Its new privacy policy have turned the social network inside out: millions of people have signed up because Facebook offers a sense of safety. For the last five years — as long as you're relatively careful about who you accept as your friends — what you do and say on Facebook for the most part stays on Facebook. Katie Couric's daughter first posted pictures of her famous mom dancing silly in 2006, but it took three years for them to leak to us. (Thank you tipsters!) But virtually overnight and without a clear warning, Facebook has completely reversed those user expectations. Their new privacy settings amount to making anything you post on Facebook to be public, unless you go to great lengths to keep your info private.

The most insidious part of Facebook's scheme to expose user data has been how the company framed them, claiming to want to enhance privacy. In an open letter to his 350 million+ users, CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed he believed the old privacy framework was "no longer the best way for you to control your privacy," and that the new system would give people "even more control of their information." It would be "simpler" and finer-grained.

But when the system came out a week later, it actually gave less, not more, control over information. Gone was the ability to hide your friends list, profile pictures, fan pages and network membership from all strangers; Facebook's new, formal privacy policy explicitly made this information public (despite the ability to keep some of it, like the friends list, off your profile page).

Meanwhile, the social network is pushing users hard to share their personal content with strangers. Users are being forced to update their privacy settings, with most default choices set to "Everyone" in the world or "friends of friends."

Facebook's business rationale here is clear. Rival Silicon Valley startup Twitter has grown extremely quickly in the last few years, almost entirely on the back of public content — from celebrities, people's friends and users' professional colleagues. That has brought traffic, money from search engines and a $1 billion valuation.

Facebook wants in on that kind of growth, and more public content means more traffic. But Facebook has historically been one of the most private of the social networks, functioning as a sort of safe alcove amid the chaos of MySpace and Friendster. "Privacy is a big reason Facebook users are so loyal," BusinessWeek's Sarah Lacy wrote in 2006 (via Big Money).

So Facebook needed to give users a big shove to put its business plan into play. As startup founder Jason Calacanis puts it,

Facebook is trying to dupe hundreds of millions of users they've spent years attracting into exposing their data for Facebook's personal gain: pageviews. Yes, Facebook is tricking us into exposing all our items so that those personal items get indexed in search engines–including Facebook's–in order to drive more traffic to Facebook.

But it's not just that Facebook is tricking its users; it's betraying them. It did so when it literally communalized private friend lists that people spent years accumulating, without which their accounts would be useless. It did so when it mislead them by saying it wanted to enhance their privacy, when the real goal was growth and profit. And it continues to do so every day it does not respond to the loud fedback of its users (and the implicit feedback of its own CEO).

And people increasingly know they've been betrayed. This past weekend, journalist Dan Gillmor publicly deleted his Facebook account. Heidi Moore at Slate's Big Money temporarily deactivated her account as a "conscientious objection." And look at the big-name tech journalists weighing in on all the shock and outrage on Facebook critic Calacanis' "Wall" (click to enlarge):

Facebook has been through embarrassing privacy snafus before, like the intrusive "Beacon" advertising system, which the company eventually abandoned. But this one was so pre-meditated, so pre-processed and so condescendingly hyped and spun in advance. It's obvious that Facebook is making a calculation, one that, for users, involved a lot more subtraction than addition. Barring mass defections, the difference will drop straight to Facebook's bottom line.

UPDATE: Our other coverage:
The Facebook Privacy Settings You've Lost Forever, Dec. 16
The Valleywag Guide to Restoring Your Privacy on Facebook, Dec. 15
Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook, Dec. 11

(Top pic: Zuckerberg, by Josh Lowensohn)

Under Facebook's highly suspicious new "privacy" system, users are typically encouraged to share their photos widely, a move that helps Facebook become more like its fast-growing frenemy Twitter. In what seemed like a savvy PR move, CEO Mark Zuckerberg opened his own photos to the public last night. But after we ran some of the more interesting shots, he appears to have partially yanked them back.

Friends of friends can still see the photos. But one tipster and one Gawker staffer who share no friends in common with the Facebook CEO were able to see his photo cache last night and are no longer able to as of this afternoon; the pictures are definitely now shielded from such strangers. You can check for yourself by clicking here.

It's a dumb move, PR-wise: On the one hand, Facebook' own chief executive is illustrating that his privacy settings are so baffling that even he himself doesn't grasp their full implications. And, on the other, we already published the most embarrassing stuff! Sigh.

