The real news is horrible enough without the added layer of internet deception. During what police described as a domestic dispute with his wife fiancée, Henry tried to jump into the bed of a pickup truck in which his wife was driving away. He fell and was later found lying on the road and rushed to the hospital. He died at 6:36 am ET this morning.

But Henry was reported dead approximately 12 hours earlier on Twitter. Real and fake deaths were bound to bump up against one another on the microblogging service sooner or later, by sheer chance. Twitter supplies a steady stream of misinformation, including most prominently the prematurely reported death of actor Patrick Swayze, outrage over an Amazon gay book ban that never existed, and the false news that California courts had overturned a gay marriage ban.

The Henry death scam was, as these things go, relatively sophisticated, perpetrated by a scammer who went to the trouble of changing his screen name to "Gerry," calling himself a "Sports Reporter for Dallas Morning News," and attaching a picture of real-life Morning News columnist Gerry Fraley, plus a link to Fraley's page on the newspaper's website. With Cincinnati Bengals receiver Henry known to be in the hospital following a car accident, it would be easier to pass off fake news:

These reports were flatly denied by one of the supposed "sources," and the fakester was even outed by the real Gerry Fraley as fake. An enraged Twitter turned ferociously against the scammer (except for a few people who later insisted he'd been proven his correct, despite the 12 hour gap between his false tweets and the actual death):

The Dallas Morning News must be thrilled with all the people who still think the scammer worked for the paper. Welcome to microblogging, printies!

1. Hide group and page memberships

Facebook changed its formal Privacy Policy to say that "pages you are a fan of... and networks" are now totally public information (along with many other things). There's apparently no setting to shield page and network data, which leads to terrible situation like this one, sent in as a reader plea:

All of a sudden my grandmother can see that I belong to the Queer Graduate Student Union and Open Relationships Networking Group. Please help. I can't bring myself to de-friend my grandmother!

UPDATE Dec. 17: We're not sure if this is new, but this can now be changed by going, confusingly, to "Application Settings." Go to the "Settings" menu at the top right of your profile page, then select "Application Settings," then scroll down to "Groups" and select "Edit settings." Set to "Only me" (click to enlarge):

Thanks to the tipster who walked us through this. Sadly, even as one privacy mystery was resolved, we were made aware of another. See below.

2. Block Facebook activity from appearing on your wall

There used to be a setting that allowed users to prevent Facebook activity from automatically showing up on their Facebook wall, thus blocking updates like "John commented on Jane's picture," "John is now friends with Bob," "John is attending Uber Gay Circuit Party 2010," etc. This setting is apparently gone, and you have to remove such notices one at a time.

Writes one tipster:

It is extremely annoying not to mention a complete tell of how often I use Facebook during work hours:)

3. Prevent strangers from friending you

It used to be you could keep non-friends from sending you a Facebook friend requests, although they could confirm. That's not the most, well, social way to use a social network, but judging from our email, it was a frequently used and valued feature. Wrote one Gawker regular:

Before the changes I wasn't searchable on FB and hence friended only those I wanted to friend, in essence, I would initiate the request. But... I am now getting friend requests from people I don't know, or worse, from people I know but I don't want to befriend on FB...

Facebook now makes you offer the "Add friend" option to all friends of friends — you can't restrict any tighter than that, so strangers can still send you friend requests. Screenshot (click to enlarge):

4. Completely hide friends list

Your friends list, too, is considered public information. Though you can remove it from your profile, you can't keep friends of friends from seeing it. They just have to pull up one of your friends' friend list, click you name, and view your friends list.

Writes one reader: "Many of us are concerned, seeing as how there are thousands of people faced with the threat of stalkers." Another, right on cue:

I have been dealing with a deranged, threatening stalker... There is no way of keeping your Friend list private... I have been obsessively reading about this topic [overall Facebook privacy]... To say I'm outraged is an understatement.

We thought Facebook might be improving this, but we continue to receive emails like these, and Facebooks written Privacy Policy still states that friends lists are now public information.

