuckerberg. I will tell you that in terms of Mark in both cases, social network, social reckoning or any anti hero, which is what Mark is. Not a villain. Describe the difference that for people who might not understand in your mind what an anti hero and a villain is. An anti hero has good intentions. They think they're doing good. In the case of Mark or again, any anti hero. I as the writer, I can't judge that character. I write that character as if they're making their case to God, why they should get into heaven. You don't think Mark Zuckerberg is a villain? Are we talking about real Mark or my mark? Tell me what the distinction. Okay. I don't want to pass a judgment on real Mark. I'm not here for that. The mark in the social reckoning is an anti-hero, not a villain, and I know exactly that. - What is Mark Zuckerberg's case to God now? I mean, in that he's bringing people closer together. - That's Emma Sorkin, he's making the distinction between my mark, the mark that he wrote and the real mark in the real world. I think that's an interesting distinction to make because he's reminding you again that he's writing a character and he's reminding you again that not only is he writing a character, he's writing a character based on some of his like really deeply obsessive sort of ways that he thinks about the world in terms of a character trying to go like, hey, I'm trying to just prove to the world that I am good. So, in that sense, he's saying, Mark Zuckerberg, not a villain, but actually somewhat of an anti-hero. Rad, what do you make of what you heard from Sorkin there? - Well, I mean, look, first of all, I mean, my definition of an anti-hero might differ 'cause I think of some good, like, some outlaw that might be doing good and certainly that's not something I see in either version of Facebook or of the social network or social reckoning, but certainly this idea of a more complex character thinks he's doing good. I mean, I saw that in the social network. I mean, I saw aspects where that character that's played by Jesse Eisenberg is more complicated and you could root for him when he's sticking into the Winkle Vy, but then you could also be appalled by how he treats his best friend. Whereas in this movie, I mean, I don't see it as all because the story is so black and white, because he stacks the deck, because Jeremy Strong's portrayal of this is more of like a whiny villain, who there's no credence given to his kind of argument for absolute freedom of speech. And that's because of the way this movie is shaped. I mean, the movie is shaped in a way where it's like old media versus new media. Wall Street Journal is this bastion of truth and fair journalism, whereas new media is complete. Run by just greed and no concern for the greater good. So at no point does he give Mark Zuckerberg in his movie any kind of credence, any benefit of the doubt for his argument? Any kind of, he doesn't complicate his arguments in the sense that there is distrust with old media. There is distrust with the institutions like the Wall Street Journal. There is a reason people are flocking to these things. We don't get those complexities 'cause he doesn't make room for those complexities. In fact, the Avengers made more room for complexity when it came to Thanos than he does. - Oh my god. - Oh my god. That's the notion that you've seen anything to do. Sounds like a lie to me, first of all. Fred, what about you? What do you make of that idea of framing Mark Zuckerberg as some kind of anti-hero? - Well, I think the Mark Zuckerberg that's in the social reckoning is not in the social reckoning enough to really formulate an opinion one way or another. I think this movie would have worked just as well if not better without the looming specter of Zuckerberg in it. And I think we don't know enough about what Sorkin thinks his Mark really wants to pass that judgment. He's not really granted much personhood in this movie such that I think you can make that distinction between villain and anti-hero one way or the other. - I think the idea is not enough there to grab onto. That is compelling to me, but also in many ways, I think whether people think Mark Zuckerberg is an anti-hero or a villain here, the movie is kind of making the case that the algorithm itself is maybe the villain vast. Do you want to talk a little bit about that? - We're all trying to figure out who it is. I love that in that interview though. He's like, "Oh, I don't want to pass judgment." Oh, that's very platform. I'm just the platform. - He's just a platform. - Take a position. - I'm just the player. I'm just the guy who wrote the thing. I just directed it. - You wrote and directed it. You're taking a position. - A little bit. - So let's take it just like with the platforms. Sorry, what was your, what did you want to know? (laughing) - I forgot now. - But the idea of the algorithm itself is-- - Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I think that externalizes things. I think that's very convenient. Just like, again, platforms itself to be like, "Well, it's not us, it's not the people who work there." You know, we're not complicit. We're just connecting people like, "No biggie." Yes, stuff's happening. Right now, there's-- - We did stuff. - Right now, there are elections that people are concerned where amplifying, again, right-wing positions, more kind of than they should be. That there is a, you can call it an algorithmic hand to do that scale. It's not neutral, but humans are still behind this guys. These don't come out of nowhere. So I think it's a very kind of convenient externalization. And actually, at the end of the film, and I know this will break your heart. But when they were splicing things up with the January 6th, I found that very affecting. I found going back to that, how we experienced it, again, through videos, through social media, that you're checking social media to see that the US Capitol was stormed so violently that people were hurt, that people died. I didn't mind the stretch of the connection to something that started out, again, connecting people, share some friends and family photos, update, you know. And then you connect that straight through the line. - Do a quiz, remember the quizzes? - I remember the quizzes, and then things got worse. Although, I do think, like, one of the through lines of your career is you costly time to remind people, hey, humans are behind this. I feel like- - 100%. - 'Cause I feel like sometimes these organizations get so big that we maybe forget that essential fact of, oh no, there's still a person you can kind of hold accountable. Do you think the movie did that well? - There's still a person we can hold accountable, but it is fantastic that Mark Zuckerberg still runs this company, right? You know, it's because of his ownership and how the board is structured, but there's another universe where there is new leadership, where all the different figures, where, you know, it's an open question, is he kind of a millennial man-child who's just digging in his heels? You know, he has this reputation not as an innovator, but as a very expensive copycat, right? And he did try to do metaverse, which we're conveniently ignoring. - Which is still not working, as far as I'm like- - Last time I checked. And I'm not getting involved in that, but