We can't think of what else Zuckerberg is trying to shield from public view; maybe it's one of these pictures we haven't run yet, but we doubt it. Oh, and the last two aren't of Zuckerberg, but of two different flacks for the social network, Brandee Barker ("you have a choice") and Barry Schnitt ("Facebook is changing, and so is the world changing and we are going to innovate to meet user requests"). We figure, if they didn't want these candid personal shots published to the world, they would have configured their oh-so-simple privacy settings accordingly.

UPDATE: Zuckerberg has updated his wall with the following message about an hour ago:

For those wondering, I set most of my content to be open so people could see it. I set some of my content to be more private, but I didn't see a need to limit visibility of pics with my friends, family or my teddy bear :)

This is baffling, since most of the strangers who can read this wall messageabout how the CEO "didn't see a need to limit visibility of pics with my... teddy bear" now cannot see said pics, with his teddy bear.

UPDATE 2: Spokesman Schnitt tells True/Slant, "[Zuckerberg] went through the transition tool like other users, evaluated the recommendations, and ended up accepting them."

"Now girls, only the most special ladies at Facebook get this t-shirt with my face on it... remember that it is a sacred honor and if I see so much as a single wine stain on there, you're out of Zuck's Angels for good..."

"Priscilla, I swear to God, I agreed to pose for a picture and a split-second later she was somehow under my arm..."

You might call this "the Twitter shirt," accompanied by the "Twitter money" cheer.

There are thousands and thousands of reasons Brandee Barker loves being Facebook's spokeswoman.

Barry Schnitt, meanwhile, can't even afford a proper t-shirt. On the bright side, he was the only one at his brother's bachelor party in Austin, Texas with a proper cowboy hat (that's Schnitt on the far left). Maybe it was the money he saved by using those company-issued shorts.

So at least this whole privacy scandal hasn't been for naught.

As a result of it, Mark Zuckerberg has gone from sharing very little of his personal Facebook content with the public to sharing a whole lot, True/Slant's Kashmir Hill has noticed. Where the public could see just one photo of the Facebook co-founder in October, strangers now have access to a cache of 290 shots, including snaps uploaded by Zuckerberg and those uploaded by people who have tagged him in their pics.

This opening may be a result of Facebook's new default settings; or could be a result of Zuckerberg trying to reverse the PR debacle of the new privacy system by opening up the content himself; or could be a combination of both. In any case, it springs one way or another from the privacy controversy. And as dogged but often frustrated chroniclers of Zuckerberg's personal side, we're thrilled. We just knew this new system would be a boon to gossips like ourselves.

We've looked at all 290 pics of Zuckerberg, here are our favorites:

UPDATE: Here's some of subsequent coverage on this topic:
The Facebook Privacy Settings You've Lost Forever, Dec. 16
The Valleywag Guide to Restoring Your Privacy on Facebook, Dec. 15
Facebook's Great Betrayal, Dec. 14

Now on to the photos! Click to view:

With girlfriend Priscilla Chan, from her album "moments." Have you seen a sweeter thing, today? Probably not.

Aww, it's a pic Zuckerberg took of Chan from his mobile phone, around the Facebook office. He gave this the caption, "testing mobile photo uploads on [']cilla..." Hopeless romantic, that one.

And here's Zuckerberg testing his "light saber" on 'cilla, if you know what we mean, and we think you do. (We mean an actual toy light saber, for kinky role playing. Priscilla has just informed Zuckerberg that he must "do" Han Solo, while she does Leia.) Pic by Jocelyne Takatsuno.

In fairness, this is the bear that gave Zuckerberg the chutzpah to turn down Yahoo's $1.4 billion offer. Clutch it tight, Mark. From a trip to Lake Tahoe, photographed by Andrew Bosworth, a Facebook software engineer.

Zuckerberg (right circle) with his brothers in Harvard's Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity, including spurned Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin (left circle). Photo by Sam Gross

"Hmmm, so if we triple the hypothetical revenues in this spreadsheet cell, our valuation goes to....:" Photo by Aaron Sittig, Facebook Design Strategy Lead.

Ain't no party like a Facebook party 'cause a Facebook party don't stop... until that guy licks the chip bowl. Photo by Skip Bronkie

Now we're not saying Zuckerberg is necessarily wasted in this "Lake Tahoe - Opening Night" vacation picture by Facebook engineering/product manager Scott Marlette. But there are an awful lot of "Lake Tahoe - Opening Night" vacation pictures in which one might reach that conclusion, is all we're saying.

