• Courtney Love is making vicious accusations via Facebook, and both Edward Norton and Britney Spears are involved.

In one message, Courtney writes (and consider there to be a giant [sic] after everything):

IF something happens to me, NO my will is NOT at Greenberg Glusker, that will is FORGERY…i created a new one per lISA FERGUSONs attorney who cannot be FOUND but that needs altering as it has Edward in it and Norton doesn't have a CLUE how evil his own BM is he wont fuck a future Senator/Film Actor … i m shcoked at myself i never kiss and tell unless im really mad at an ex for like LOSING 300,000$ of my kid hes supposed to be paternal abouts money, oh yeah Norton just LOST 300k

As for Britney, Courtney says:

britneys dad molested her , imagine the father that molested you owning you for slavery while your forced to sing songs picked for thier sexual content every night, insane right? i have it on First had authority, and fight as hard as she is and does she still didnt pull that card, its a pride thing i can relate to, However they want to play dirty, lets go, Im SO not affraid of the little trolls who hit this when i was fucked up who are called lawyers. lets GO.

Um… yeah. Shit. Speechless. [Movieline]

• In other news, Courtney Love to her band to a strip club and left them there. [Page Six]
• We've heard Britney Spears wants to get married again, but have we heard this? A source says: "She is in love with the idea of marriage. She has been married only twice, but has proposed to many more." [MSNBC via News.com.au]
• The White House state dinner was star-studded! In attendance: Producers David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, directors Steven Spielberg and M. Night Shyamalan, actor Blair Underwood and actress Alfre Woodward. Plus: Deepak Chopra and journalists Sanjay Gupta, Katie Couric, Fareed Zakaria, Robin Roberts and Brian Williams. And Jennifer Hudson performed! My last dinner party involved plastic cups and white zinfandel. [UPI]
• If something is really good, Rihanna calls it "barf." "Usually it's ‘ill' or ‘I want to throw up on it," she says. "But barf is the worst," meaning the best. "Barf is 10 out of 10." [NY Times]
• Damn: Rihanna is getting paid $500,000 to to perform at a New Year's Eve party at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi. Can she wear that white Fifth Element bandage jumpsuit in the UAE? [Page Six]
• Things are heating up between Emma Watson and her Spanish rock star. [Telegraph]
• Usher is dating a record exec — named Grace Miguel — who used to work at the label he's signed to. And, shocker! Grace and Usher's mom, Jonetta, do not get along. Sound familiar? The same thing happened with Usher's wife, Tameka Foster. [Gatecrasher]
• Here's a happy Thanksgiving: Ellen DeGeneres gave an out-of-work mom from the Bronx $10,000 and a new car. [NY Daily News]
• Donny Osmond won Dancing With The Stars. Then there was a fire on the set. [People]
• DWTS judge Carrie Ann Inaba is having surgery: "I have arthritis. The space around my spinal cord has become compressed," Inaba explains. "I have been locked. My neck was so stiff. We're hoping this procedure will relieve that." [People]
• The pyramid design of Lady Gaga's Heartbeats headphones was inspired by her fashion choices when growing up: "I wore studded leather jackets, me and my friends in New York. Lifestyle, grit, passion and love for music, freedom. These were the things I thought about when we were designing [the headphones]." [People]
• Beyoncé just finished her tour, and told the crowd at her last stop — in Nottingham, England — that she hopes to see them all in a year with a new album. Work work work! [Reuters]
• Jennifer Lopez's ex-husband, Ojani Noa, admits he's tried to sell footage of himself and La Lopez from their time together, but it's not sleazy: "They think I have a sex tape with her and that I'm trying to sell it. My tape is from our honeymoon, the wedding, us hanging out. There's no nudity-maybe one spanking. There's moments of her fighting with her mom...couples having fun and kissing. If someone has a sex tape, it's not me." [E!]
• Congrats to Alan Cumming, who was made an Office of the British Empire at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday. The Scottish-born actor and gay rights advocate reportedly dressed in tartan head-to-toe for the occasion. Must find pix! [UPI]
• American Idol season 3 contestant Jon Peter Lewis (who?) has issues with Adam Lambert's AMA performance: "All this nonsense about Adam Lambert's whole project being art is bogus. That idea is absurd. It's like calling Thomas Kinkade art. What a sham." [Us Magazine]
• Melissa Etheridge has advice for Adam Lambert: "Don't believe everything they say. Stay true to yourself. The only person who can answer what you should do is  yourself. Love yourself. You will hear as many people praise you as you will hear them tear you down." [E!]
• Rosie O'Donnell was asked if she's enjoying the single life. She replied: "I'm not." [NY Daily News]
• Would you like to see a picture of the Real Housewives Of NYC frolicking in the Virgin Islands? [NY Post]
• "A million fans are being invited to take part in the composition of a pointillist portrait of the late U.S. pop icon Michael Jackson… The project has the blessing of Jackson's brother, Jermaine." [UPI]
• The Official Michael Jackson Opus book is 26 lbs., 400 pages and $249. [The Life Files]
• Julie Andrews will play London's O2 arena, and the venerable Clive Davis writes: "Whether or not Andrews's voice is the flawless multi-octave instrument that it once was, she has always been a consummate professional… Besides, legends are in short supply at the moment." [The Times Of London]
• Transformers director Michael Bay hosted a reunion of the show's cast and crew the other night in NYC, and Megan Fox did not attend. [Page Six]
• Amber Rose asked a stranger in a bathroom to zip up the back of her dress for her, saying: . "I have a hard time staying in this thing, but Kanye loves it." [Page Six]
• The new Miss California, Nicole Johnson, says she once dated Michael Phelps. And! Phelps may have dated Carrie Prejean as well. [TMZ]
• "A nude photo of film director Roman Polanski, who is now being held in a Swiss prison, and his wife Sharon Tate taken shortly before she was brutally murdered, will be sold at an upcoming auction where it could fetch more than $10,000, organizers said." [Reuters]
• Avril Lavigne was seen "passionately making out with a mystery man" in NYC Tuesday night. She was seen with Wilmer Valderrama over the weekend… Maybe divorce makes you horny? [Radar Online]
• The Pussycat Dolls have broken up and no one is speaking to Nicole Scherzinger, if you care. [Page Six]
• "Nellie McKay has three loves - animals, the Poconos, and Doris Day." [Philadelphia Inquirer]
• "Cagefighter's mummy: Nasty Jordan has been horrid to my little Alex." [The Sun]
• "She's a remarkable story… But you're on air every day. Eventually you think, 'do people really want to hear me talk anymore?'" — Phil Donahue, on Oprah ending her show. [Page Six]
• "Wait … is that Zac Posen? Wow." — Zac Efron. [Gatecrasher]
• Ten years ago I wouldn't have thought about having any children at all. [But do I want some?] Yes, yes, yes. I haven't given up hope. I find I'm not as bad with children as I used to be. I see a lot of children are over-parented now, over-adored and over-spoiled. I quite like children to be left alone to get on with it." — Hugh Grant. [Daily Express]
• "I think a show like this probably couldn't have happened five years ago, but I think with the success of American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance and other movie musicals, like Hairspray, Chicago and Nine that's coming up, they set the groundwork for people to accept it and being excited about it. I think we're putting a different twist on it to make it fun and interesting and kind of cool." — Glee's Matthew Morrison. [CNN]
• "You know that devil on your shoulder that tells you terrible things about people and of course you'd never say 'maybe you don't really believe.' She has no filter, and it just comes right out. So I'm a nice person after I leave Glee because I get to exercise the heinous behavior while I'm in a track suit yelling at defenseless children." — Jane Lynch. [CNN]
• "As traumatic and as terrifying as it was — and sometimes I wish it never happened — my whole life changed in the most amazing way after I went through that. If I didn't go through that, I swear, you would've been interviewing a completely different person." — Rihanna, on being assaulted by Chris Brown. [NY Times]
• "Everyone wanted me to see a therapist to just talk about it, and I refused. In Barbados we don't do that. We keep it in our family, and figure it out and move on. I just put my game face on and went on with my life. But deep down inside I had some things to get past, and it came out in the music." — Rihanna. [NY Times]