5. Block Wall announcements that you've been tagged in a photo

You can keep photos of yourself out of the "Photos" tab on your profile, even if they've been uploaded by other people. But it seems you can't block from your Wall announcements that you've been tagged in someone else's photo , which sort of defeats the purpose: It leaves your profile as a very convenient central location for any incriminating pictures of yourself.

You can remove each notification manually, but that becomes a game of whack-a-mole.

Wrote one Facebooker:

I've already blocked everyone from viewing photos that I'm tagged in, but I'd prefer that my friends not even see that I've been tagged in the small preview photo that gets posted to my wall every time someone tags me.

UPDATE: According to a helpful tipster, this can be disabled by going to the Settings menu at the top right of your Facebook home page, then to "Application Settings," then the "Photos" application, then click "Edit settings." Then click the "Additional Permissions tab," and there is an option to "Publish to streams." Uncheck this. Like so (click to enlarge):

UPDATE: 6. Profile photo

While it's possible to restrict your profile photo album, your main profile photo is one of the pieces of personal data that was forcibly made public by Facebook when it updated its formal Privacy Policy. The best you can do is upload a fake pic, or remove your profile photo entirely; there's no way to have a profile photo that only your friends see.

And more, we're sure

We'd love to be wrong about any of these privacy rollbacks, so if you know of settings or workarounds we've overlooked, do email us at tips@gawker.com. Conversely, if we've left out a lost privacy option you feel strongly about, let us know about that, too.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (pictured) originally said his social network's privacy changes were intended simplify and enhance the privacy experience on the site. Judging from our inbox, it would seem he's achieved neither.

Past coverage:
The Valleywag Guide to Restoring Your Privacy on Facebook, Dec. 15
Facebook's Great Betrayal, Dec. 14
Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook, Dec. 11

The investment firm, Russia's Digital Sky Technologies, led a broader group of investors in putting money into San Francisco-based Zynga, according to the New York Times. It's DST's second Silicon Valley conquest, following two investments in Facebook earlier this year that totaled $300 million and that allowed the social network to cash out employee equity.

Usmanov (pictured), who reportedly owns 32 percent of DST, comes with the sort of unsavory press clippings worthy of a long-survivng oligarch in anarchic, organized-crime-ridden Russia: He's been accused by a former British ambassador of being a "gangster and racketeer" and of close ties to mafia drug trafficking and, as we've reported previously, controversially tried to censor bloggers who linked to news of the accusations.

Then there was this, last year: After Usmanov bought a chunk of mobile phone operator Megafon through a holding company and from a fund called IPOC, a former Megafon shareholder said he had been physically coerced into selling his Megafon holdings to IPOC; he later disappeared from his bloodstained vacation home in Latvia.

Zynga is used to dealing in the dark fringes of the markets; it made loads of ad revenue off scammers who deceptively sold "learning CD" and SMS subscriptions to gamers trying to earn virtual currency and now faces a class action lawsuit. Now, despite all the company's talk about reforming its way back into the light, it is, in a way, going deeper into the shadows. Zynga CEO Mark Pincus once bragged about "doing every horrible thing just to get revenues right away." Let's hope, for his sake, he's not making such a recklessly calculated move now.

Ideally, we'd all be allowed to just accept Facebook's recommended settings. But the social network is defaulting most people to share their private content widely with strangers, in an obvious bid to grow traffic and to compete more directly with Twitter. Then there's the content the company is trying to take from you and make entirely public.

And, to borrow a phrase, what can't be attributed to Facebook's greed can be chalked up to ineptitude. Highly complex privacy schemes are bound to fail, as others have written, because most users don't have the patience to sit and learn intricate details of various options. That would seemingly include Facebook co-founder Zuckerberg, who initially accepted the default options, according to published reports. But he soon altered these defaults to make them more private, hiding his photos from friends of friends.

And now it's emerged in True/Slant that the CEO has also roped off his friends list and events calendar from strangers he has no friends in common with. (At least, he's removed them from his profile page; Facebook's official Privacy Policy still states that all friends lists are irrevocably public, and it's not clear whether that's been changed.)