Like, for example, this one, another picture that might give the naive observer the impression that Mark Zuckerberg got hammered on this "Opening Night," at Lake Tahoe, with his staff. Also by Scott Marlette. Thanks Scott!

This one also might lead the confused and bewildered to conclude that Mark Zuckerberg got drunk in Lake Tahoe on "Opening Night," pounded the beer in front of him and taunted a co-worker. Picture yet again by Scott Marlette, de-facto Valleywag staff photographer for the greater Lake Tahoe area.

Little known fact: In 2006, when it looked like Facebook's valuation might never reach eleven figures, Zuckerberg briefly considered a career in folk music. From Kevin Colleran's "random pics from my new camera, Aug. 2006."

At sister Randi's wedding last year. Now there's the nice Jewish boy you can bring home to your mother. By Kevin Colleran.

The early days: From the kitchen table at "the first Palo Alto Facebook house." Again by Sittig. Dig the preppy, Anthony Michael Hall look.

Hey hey easy there, it's called Facebook for a reason,photographer and Facebook "Engineer / Manager / Old far" Bob Trahan. OSHA does not recommend that monitors emit this level of radiation.

"And if elected student body president, I promise to restore proper security to the high school yearbook archives... the precious, precious yearbook archives... You're not recording this as video, are you Randi?"

Facebook's 350 million+ users are being greeted by the dialog below, an "Important... Privacy Announcement" that "simplifies" and "adds" privacy controls:

But like Mark Zuckerberg's "Open Letter" last week, this is just the smiley pro-"privacy" wrapper around the real agenda, which, as Peter Kafka at All Things D wrote, is quite plainly to get you to abandon your privacy. Rival startup Twitter has taught Facebook that there's big growth in public internet sharing.

Thus — Ta Da! — these new default settings, which suggest users share their posts and information with the whole world. From Kafka (click to enlarge):

Inside Facebook's Eric Eldon got similarly liberal suggestions:

To make this scheme a bit more defensible, Facebook will now allow users to set their privacy level — i.e. to reverse the default choices — on a post-by-post basis, a feature long requested by users. Thus, Facebook will become an endless series of privacy decisions and dilemmas. It's enough to make you rush into the open arms of Twitter. Because while microblogging about your lunch might be narcissistic and pointless, it's definitely less narcissistic and pointless than deciding who should get to see the post about what you had for lunch.

Facebook: Asking you questions you don't want to have to answer about content no one cares about. Isn't social networking a joy ride?

That, we admit, is just our shameless, cynical speculation. Facebook wants people to share their content with everyone, like on rival hot-startup Twitter, but most people are content just sharing with their regional networks. So why not kill the regionals and push users to share with the world by default?

Paranoid? Maybe. But this conspiracy theory happens to fit snugly with what facts are known:

• Many users now restrict their content to regional networks like the city in which they live.
  
• Facebook recently introduced a feature allowing people to share their content even more widely, with everyone, Twitter style. But, frustratingly for Facebook, most people don't use this, as TechCrunch points out.
• When it kills the regional networks, Facebook will introduce new privacy "controls that we think will be better for you." Read: "We'll be making decisions of various sorts on your behalf."
  
• Zuckerberg encourages everyone to "read through all your [privacy] options and customize them for yourself." This implies you don't have to do that, if you're comfortable with Facebook's new privacy scheme and whatever default decisions the company has made.
  
• Even if you do customize your privacy settings, Facebook will "suggest settings for you based on your current level of privacy." Read: If you're sharing with your regional network, we'll probably suggest you share with the world.

This wouldn't be the first time Facebook ham-fistedly pushed users into oversharing; the social network is still infamous for Beacon, the spammy advertising scheme that automatically sucked up data from outside websites, ruining engagement proposals and holiday gift surprises and eventually prompting a lawsuit. Facebook finally shut the thing off in September.

Unlike Beacon, which users could not opt out of at launch, this new "privacy" scheme will immediately be customizable by users. Zuckerberg has thus avoided a major mistake this time around. What's more, his "open letter" shows a newfound appreciation for the power of PR gestures, even softball PR gestures painfully short on actual details (those will come in the "next couple of weeks," says Zuckerberg).