Babble's list includes such archetypes as "the bragger parent" and "the obsessed parent." (Still mired in the mostly-childless morass of people's snack updates and song lyrics, I can only yearn for a time when anyone will have anything as actually important as a baby to discuss, but I can only imagine that for the more restrained parents amongst us, such exhibitionism might grate - and, apparently, worse.) What the author seems to be really objecting to, though, is the assumption of equal fascination that characterizes both many Facebook users and many new (and newish) parents. For a new parent, Facebook and its ilk are a boon - both a connection to the world and to those doting relatives who are hungry for info. But these same qualities might have others reaching for "block status."

And that, of course, is ultimately the point: Facebook, Twitter, they're all optional - you don't need to see or hear anything you don't want to, and the truth is many of us love being annoyed. Facebook giveth, and Facebook taketh away. (Mostly it giveth, and giveth, and giveth, it's just that sometimes it's giving you "Jack-o-lanterns" and witticisms and invitations to join groups of middle-school-level irony.) We all love to grumble about the vagaries of various populations, be it the enthusiasms of our parents' generation, the narcissism of our own, the absorption of new parents. It's silly to complain, but it's just as unreasonable for the article's readers to huff, "then don't join!" All of these are part of the fabric of modern living, all necessary and vital. How anemic would life be with only restrained reports of moves or New York Times links? It's the Great Conversation. With pictures.

Facebook's Five Most Annoying Parents [Babble]

The site, which went up in August, was shut down recently, but Reverend David Russell, an outgoing master at Wesley College, tells the Sydney Morning Herald that the Facebook page is simply an encapsulation of the rape culture that has pervaded the campus for some time. "This is a story that has to be told," Russell says, "there is no question in my mind, women are seen as meat. That is the awful, ugly truth of it.''