If the CEO of Facebook is changing his default privacy settings, shouldn't you? Here are some things you can do (click any image to enlarge):

Hide your photos (as much as possible).

Most people don't seem to realize their old profile photos and albums are available to strangers The profile photos usually default to being shared widely, e.g. to "Everyone," while the photo albums are often only slightly more restricted, e.g. "Friends of Friends."

You can't hide your current profile photos, but you can hide the others that you've uploaded. (UPDATE 1: The wording of this part was updated to make it clear that you can't ever hide your main profile pic. So do, like, a picture of your cat or something. Or a building!)

From your Facebook home page, go to the Settings menu in the upper right corner, and select "Privacy Settings." Then select "Profile Information." Then scroll down to Photo Albums and click "Edit Settings"...

...and adjust to the level of privacy you are comfortable with ("Only Friends" was probably your setup before):

Hide other people's photos of you (partly)

If someone "tags" one of their Facebook photos with your profile, it can show up on your profile. If you don't want strangers (including "Friends of friends") to get to conveniently peruse these often candid shots from your profile, go to Settings/Privacy Settings, then "Profile Information" and adjust "Photos and Videos of me." We'd recommend "Only friends:"

UPDATE 1: To clarify, you can never remove pictures in which you are tagged from other people's accounts, as we implied before. But by removing them from your profile, you make it a lot harder for strangers to find pictures of you that you might not want them to see.

Hide your birthday

It's insane that Facebook recommended that many people share their birthday with "Friends of friends" in its defaults for the new "privacy" scheme. This personal information can be used by financial fraudsters to help impersonate you to your bank, credit card company, email provider and others. We'd recommend showing it to as few people as possible. Or, even better, set it to a false date.

Under Settings/Privacy Settings/Profile Information:

Hide your posts

Facebook is defaulting people to share their posts with "friends of friends," i.e. strangers. You may want to revert this to share only with your friends. Under Settings/Privacy Settings/Profile Information:

Remove your friends list from your profile page

Facebook has updated its privacy policy to say that you can never permanently hide your friends list, and last week it was impossible to hide the list from friends of friends (see Felix Salmon's second update here). This might be changing; on Monday, we couldn't find a way to view the friends list of certain "friends of friends."

In any case, it's definitely possible to make your friends list harder for strangers to view, by removing it from your profile. Go to your Facebook home page, then click on "Profile" in the top right corner to view your profile.

Then scroll down to the section of the profile that shows your friends (titled "Friends"), and click the pencil symbol in the upper left corner. This will reveal a checkbox to hide your friend list from some strangers, at least on your profile page:

UPDATE: We're getting "corrections" on this telling us exactly what we already said above, so we'll repeat it in bold: this does not completely shield your friends list. Friends of friends can reportedly still see it, for example, and as we said above Facebook considers it public information.

Hide your profile from search engines

Facebook is touchy about this one, because it's always displayed some data for search engines, by default, and suddenly people are noticing. That's why when you go to change your settings under Settings/Privacy Settings/Search, Facebook now pops up this ultra-defensive dialog:

What Facebook doesn't tell you is that it now offers a link to "View Such and Such's Friends" from the public, search-engine-indexable profile page. At least, that's what ours does. At the very least, you should look at your search engine page using the preview link under "Public Search Results" and see if you want to continue to make it available:

Hide your info from friends' apps (UPDATE 1)

This is a big one we missed the first time around — by default, your friends can share huge amounts of your personal information with applications they authorize, like quizzes and games. It would be a good idea to restrict this even if Facebook weren't sloppy about policing its apps and partners; as things stand, we'd recommend unsharing most if not all types of data from your friends' apps. (Thanks to the commenter and tipsters who sent this in.)

Go to Settings/Privacy Settings, then "Applications and Websites," then "What your friends can share about you - Edit Settings:"

Did we forget or mis-state something?

Email us and let us know; tips@gakwer.com.