But, smiley-face posturing aside, users should never forget that Facebook remains, at heart, not a community but a Silicon Valley startup, always hungry for exponential growth and new revenue streams. So be sure to review those new privacy "options," and take Facebook's recommendations with a huge grain of salt.

(Pic: Zuckerberg, by Silverisdead on Flickr)

The only non internet person on Couric's list, in fact, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The other people who control the media, according to the CBS Evening News anchor, are all Web heads:

• Google's Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
  
• Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington.
  
• The founders of the women's blogging network BlogHer: Jory Des Jardins, Elisa Camahort Page and Lisa Stone. This is a big stretch but we're assuming Couric is trying to imagine the less sexist world she'd like to live in and lend some buzz to a feminist cause. Fair enough.
  
• Craig Newmark, Craigslist founder.
  
• Twitter co-founders Evan Williams and Biz Stone.
  
• Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Couric is obviously just trying to butter up people who might be able to help her ditch the old fuddy-duddies at CBS News and expand her promising sideline in lifecasting. Which is, frankly, brilliant. We know some other people who might be able to help you Katie, call us.

Oh, and the Jewish thing? Couric is no anti-Semite, but we couldn't help but notice that her list of people who supposedly control the media does contain a majority of people of Jewish descent: Brin, Page, Newmark, Zuckerberg, Genachowski and Camahort Page.

Of course, the pace of change in Silicon Valley has a way of leveling these old-world distinctions. Page's family was non-practicing; Zuckerberg has gone atheist and Camahort Page is "a total non-religious person."

[via Bay Newser via NBC Bay Area]

Johns Hopkins photographer Will Shepherdson, who shoots for the News-Letter student newspaper, sent us the above and below pics from the set of the forthcoming Facebook movie (click to enlarge). In the Aaron Sorkin-written film, co-founder and CEO Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, sports such diverse outfits as a light grey Gap hoodie and the darker, logo-less gray hoodie below, also seen in earlier pictures of the filming.

When Eisenberg has his hoodie up and on his head, we'll know that's the scene where he's breaking into the dorm to steal student data while a couple makes out on the sofa.

(Pics: Will Shepherdson/Johns Hopkins News-Letter)

Actors Jesse Eisenberg (Zuckerberg) and Andrew Garfield (Saverin), as well as director David Fincher were on the scene.

So were Twitter users Mary Spiro and Raluca Musaloiu, who stopped to take some photos.

Hm. Kind of looks like Harvard

Jesse Eisenberg (center) is playing Mark Zuckerberg

Andrew Garfield (left) plays forgotten Facebook cofounder Eduardo Saverin

Mark Zuckerberg built Facebook in fall 2004, so the fall weather is historically accurate

Actual Johns Hopkins students woke to a funny site out their dorm windows

Nice camera

Leaving the dorm…

The guy on the right is probably director David Fincher, who also made Fight Club

Where Justin Timberlake? He plays Facebook's first president, Sean Parker, who wouldn't appear in scenes taking place at Harvard

Or so we hear from a College Park tipster claiming to be familiar with the residences of Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (paper wealth: $2 billion) and YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim (estimated wealth: $64 million). Public records confirm that Karim lives in the two-by-twelve-block Palo Alto neighbohood, adjacent to Stanford University; records indicate Zuckerberg has for months occupied property nearby, albeit in the form of Facebook's new headquarters, a short walk away from Karim.

But Zuckerberg is now a neighbor in a much more real sense, according to our tipster, renting a home right next door to Karim (as in side by side) on the same street. The brief commute would be one good reason for living there. Another: It looks like a leafy, laid back area, according to the ample photographs of the street on Google Maps. Based on Karim's address this is the block they share:

Why are Zuckerberg's neighbors ratting out his address? His employees are taking up the parking, and, we're told, residents complain that the fast-growing company is not providing enough spots (they're apparently not mollified by a proposal to begin requiring residential permits in some areas). You should probably get on that, Mark; these people know where you live.

In the meantime, local residents are missing the real outrage: That, in their 'hood, even insanely wealthy startup founders live in what most American suburbanites would consider modest pads.

Citing a quote from Sorkin himself, The Playlist reports the cast includes Armie Hammer from Gossip Girl; model Dakota Johnson (who is Griffith's daughter); Max Minghella of Agora; and male model Josh Pence. This goes beyond lead actors Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Timberlake and Andrew Garfield, who were already confirmed.