The site has already been condemned by the University, the New South Wales Police sex crimes unit, and the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre, and New South Wales Minister for Women, Linda Burney, rightly tells ABC Australia that "The idea that a group of young men that are going to become leaders within our community - leaders in the law, leaders in medicine, leaders in business - studying at an elite college, at an elite university, think it's OK to post information like this encouraging rape on a website is absolutely abhorrent.

The question that remains, however, is why Facebook allowed a pro-rape group to exist on the service to begin with. This is a social networking site that refuses to let women post pictures of themselves breastfeeding, mind you, but it's okay to make a "hilarious" pro-rape group in the "Sports and Recreation" category? The group was public, by the way, accessible to anyone and visible to all. Interesting, isn't it, that in the eyes of Facebook, a woman shouldn't be allowed to show her breasts while feeding her child, but it's perfectly acceptable for men to make a highly public "sport" out of rape.

Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec of the New South Wales Police sex crimes squad tells the Herald that "this is the first occasion I have heard of a Facebook site being set up to promote, or publicise ... sexual assault or any other behaviour that is criminal behaviour.'' Something tells me that it won't be the last, unless Facebook starts paying as much attention to the rape culture brewing on the boards as they do to pictures of new mothers just trying to feed their kids.

Pro-Rape Facebook Group Condemned [The Australian Broadcasting Corporation]
Facebook And Sexual Violence, Assault [Sydney Morning Herald]
Facebook's Breastfeeding Ban [LATimes]

Wise probably deserves no moral consideration for hacking into other women's voicemails because some of them had the temerity to get themselves involved with men Wise herself had dated. (In one case, not until two years after Wise's relationship with the man in question had ended.) Even if it was not illegal — and Wise is defending the charges — it was wrong, and she must have known it at the time. An unlovable woman with a nasty habit of violating other women's privacy: this is textbook Internet-enabled girl-on-girl crime, with the salacious hell-hath-no-fury element thrown in as extra tabloid bait. No wonder "sources" are now calling her "radioactive in the industry."

A former Dolce & Gabbana publicist, Wise was arrested this summer for allegedly hacking into the voicemail of Munich-born Nina Freudenberger, an interior designer whose clientele includes many of Manhattan's elite. Freudenberger became involved with Josh Deutsch, the founder of Downtown Records, who had once been Wise's boyfriend. The criminal complaint details 337 individual calls Wise made, via an online number-masking service called SpoofCard, into Freudenberger's voicemail.

This was not isolated behavior. When the District Attorney added three new victims to the case yesterday, he alleged that Wise accessed a second victim's voicemail 137 times. And to have targeted a third victim 119 times. And a fourth one at least 102 times. Wise is said to have also harassed coworkers and friends; anonymous sources have whispered to Page Six about restraining orders Wise was subject to, about anonymous online comments and threatening e-mails. She targeted not just Deutsch's exes, but also women involved with Jason Pomeranc, a hotelier Wise had a long, on-again, off-again relationship with.

All told, Police say she used the SpoofCard service over 1,000 times to listen to the private communications of women who were, in some cases, complete strangers.

How many times have I looked at the Facebook pages of women a boyfriend has cheated on me with? One thousand times? Two thousand times? Five thousand times? Often enough to notice when one gets a new job, manages to use "it's" and "its" correctly, or deletes from her page the year of her birth. Often enough to know where they live. (At first, I only wanted to know if they were pretty. Perhaps Wise started because she just wanted to hear his voice.)

Wise certainly crossed a line in obtaining information under false pretenses — voicemail is private in a way that a profile on a social networking site is not. And it is not my intention to treat her behavior with any more generosity than it deserves — probably close to none. But what I can't get around, is an uncomfortable feeling of identification with her motivations, with her feelings. I can't help but think there's a certain basic understanding of the world and of relationships that she and I share. I suspect Ali Wise has found herself, as I have, unable to sleep at a quarter to four in the morning because a person she has never met has committed some minute act that has nonetheless created a digital trail, an act which, under the circumstances, knowing about is still somehow less painful than not knowing about. Some people have a native disinterest about these things — they hear about someone they loved very much seeing someone else and either don't feel the urge to know just a little more, or successfully repress it. Some people are seeing someone who's seeing someone else and don't even wonder about the nights he has "plans." Some people are probably smart enough not to torture themselves with Google. But I do. More often than I'm comfortable admitting.

What Wise did was wrong, but I understand it. I empathize. I've been there. And that frightens me.

Perhaps the strangest turn in this whole saga is this factoid, buried in today's Post story:

The blond society babe has at least one person still standing by her — Pomeranc, in whose SoHo apartment The Post found her yesterday.

"It's really rude for you to come up here," she said.

So, it's pretty rich for someone accused of serious, long-term stalking, hacking, and harassment to accuse a reporter of being "rude." But I was strangely touched to learn that Wise still has some kind of a relationship with Pomeranc, and I hope it's not wrong of me to wish that it gives her at least a little comfort right now. Because she's facing up to four years in prison for the kinds of acts that, while most of us would not have committed, might, if we're honest with ourselves, have at least considered. Some of us more than once.