here's the thing though. Vass, I feel like something that I hear you talk about, again, disconnected to this idea that like, he was always behind this. Recently, Meta agreed to make a bunch of changes to Facebook and Instagram, including implementing time limits for teens, paying up to $18 billion US. Meta didn't admit any wrongdoing, that feels like a crucial part of that lawsuit and how that played out, but they did decide to settle sort of a bunch of resolve, a bunch of claims that the company designed their apps to be addictive for kids. When you think about that, alongside this movie, like, do you feel like there is a social reckoning, quote unquote, actually happy? Like, are we in a place where we're asking good enough questions for us to reconsider the place of a company like Meta in our lives? - I wish there was. I mean, I think it's time for more of us to kind of grow up and grow out of this technology. The fact that their Muse AI is now kind of on the market, it's extremely heavily subsidized, it's free for now. It's just like the original Facebook creating profiles of your friends, your family, if they're mentioned, without their consent, just because you're a part of it. This is going to be monetized at some point. We've been here before multiple times. Are we learning? You know, the social reckoning, I think, needs to be about us and about public policy tools. Sure, of course the company wants to self-regulate and tweak things here and there. And that's a reminder of their power, their curatorial power, and kind of the levers they can push. But going back to the Facebook files and old media, you know, going back to those articles, we now take that as fact. Again, we breathe that. We know Instagram is making young girls feel terrible about their body. We know all these things. - The studies are out, we know enough information. - We know it and what are we doing, right? Essentially, this is supercharged. There will be another film, right? There will be another film about the Muse agent, right? About agentic social media, about fake profiles. And again, will we have learned enough? Can we assert and kind of take back that power? Or will we just be sort of scrolling and giving away our power? - Yeah, Fred, earlier I called Aaron Sorkin a play, right? I meant that was a compliment. And I genuinely think he's someone who thinks in play and then sort of works to get that to the screen later. And you think about the social network, that is a movie that is pinned on three different lawsuits, that's the organizing kind of principle of the entire movie. When I think about the Steve Jobs movie, which he also wrote, that's a movie that's organized around three different product launches. Like his brain says, "The way for us to make sense of the most highly charged questions about who we are is the form of the play." So like you get this movie, you get the social reckoning. How successfully do you think this movie captures our relationship with Mark Zuckerberg and Metta right now? Like does he do enough within the container that he's usually given to give you this notion like, "Oh, I need to rattle my relationship with this organization." - No, not at all. I think our relationship with Zuckerberg right now is actually just completely different. And like closer now to someone like Sam Altman, which is that you, I think more of what we're reckoning with now is like the billionaire founder who's sort of fainting friendship or sort of like, "I'm trying to connect to you. I'm trying to make your life better. I'm reaching out to you. I'm like a politician. Let me help you." Meanwhile, we have evidence and data that says like, "No, you're not. Hang on a second." And so I would have loved to see something that like, just actually looks at like what the public thinks of Mark Zuckerberg because I mean, I think as you, like it's crazy that he's still in charge. And I think like public perception of him is not great. And yet he remains in the position that he has through no small miracle. And it would have been interesting to see how he's been able to commit to that. - I will say, like you mentioned, that would be nice instead of have some kind of engagement with Sam Altman as a figure. We are currently not that long away from Malooka, Guadagnino, Moira. starring Andrew Garfield as that moment, I'm looking forward to that, I'm looking forward to that. - Bring us back. - Yeah, 100% this exact battle will be back for that. But Ratten, let's just talk about, you know, as you sort of leave the theater from the social reckoning, you're not having the same sort of transform feeling that you had after the social network, but do you feel like you reconsider your relationship with Meta or Zuckerberg differently after this? - I mean, I think, and this is where I can give this movie a little credit, it does capture it. It does capture the current sentiment in my mind that was already there in terms of my relationship with Mark Zuckerberg, in terms of how I see him, because like, you know, this movie effectively unfriended Mark Zuckerberg, you know, following the social network. Because if we felt like we felt some kind of connection to that character, before we have no connection to this character in this movie, you know, especially Jeremy Strong plays him as such a manored alien figure that's kind of hovering in the background, where it's like he is no longer this kind of, you know, dimensional human being. - He's a guy who's building a compound in Hawaii. - Exactly, there's something to be said about the remove. - Exactly, there's an opacity there where he joins the sound Sam Altman's and all the tech bros who we now know are not looking out for the greater good, who we all know are now racing to their biggest successes to the detriment of society. So in the sense of capturing that feeling, I think this movie got that. - We're just gonna just sit here and make a bunch of lists of the tech people that I want movies about, and then we'll invite the three of you back, every time they do one. When they do the Sam Altman movie, you guys will be back when they do it. Someone should do a Sam Altman movie, he's coming out on that movie. - I think there is one. - If there's a movie, Sam Altman-Freed movie? - Yeah. - Great. I'll see you there for that too. - TV show. - TV show, when is that coming to you, do you know? - November something. - Bless. - We are truly, this is my season, and I love this for all of us. I appreciate you guys coming in. You guys are the best. This is the best time. Thank you again. - Thank you. - Of course, friend Hoffner is a senior news writer with Vulture based in New York. Fast Bednar is the managing director of the Canadian Shield Institute. She's also the co-author of The Big Fix, how companies capture markets in a harm Canadians, a book that she's snuck onto. There's a very bookshelf right back here, and Rad Sabinplay is a freelance film critic in Toronto. You can find his work at the Globe and Mail, CTVs your morning, and here on Comotion, he hasn't written a book that he can sneak onto this bookshelf yet, but we're waiting. We're waiting, pal. That's it for the show today. My name is Aluminum with my mood. This is Comotion. See you tomorrow. (upbeat music) For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca/podcasts.