UPDATE: Our other coverage of this topic:

The Facebook Privacy Settings You've Lost Forever, Dec. 16
Facebook's Great Betrayal, Dec. 14
Facebook CEO's Private Photos Exposed by the New 'Open' Facebook, Dec. 11

(Top pic: Zuckerberg, via Getty Images.)

The Google vice president's three-day wedding was anchored at the San Francisco Four Seasons, where she lives, and involved command performances by the rock band The Killers and renowned chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten, as we reported yesterday. Vogue, eagerly fed event details by fashion-obsessed Mayer, adds the detail that the actual ceremony took place on Treasure Island in the San Francisco Bay, and was followed by a custom fireworks display.

Vongerichten prepared lobster and beef tenderloin, Vogue adds, followed by cake from New York baker Ron Ben-Israel, making the wedding feast something of a shut out for all those Michelin-starred local chefs. As for the clothes:

• Wedding dress by Naeem Khan, who did Michelle Obama's first state dinner dress and has outfitted Jennifer Lopez and Beyoncé for events. Vogue said the dress included "a bodice crocheted and embroidered in snowflake lace" and was paired with "a floor-length bridal coat."
  
• Veil by Carolina Herrera.
  
• Shoes: Mary Jane by Stuart Wietzman "with a blue crystal design on the instep."
  
• Groom Zach Bogue wore a Broni tux and a "somewhat funky" shirt from Etro.
  
• Bridesmaids were in jewel-tone dresses from Reem Acra.'
  
• Mayer's ivory "going-away number" was based on something Jackie Kennedy wore when touring India.

So just your typical three-day wedding with fireworks, The Killers, Jean-George catering and a spread in Vogue. The pictures, we'd wager, will be forthcoming in Vogue's print edition. But someone must have some casual snaps in the meantime, not to mention more information about that singing toast from Google exec Craig Silverstein. Data to ryan@valleywag.com.

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)

Take Angelina Jolie, for example: Did you know the sought-after actress has just 27 Facebook friends, and they're almost all A-listers? Talk about a meticulously curated list:

Then there are the surprising affiliations. Will Smith, for example, is a member of the Facebook page "Jesus Daily," which posts bible quotes from Jesus each morning, even though the actor has made repeated donations to groups affiliated with the Church of Scientology; echoes the cult's "spiritual physics" rhetoric; has set up a middle school staffed with Scientologists; and has said Scientology is filled "brilliant and revolutionary" ideas. Smith was raised Baptist and has insisted he takes ideas from multiple religions. A look at his page (click to enlarge):

And you can send direct Facebook messages to a surprising number of celebrities, right from the "Send message" command in the upper left corner of their profiles, though it's not clear to what extent, if any, this has been affected by the new privacy framework, since some celebrities, like Tobey Maguire, still have messaging turned off. Some who have it enabled:

• Angelina Jolie
• Brad Pitt (aka Bradpitt Bp, via Angelina's profile)
  
• Orlando Bloom
  
• Tom Hanks
• Robert DeNiro
  
• Sean Connery
  
• Julia Roberts

More, we're sure, to come.

(Top pic: Jolie, giving an interview to NBC's Matt Lauer in 2008, via INF)

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?"

That's because the social network has codified this new state of affairs right there into its written "Privacy Policy." A comparison of the new and old policies reveals this addition:

Certain categories of information such as your name, profile photo, list of friends and pages you are a fan of, gender, geographic region, and networks you belong to are considered publicly available to everyone, including Facebook-enhanced applications, and therefore do not have privacy settings. You can, however, limit the ability of others to find this information through search using your search privacy settings.

Facebook users have just begun to realize this is happening. Reuters' aggressive financial columnist Felix Salmon took note of this exciting new "privacy" feature when his critics on an investor website published a list of his Facebook friends, presumably for hate-mailing. Former Gawker editor Doree Shafrir blogged this morning about how her once-hidden friends, network and fan-page subscriptions have suddenly been published.

I've now set my privacy settings so that only friends can search me [and find out you're a fan of Howard Kurtz! Oy! -Ed.]…which seems sort of counterproductive to the whole enterprise, doesn't it?