Flack 'Hack Attack' On Love Rivals [New York Post]
P.R. Pals Hang Up On 'Spy' Ali Wise [New York Post]
Former Dolce & Gabbana Publicist To Face Charges From Four Women In Stalking Case [NYDN]

The article focuses on men and women in their 20s and 30s, who seemingly can't do anything without broadcasting it to the rest of the world. In one particularly horrifying paragraph, a woman named Polly describes how a man she'd just slept with "raced over to his laptop – I assumed to work. Next morning I found he had, in fact, being typing the exclamation, ‘Aaaaahhhhh', on his profile. His friends, aware of the meaning, replied with cheer and misogynistic repartee. No detail was spared. It still makes me feel ill."

Oversharers on Facebook have been mercilessly mocked on various blogs such as STFUParents, STFUMarrieds, and Lamebook, all of which zero in on the worst of the worst, posting cringe-worthy status updates from users who feel it's a-ok to describe their pooping habits, sex lives, STDs, and super-duper lovey dovey goo-goo talk with the rest of their social network. Granted, the content on these blogs is user-generated, meaning that people are sending in screenshots of their "friends" and laughing along with the rest of us. It's funny, but it's also exhausting. There are times when I read Lamebook and think, "Why are you still friends with this person? Delete! Block! Delete!"

I suspect, however, that many people enjoy having an oversharer in their lives, both online and off, as it allows for two things: one, mockery/bonding with others at the oversharer's expense ("Oh my god, did you see that insane fight between Sean and Marissa?") and a behavior check that makes us realize how stupid/annoying people seem when they forget that there are certain boundaries that should be followed both online and off. It's easy to get caught up in the overshare festival that is the internet (and we have all done it and will continue to do it, I'm sure) but hearing horror stories such as Polly's and reading blogs that point out the worst kinds of overshare are a reminder to us all that just because you can share your entire life with the world, it doesn't mean you should.

I doubt people are going to stop sharing the most intimate details of their lives on the internet anytime soon; if anything I suspect it's only going to get worse. But perhaps I'm wrong, and eventually the novelty of knowing exactly what your "friends" and neighbors (and celebrities, for that matter) are thinking and doing at all times will wear off. And, I suppose, if you really want an element of mystery back in your life, you can just start blocking people who won't stop giving you the play-by-play of their everyday lives. It's great that you're 28 and can poop 8 times a day, random Allan from elementary school, but I'd rather keep you in the back of my mind as the kid who ate half a jar of paste and received a standing ovation from our second grade classroom. You can keep on pooping and posting, but I think I'd rather stick with the memories.

Generation Reveal: There's Nothing They Won't Post Online [TimesOnline]
[Lamebook]
[STFUMarrieds]
[STFUParents]

Writes Elizabeth Bernstein,

We need new rules now. How about these? You can look, but don't make contact. Strike an agreement with your current partner that you will each disclose any Facebook friends you have slept with. Or, like Katie Robinson, limit your online "friends" to people of the same sex. "It is hard enough to have a relationship without the intrusion of people from your past," says Ms. Robinson, a 33-year-old artist in Memphis, Tenn. Some couples share their passwords. "If your bank accounts are common, why not your Twitter and Facebook accounts?" asks Clemson Smith Muñiz, a Spanish-language sports announcer in New York. Sound scary? Mr. Smith Muñiz discovered one of the drawbacks when he checked his Twitter following-which he spent months trying to build-and discovered an alarming trend: It kept shrinking.
At first, he worried that people found him boring and were dropping out. He tried harder to be clever, "tweeting" about Cuban baseball players and his dental problems. He even pleaded for readers: "Follow me and I'll follow you." Then he discovered his problem: his wife."She told me she was going on my account and taking off women she thought were coming on to me," says Mr. Smith Muñiz, 51. She didn't care if they were old girlfriends or porn stars. "She said she doesn't want temptation to be there," he says. (His wife declined to be interviewed.)

Wait, what? This is weird, right? Look, I admit to being somewhat lax in these matters (the one concession I've ever demanded was that a boyfriend not friend a one-night stand with whom he'd cheated on me) but I can't help but wonder: when do rules start to rule you? (Yes, that took a few minutes' thought.) All-female friends? Secret un-following? Hell's no. That's sacred. Trivial and pointless, perhaps, but sacred in some sort of modern irreligious way. Granted, this piece deals exclusively with Boomers who all seem overly involved with the newly-discovered gadgetry and don't share our tacit reluctance to appearing cyber-desperate ("Follow me and I'll follow you?") But seriously, is this a thing? And not just amongst those weird couples who seem to get off on the delusion that their partners are wildly desirable and everyone's constantly hitting on them? I'd always understood these sites to be more-or-less public information; as such, hasn't enough personal editing gone on that more isn't required? And as for those threatened by the presence of exes - well, better the evil you know, surely? As one more cynically-minded friend put it, "it's not like you'll be able to friend them yourself!"

That said, I know reading about cracked fillings in 140 or fewer has me hitting "Direct Messages" every time, so maybe she has a point.

