Here's an article about it if you're interested:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11437873
The movie would have been impossible to get right. First of all, the main theme of the film is the two court cases. There are two against Zuckerberg, and none of the three parties agree at all with what happened. No matter how hard Sorkin tried he could not have got it right, because none of the three people suing each other agree on what transpired. Not to mention Parker, who is a renowned douchebag and probably has his own story to spout when asked.
Second of all, I don't agree with the article that the movie made it seem like Zuckerberg only made Facebook to get his girl back. Numerous times through out the movie Mark says he wants to do something bigger than anybody else ever has, and that's why he didn't build the Harvard connection site the twins wanted him to build and decided to expand on their idea to make Facebook.
And honestly, all the people in that BBC article are either friends of Zuckerberg, or people who worked for or with Zuckerberg. I bet those people would like to remain friends with him, and work with/for him again in the future so of course they would side with him and say the movie portrayed him unfairly. The quote from Sorkin at the end is kind of alarming, but he doesn't admit to running away with the script and making it his own, he just says he wasn't that interested in the topic which is shocking because he made it compelling.
I think Sorkin did the best job he could have. It wasn't a documentary; it needed some added drama.