A quick look at the cast members, with some thoughts on who some of the new people might be portraying (all pics by Getty Images unless otherwise credited):

UPDATE: We've updated the entires for Hammer, Song and Pence. UPDATE: And Mara.

esse Eisenberg plays founder Mark Zuckerberg. He's got the curly hair and geeky look down well enough.

Justin Timberlake plays early Facebook adviser and Napster co-founder Sean Parker. (Insert Parker photo by Andrew Mager on Flickr.)

Andrew Garfield plays spurned co-founder Eduardo Saverin.

Brenda Song, of the Disney Channel, would appear to be a shoo-in to play Zuckerberg's girlfriend Priscilla Chan. UPDATE: One tipster tells us Chan does not appear in the script but that Saverin is supposed to have an Asian girlfriend, so perhaps Song is taking on that role.

Whomever model Josh Pence is playing, he's definitely not part of the Silicon Valley tech scene. How about the Winklevoss twins, two Olympic rowers from Harvard who accused Zuckerberg of stealing their idea for Facebook? UPDATE: That part is being played by Armie Hammer (see here). Perhaps Pence could be another Harvard kid?That would seem to work. Pic via Nous Model Management.

Dakota Johnson looks like the kind of girl you'd hope to meet during a night on the town in San Francisco. And Zuckerberg did escort that Victoria's Secret model away from a party there — at least according to author Ben Mezrich.

<pRooney Mara (The Winning Season) looks so downright nice. Zuckerberg's geek girl friend at Harvard, maybe? UPDATE: A tipster suggested Zuckerberg's sister Randi. Good call.Send us your guess.

Max Minghella — no idea who he might play. Thoughts?

Armie Hammer from Gossip Girl. UPDATE: He is playing the Winklevoss twins, Olympic rowers who sued Zuckerberg for stealing their idea for Facebook, according to a tweet from director Richard Kelly. Pic via

Also, people who are guiding companies should run those companies, which they are guiding. Or at least that's how Zuckerberg phrased his philosophy in a sit down with Business Insider's Henry Blodget. There's an exceprt of the interview above, or you can watch the whole segmented unedited here, in case you think we're taking poor Zuck out of context; other questions are here.

Given Zuckerberg's obvious PR skills, it's a wonder he doesn't do more of these little chats with journalists. Maybe then people wouldn't be so ready to dismiss his effectiveness as a leader.

Back in March, Zuckerberg dropped off Forbes' billionaire's list, presumably because the magazine cut its estimate of Facebook's valuation. In the interim, an Russian investment firms whose major backers include a scary Russian oligarch decided to invest in the social network. Suddenly, Zuckerberg is said to be worth even more. It's almost as tough his paper wealth, and that of his company, is subject to endless whimsical re-evaluations largely divorced from reality.

Jesse Eisberg kinda works as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, we guess. But how about Michael Cera, instead? With some hair-curling he'd have the look down, and he could have used the role to break free from the "twee teenaged dork" typecast and into the much more interesting "Asperger-level-antisocial teenaged computer nerd" role.

That's Andrew Garfield, of Boy A, as spurned co-founder Eduardo Saverin.

Got a better casting idea? Post it in the comments.

From left to right are Facebook's Vaughn Smith, FriendFeed co-founder Jim Norris, FriendFeed co-founder Paul Buchheit and FriendFeed co-founder Bret Taylor. But the winner is clearly the guy on the far right, Mark Zuckerberg: if the Facebook CEO was the one dropping $50 million in this situation, that only made him more entitled, under Silicon Valley social mores, to dressing in shorts without socks. Let's just hope he never uploads pictures of a multi-billion-dollar transaction; it's a good bet a Speedo would be involved.

For comparative purposes, this is what a merger looks like in New York, with an old media company involved:

UPDATE: When Patricia Handschiegel sold StyleDiary in 2007, she snapped a decidedly unglamorous picture of herself at the end of the closing, when the fashionista found herself clad in a t-shirt, her hair pulled back. "This shit makes you humble," she told us at the time. Indeed!

(Top pic by FriendFeed co-founder Paul Buchheit; bottom pic by Getty Images)

After leaving Microsoft, Myhrvold went into the patent business. His Intellectual Ventures works like this: Buy up patents, then use them to bludgeon large tech companies into forking over fees or making investments in Intellectual Ventures.