When Old Flames Beckon Online [Wall Street Journal]

The Megan Meier Act states that "electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth," and that "cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide." But its real meat is the following:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Part of the No Child Left Behind Act does require schools to institute anti-bullying efforts, but no federal law currently prohibits cyberbullying. The Megan Meier Act would change that. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) argues that the law is necessary because, "Bullying has gone electronic. This literally means kids can be bullies at any hour of the day or the night, or even in the victims' own home." British bullying victim Emily Moor agrees. Of her harassment from the ages of 13 to 18, she says, "Bullying usually ends when you leave school, but with Facebook it feels as if there is no end." Her mother adds,

The internet is a sinister, silent enemy: you simply don't know where to start to tackle the problem. But faceless as a computer may be, it is every bit as threatening as a physical bully, if not more so because the audience reading these horrible messages can be enormous.

The Daily Mail is calling Moor's tormentor "the first Internet bully sent to jail" in Britain, but she also physically assaulted Moor, and it's likely she would go to jail in the US too, cyberbullying laws or no. And many in the House feel that specific laws preventing online harassment give prosecutors too much power. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) says the Megan Meier Act "appears to be another chapter of over criminalization," and that it could be used to prosecute the "mean-spirited liberals" who criticize him on blogs. He added that prosecutors might use the law to "harass the harasser," and that, "a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich."

While harassment by a sandwich is something I'd like to see, it is true that the Internet is still relatively uncharted legal territory, and laws regarding it can be misused. Megan Meier's harasser Lori Drew was initially convicted of violating the MySpace terms of service, but a judge overturned her conviction because it would allow anyone who violated a website's service terms to be prosecuted. As heinous as Drew's behavior was, such a precedent might give websites enormous powers to get users thrown behind bars for crimes much less serious than hers.

Then there's the question of whether legislation is even the right way to combat bullying. Forty-five states now have some sort of anti-cyberbullying law, but harassment researcher Catherine Hill says there's no indication yet that they actually prevent bullying. And Justin W. Patchin, coauthor of Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying, says,

I really don't want to criminalize this behavior. I think there is a role for both the federal and state governments in terms of educating local school districts about what cyber-bullying is and what they can do about it, and providing resources to help them prevent and respond to online aggression. But criminalization doesn't seem to me to be the best approach.

Whenever a child is bullied, especially when the bullying has dire consequences as in the case of Megan Meier (pictured, with her mom), it's natural to ask why the authorities in the child's life didn't offer protection. And schools shouldn't throw up their hands and dismiss bullying as a fact of life, as Moor's school initially did. Criminally prosecuting bullying after the fact may have a place in any anti-bullying campaign, especially inasmuch as acknowledges that virtual harassment can cause real harm. But the often anonymous nature of cyberbullying will always make it difficult to prosecute all offenders, and the danger of over-prosecution is (despite Gohmert's flippancy) a real one. Just as British libel laws can leave some journalists afraid to criticize anyone, cyberbullying laws could unfairly target bloggers. It might be more effective to prevent cyberbullying at the source, by teaching kids better methods of conflict resolution. Patchin himself, however, admits that we're still not sure how to do this. Cyberbullying may be new, but bullying itself is one of the many ancient human evils we don't really know how to curtail. At least Megan Meier's case has made us aware that we need to.

Cyberbullying Bill Gets Chilly Reception [Wired]
Facebook Bullies Ruined My Life: As The First Internet Bully Is Sent To Jail, The Story That Will Terrify Every Parent [Daily Mail]
Preventing Cyberbullying Remains Terra Incognita [Miller-McCune]

I know of several couples who, after amicable breakups, met for lunch and agreed that when they got back to the office, they both would simultaneously change their relationship status from "In a Relationship" to "Single" in one, smooth, sane move, and devote the rest of the afternoon to explaining to curious friends that they were just ready to move on. But in a Salon piece today on the way Facebook is affecting the lives of those going through divorces — and their lawyers — makes that kind of levelheadedness seem rare, at least among an older, less savvy generation.

It seems that every social networking feature that helps keep us connected can also be an irresistible temptation for those who feel wronged by their former spouses. The piece centers on Lauren (fake name), a mother of two who took to Facebook to air her dirty laundry and diss her ex:

"During the month that followed, as the marriage continued to unravel and her grief intensified, Lauren began chronicling her divorce via status updates. "Lauren would cry, but then he wins," she wrote. "There isn't enough Kleenex in the world." "My house is a mess. My life is a mess." "Lauren is facing the aftermath.""

And forget about trying to sneak in status updates aimed directly at your ex's hopefully-jealous heart (and everyone knows when someone's doing that anyway!):

"When she began to write about her new relationship, her husband finally lost it. "I wrote that I was ‘Going to pizza night and beyond,'" Lauren said, "and he was offended by it. I thought it was vague enough.""

Then Lauren expanded her multi-platform revenge empire to the photo-tagging feature:

"Lauren, for example, "tagged" her ex-husband in a photo of their two boys and a coral snake — she gave the snake her husband's name."

Okay, that one is just plain funny. But in their attempts to express their frustration in an increasingly isolated world, some divorcees are accidentally getting creepy:

"Chad Post was expunged by his wife after he posted about chopping down trees in preparation to sell their house. "I wrote that I was probably not in the best mental state to be using a chain saw," he told me. "My wife didn't say anything, but then she defriended me. She just wasn't there anymore. It was super-surreal in a 21st century-meets-third grade sort of way.""

And as if looking nutty to your friends (and high school rivals, and former Sunday School teacher, etc) and sacrificing a bit of your self-respect forever, revealing too much about your post-breakup life on Facebook can have real legal consequences as well, like the possibility of losing custody if your pictures show you drinking or smoking (!), or this kind of thing (which sounds quite far-fetched):

"If, for instance, photos surface online of you and your new paramour toasting each other at a pricey restaurant, you could be found to have committed "marital waste" (spending marital funds on another person)."

Apparently all of this is so common that it's now a just a regular formality in the family law industry:

"Many lawyers, in fact, advise clients not to get on Facebook, MySpace or Twitter at all during a divorce, and some firms require that clients suspend their accounts."

Good plan! The lesson here is not a new one: always remember that nothing you put online can ever be taken back, and that nobody, but nobody, has ever won a breakup or divorce by being less than graceful about it, even before social networking. The article advises regular people to act like celebrities (or, I'd add: pre-Twitter celebrities) and keep your insecure, spiteful, and vulnerable quips close to the vest, no matter how cathartic you think it'll feel to broadcast them. I'd add something to that as well: why not just not answer the relationship part of your Facebook profile? After all, unless you keep your Facebook page as a dating tool, it's really nobody's business, and you can avoid some serious heartache later. Think of it as a social networking pre-nup: reveal nothing, and later have nothing to take back.

The Facebook Divorce [Salon]

• The stylist who allegedly walked out on Mark Fast's show says it wasn't because the models were too "fat" - but because they were too fat to walk right! "The walk is very important,'' she explains. [Mirror]

• The stylist in question is reportedly Erika Kurihara, fashion editor at hipper-than-thou London style mag i-D. [Frockwriter]
• "Another studio insider, Amanda May, has since tweeted that the names of the three models in question are Hayley, Laura and Gwyneth and that the company is 'so happy we stuck to our guns about the casting.'" [Frockwriter]
• Says Fast's creative director, "The decision to use fuller girls is something we have been talking about. There's an idea that only thin and slender women are able to wear Mark's dresses and he wanted to combat that. We wanted women to know they didn't have to be a size zero to wear a Mark Fast dress - curvier women can look even better in them." [Daily Mail]
• Burberry's multi-pronged approach for getting down with the kids: broadcasting their fashion week show online; Facebook; Twitter; and social media site, "Art of the Trench," which "will encourage customers and fans of the brand to upload pictures of themselves sporting a classic Burberry trenchcoat." [Racked]
• Wait, what? Apparently Clint Eastwood owns a clothing line, Tehama, and it's been bought by Nacabi Inc. [WWD]
• Kelly Cutrone: "I'm, like, the patron saint of interns. I made interning famous." Well, maybe Venerable. [New York]
• The ever-modest Tim Gunn on being named a "Top 5 Silver Fox": "Well, that's very flattering but I think someone is a little cuckoo." [MediaBistro]
• And who's the Loaded Gunn's favorite superhero? Batman, of course - "the most debonair of superheroes." [USAToday]
• A Philip Lim VIP show: An intern covered in vom and a careening model. Like a PhiDelt party, plus pleating. [Racked]
• Yoko Ono's fashion show for threeASFOUR is exactly as you'd imagine a runway show by Yoko Ono. Check it. [FashionWeekDaily]
• And Rick Owens' furniture line is exactly as you'd imagine a furniture line by the punky designer. "He calls the antlers on his angular plywood chairs "brutalist crowns," and said he loves the way their elegance contrasts with the chairs' crude wooden shapes. Plywood is one of his all-time favorite materials, and a staple, "the washed black leather," he said, of his furniture collections." [WWD]
• Perhaps inevitably, Yasmin LeBon has designed a fashion line, for Sir Philip Green's Wallis chain. It's allegedly very glam, and very good. No word on whether the iconic "Rio" video was an influence. [WWD]
• Louis Vuitton hits a snag in its epic fight to protect its TM: they've lost a fight to get Google and other search engines to stop using their name. [Telegraph]
• DeBeers - which has been linked to blood diamond mining - is talking about the role of diamond mining and climate control. Says the director: "We are making sure that we do not waste any water and that we have stepped up our programs." [WWD]
• Donatella Versace regards the recession as an "opportunity." Says the tanned titan vaguely, "The crisis is a big opportunity — it offers more stimulus for creativity ... more ideas come about." [Reuters]
• In case you were wondering what Lady Gaga considers the best costume for the Vogue offices? Here's Grace Coddington: "She was wearing Philip Treacy's hat with Vogue written on it when she came to see Anna, and when she came to see me the next day she had sprayed her hair red." [Fashionista]
• In their continuing desperation to change their staid image, the Gap is collaborating with awesome illustrator Garance Dore on a line of tees. [ElleUK]
• Twiggy is the subject of a retrospective exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery. Quoth the too-nice-for-ANTM super, "It's hysterical, and incredibly flattering. I think when you're living a life you don't mark down "this is this, and in 40 years' time I'm going to be that", you just live your life." [Telegraph]
• If there's one name you take away from London's Fashion Week, people, make it Christopher Kane. He is hottt. [NYTimes]
• And his TopShop line is, not shockingly, flying off the shelves - particularly the "crocodile dress." [Racked]
• Victoria Beckham and the other WAGs (for Yanks, that's "wives and girlfriends" of football stars; think, for fashion week purposes, Kim and Nene) have hit fashion week in full force, [ElleUK]