In the course of his short career, Zuckerberg, as a tipster reminded us, has accumulated a nice array of patents. They're related, as you might guess, to social networking and digital media. Could he use them against his rivals via Myhrvold, raising some money for Facebook in the process?

Given the interlocking web of interests a young Silicon Valley company like Facebook must weigh, the answer is likely to sound familiar to any user of the social network: It's complicated.

As the co-founder of Napster, Parker (pictured) was overshadowed by Sean Fanning, who actually wrote the wildly-popular music-sharing software. Sorkin reportedly brings Parker to the fore, giving him credit for lighting a fire under Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and accelerating the company's growth.

ScriptShadow's Carson Reeves:

And don't get me started on Sean Parker - a character that can become

iconic if the film is made. The brash techy rock star revels in his own

ego, and is a key player in why Facebook is on our computers today

(Parker ended up selling his portion of the company for - I believe - a

couple hundred million dollars).

Zuckerberg, meanwhile, looks comparatively pathetic. In what Reeves calls a "heartbreaking scene," he sits alone ("not one true friend") in a dark room and "friends" the girl who dumped him right before he started Facebook. The movie nevertheless bops along as something of a comedy, thanks to Sorkin's "crazy unknown voodoo screenwriting tricks" and, apparently, jokes involving Facebook use.

Zuckerberg, whose flacks have been trashing the unreleased book on which Sorkin's script is based, may yet discover there are worse things than being depicted having sex in bathroom stalls.

(Pic: Sean Parker, by Andrew Mager)

Far be it from money-and-technology-obsessed Silicon Valley types to fixate on the fleshy trappings of wealth; they want to know the nitty-gritty details of how a market-leading social network was born. And indeed, both Boston magazine and the New York Times, which obtained galleys of the book, note that Accidental Billionaires doesn't tell the reader much about how the site was actually assembled; instead, lustier details — well, purported details — win out.

Luke O'Brien recapped one scene for Boston:

Zuckerberg himself remains distant, a robot in a fleece. How strange, then, to see this cipher getting freaky with a coed in a bathroom. Rendering Zuckerberg and [co-founder Eduardo] Saverin as campus studs, Mezrich shows them turning out groupies in adjacent stalls.

Zuckerberg is also shown being picked up by a Victoria Secret model at a party in San Francisco (a change from the book proposal we obtained last year, which had co-founder Eduardo Saverin with the model). The pair leave together. As both the Boston and the Times note, the scene is hard to swallow; Facebook had launched just months prior. Dweeby Zuckerberg already had groupies? O'Brien, who has himself dug into Facebook's past, wrote that Zuckerberg has "been dating the same girl since the site's early days" and that there's no evidence Facebook was created so Zuckerberg could score with women.

Even Mezrich doesn't sound too confident in the hook-up scenes. From Boston:

"I just told the story that I was told by multiple sources," Mezrich explains now. "More power to Mark if that's what really happened. ...I have a feeling that Mark Zuckerberg right now could date anybody he wants to. ...Mark has done some amazing things, and if having sex with a Victoria's Secret model is one of the things that he doesn't like to read about himself, I would be surprised."

In other words, Zuckerberg should accept the tales because they're flattering. That was the stance the subjects of Mazerich's Burning Down the House seemed to take when it emerged much of that book — also turned into a movie — was fabricated. But, unlike those obscure college card sharks, Zuckerberg's ambitions extend far beyond silver screen notoriety, and the Facebook CEO is more likely to make a fuss. Indeed, his flacks have already declared that Mezrich's unreleased book sounds inaccurate. Somehow we doubt they'll leave it at that.

[Boston, Times]

We hear the New York Times' Brad Stone has been calling around frantically, trying to get hold of a galley himself and spoil Fortune's exclusive. And he may well succeed; the writer outed the author of the anonymous Fake Steve Jobs blog last year with help from his sources in the publishing industry. Mezrich's book is due out July 14.

The media scramble for galleys of Accidental Billionaires just goes to show Facebook remains something of an "it" company in Silicon Valley, even as it grows out of its startup phase and gropes for revenue.

It also proves that respected media outlets have no trouble taking seriously a project created by a busted, fabricating author and adapted for film by would-be crack smuggler, about a money-losing company.

Nor do we, obviously. We'd love to get our hands on said galleys, if only to fact-check them the way we did with Mezrich's comical book proposal. If you can help, please get in touch.