Politico's Andy Barr says,

Since resigning her post as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin has essentially gone dark, making almost no public appearances and successfully avoiding the media outlets that are clamoring to talk to her.

But that doesn't mean Palin has been quiet.

Nope, she's been Facebooking — successfully enough that she added hundreds of thousands of followers after her resignation. And that a fan recently bid $63,500, plus travel costs, just to have dinner with her. And that she started the summer's "death panel" meme — which itself was successful enough that Americans United For Change took out an ad against it, on Facebook no less.

The social networking site is apparently perfect for Palin, because it allows her to just say shit without being held accountable for accuracy, logic, or basic truth. A former staffer says Palin "loves the unfiltered medium because she can make her statement and not be questioned directly about any nuances." But the death panel statement wasn't
"nuance," it was outright false — the kind of thing you can get away with saying when you're talking to several hundred thousand of your friends. Of course, that's not how Palin sees it. Barr quotes an Alaska insider, who says, "There was so much difficulty in her getting her message out without it being deliberately, in my opinion, twisted by members of the media. Now, even if a story gets twisted, they all know they can go right to Facebook and see what she said."

Now that she's not in office anymore, Sarah Palin is selling herself as a homespun oracle of truth, independent of the nasty mainstream media. It may be working — in part, says Reason magazine's Greg Beato, because we like our oracles of truth kinda crappy. He compares Palin to Paris Hilton, who "can't act her way out of a YouTube clip, but she recognized that it's no longer necessary, and often counterproductive, for Hollywood stars to spend all day memorizing mediocre sitcom dialogue when they can be doing the things the public finds truly compelling, like attending nightclub openings, making sex tapes, and getting arrested." He says that "Palin embodies the Internet's insurgent, user-oriented spirit," that "her resignation announcement-poorly timed, awkwardly staged, emphatically meandering-was a pitch-perfect masterpiece of YouTube verité," and that her "abrupt departure was a stroke of genius, the most sensible move she could have made." Because we live in the Internet age now, an age in which we apparently love fuckups and amateurs.

This is all pretty convincing — Palin as netroots heroine and poster child for e-mediocrity — until you remember that we didn't need Facebook to elect a former governor who had poor qualifications, couldn't string together a sentence, and lied all the time. If Sarah Palin ever does win the presidency, it won't be because she's a savvy new-media maven who understands how to tap into the spirit of the age. It will be because Americans have short memories.

Palin Emerges As Facebook Phenom [Politico]
Sarah Palin, Maverick At Last [Reason]
Dinner With Palin? Fan Pays $63,500 On eBay [AP, via MSNBC]

Matthew Myron has written a book called What Is Privacy? which, according to the Telegraph, states: ''Many people feel they have to be a part of Facebook to socialize. Such sites are the modern equivalent of a mobile phone. They have grown into fashion accessories and they are a must-have for people who don't want to be social outcasts."

It's understandable that people feel that way, but "social outcast" is taking it a bit far. I have friends who are not on Facebook and manage to (gasp!) have a social life. It was possible to socialize before Facebook. Before MySpace, before Twitter, before email, before text messaging, even. And this may sound impossible, but people talked to each other before the telephone was invented!

We have become a culture of convenience… and of showing off. It's easier to post a picture of your new baby on Facebook as a way of introducing her to your friends and acquaintances than to have everyone come over, and if your friends and acquaintances comment, "she's adorable!" for everyone to see, they feel that they've done their duty in keeping the friendship alive. But if you're not on Facebook to have these digital exchanges, is your social life over? Or do you just find different ways to communicate? Myron says: ''To fit in, you have to be open and display all." I just don't agree. Even though I work online, have a Facebook page and a Twitter, I don't tend to "socialize" that way. I hate evites; my Facebook doesn't include a lot of personal information. I am more likely to text or call people I want to speak to. Is Facebook fun? Yes. Is it addictive? Sometimes. Is it necessary? I think not.

Failing To Disclose Private Life On Facebook 'Is Social Suicide' [Telegraph]

You see, crew, Cathy has finally fallen into the ol' technology trap, something the strip has been railing against for a few weeks now, with Cathy sighing not over boxes of chocolates or that bitchy saleswoman who seemingly lives to make Cathy hate herself at the swimwear shop, but over the way that technology has slowly crept into her life, making the personal impersonal, and creating a whole new set of problems to add to her already overloaded list. Her friends go off on vacations and send a billion digital photos; her co-workers talk more about the equipment they own than the lives they live with said equipment, and now, Facebook has come to ruin her life for good.

It started innocently enough, with an invitation from an old friend, as most of these things do. Cathy gets invited to Facebook, and she says yes. Little does she know that it's going to destroy her universe FOREVER. Oh, Cathy! When will you win?


Cathy soon learns, however, that Facebook will suck you in and spit you out like so many nasty women at swimsuit stores, luring you in with promises of good fun in the sun and then breaking your dreams in two with a harsh dose of "Who the hell are these random people and why are they bothering me about my life?" We've been there, too, Cathy. We shall ACK on your behalf.


Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but this strip struck me as incredibly sweet. Cathy is psyched to reconnect with her old friends, and is very excited when "Brenda" writes on her wall. It seems a bit corny, but it was nice to see Cathy get stoked about something that doesn't involve chocolate or her dog, Electra. The last panel is quite interesting as well: the concept of "auto-guilt," that Irving brings up is a true one—how often have you felt bad for not getting back to someone right away, or for missing/overlooking an email/IM/text? So often we bust on Cathy for feeling guilty about dumb things, but this strip felt painfully true. I actually had to step back and check myself after this one. Schooled by Cathy! I'll never be the same, crew.


Of course, with Cathy, the sense of "competitiveness" and the "Aacks!" are never far behind those moments of sweetness.


And now, naturally, Cathy's sense of self-worth goes right back to what she looks like; instead of worrying about her swimsuit, now she has to worry about her profile picture.


Today, Cathy's dogs have become concerned that perhaps she's not setting healthy boundaries re: her internet use. You know it's bad when Electra starts freaking out.

While I suspect this storyline will fade out over the next few weeks, I have to say that I find it pretty interesting and yes, a bit sweet. Cathy, who so often freaks out about her weight and her job, is now freaking out about her social networking life as well, something that I think most of us can relate to on some level. She's overwhelmed but excited, feeling competitive but flustered, and she's just trying to keep up with everyone else. Will she eventually devolve into a neurotic mess and throw her computer out the window? It's highly possible. But for once, I think we can cut Cathy a break and admit that in some ways, we see where she's coming from. So congrats, Cathy. Welcome to the internet. And remember, you can't spell Facebook without A-C-K.

Cathy [WashingtonPost]

'I think there's a worry that an excessive use or an almost exclusive use of text and emails means that as a society we're losing some of the ability to build interpersonal communication that's necessary for living together and building a community," Archbishop Nichols says, "We're losing social skills, the human interaction skills, how to read a person's mood, to read their body language, how to be patient until the moment is right to make or press a point. Too much exclusive use of electronic information dehumanises what is a very, very important part of community life and living together."

While Nichols was moved to speak on the matter after the death of a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide after being bullied online, his statements seem to imply that all social networking is detrimental for "real world" relationships, as the online universe tends to create a sense of reality that doesn't always translate in the world we live in once we walk away from our screens.

I spent a good part of my day online; most of it for work purposes, but I also connect with many of my friends through keyboards and screens, as we all went our separate ways after college and grad school, and it's the easiest way for all of us to keep in touch. In that way, social networking provides a means to stay connected to people you actually know and love in "real" life, without having to live two blocks away. But what of the connections we make with virtual strangers? The people we speak to everyday that we've never actually met before? Are they helping us, or hurting us?

In some ways, I think the virtual social world is helpful to many of us, myself included, who are painfully shy in real life: it can serve as a type of practice run for actually speaking to people in person. But in other ways, the validation and gratification one gets from doing his or her socialization strictly via the internet can make it seem like going out and actually hanging out with people isn't necessary, which can certainly become a problem if people become too isolated from the world beyond their computer. The retreat into the online world can be especially problematic for those who are being bullied and harassed; the few who choose to spew hateful, awful remarks at an individual suddenly appear to be the spokespeople for the world, if there are no non-internet people around to provide a much needed reality check.

As with most things in life, a balance is needed: if used correctly, social networking sites can help you meet new people in "real life" and serve as a means to continue socializing when you're stuck at work or in a place where it's hard to make new friends. I disagree with Nichols assertion that the online environment makes it harder for us to read moods, or to know when to make a point or to back off; if anything, I've found that I've learned more about how to approach people in certain situations via social networking, as people tend to be more honest and direct in their typing than they are face-to-face. Still, one wonders if that balance is easier for some to find than others—perhaps instead of condemning one form of socialization in favor of another, we should be educating people of all ages on how to live a life both online and off, with healthy boundaries set up to ensure that they don't lose themselves in either realm.

So what say you, commenters? Is social networking hurting your "real world" social skills? Or is it making them stronger?

Transient Friendships On Facebook And Bebo Can Lead To Increase In Teen Suicides Warns Archbishop [DailyMail]