Indeed it does, and it's scant protection: Shafrir's friends are still listed to strangers on her profile page, if you can find it. There's a way to turn this off, too, according to Salmon (see update to his column), but anyone who shares a friend with you will still be able to see all your friends (I'm looking at Salmon's now, and we're not friends).

Really, as gossip bloggers, we at Gawker should be happy about all this; it certainly makes it easier to hunt down people willing to confirm gossip about their acquaintances. And it's satisfying to have our conspiracy theories confirmed — and quoted by civil libertarians at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who, along with the ACLU, have raised serious objections these "privacy" changes.

But there's something maddening about watching Facebook bumble its way into another privacy debacle, one approaching in its disastrousness the launch of the Beacon advertising/stalking system a few years back. If only Facebook's investors agreed. But then they're not exactly a pack of civil liberties advocates, now are they?

(Top pic: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, by Simon Doggett)

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?

We're seeking out the laziest journalists on Twitter. And, yes — irony alert! — we're open to your help. But in the meantime, we've compiled a shortlist of candidates.

Well, actually, no, we didn't so much compile it ourselves as receive it basically whole, over email, from a friendly, fed-up journalist. But we did helpfully copy and paste said tipster's examples, for your benefit, below. This is what it is called the process journalism. Anyway. On to the lazies!

Doug MacMillan (@dmac1), BusinessWeek. Tipster: "When not pimping out his recent BW 'OMG have you seen the iPhone?!' cover story from a few weeks ago, [MacMillan] has taken the time to master the 140-character source request." As you can see below, that's true, although in fairness MacMillan sometimes issues requests on behalf of other lazy reporters. A sampling of his "work:"

Priya Ganapati, Wired (@pgcat): Were the Palm Pre support forums and blogs too hard to navigate, or something?

Jessi Hempel, Fortune (@jessiwrites): Too lazy even to finish typing her full, lazy request.

Jessica Vascellaro, Wall Street Journal (@JVascellaro): At least this is for a conference thing instead of her real job.

Julia Allison, TMI Weekly (@juliaallison): Can't even come up with her own questions. (Not a journalist, you say? Newsweek begs to disagree.)

Associated Press "Climate Pool" (@AP_ClimatePool): What's? With? All? The? Questions? We'll tell you about the climate: The climate is uncertain. If you can figure out how you feel about that, maybe you can contribute to the AP's "collaborative editorial."

Gawker (@gawker): Our tipster didn't point this one out, but you've probably noticed that we, too, try to crowdsource a lot of reporting, and even speculation. Lazy! But at least our headlines are more fun?

Being lazy, we're so done surfing painstakingly around Twitter, looking for further lazy journalists. If you've been doing that, and have come up with some other names, do let us know.

(Top pic by Tony Delgrosso. What, you thought we were going to take it?)

Mayers' three-day nuptials at the San Francisco Four Seasons, where she lives, were announced via an elborate invitation, a heavy red box covered in a velvety material, as we've reported previously. That sounded about right for the fashion-conscious overachiever.

The Google VP's obsessiveness apparently extends to security, as well: The invitations indicate guests are to keep some sort of ID card on them at all times during the weekend, we're now told.

And said guests aren't sure what this means: Are these "smart" cards implanted with radio "RFID" tags? If so, guests could theoretically be tracked across a 135-foot radius with a stationary receiver. Or maybe they'll be simple credit-card-style tokens with a magnetic stripe, swiped on demand. Or maybe former cheerleader Mayer has something more festive and creative in mind. If you've got a clue, do share it with us.

Requiring that guests basically wear a tracking tag will certainly further the image of Google as Big Brother. The search giant tracks a staggering amount of personal data, and company executives have lately been clumsy in answering mounting media questions about the info-hoard. Then again, some of Mayers' guests will be fellow Google executives; perhaps having a taste of their own medicine will have a moderating effect on the data Google collects.

Speaking of which: Though Mayer is employee number 20 at Google and has great power within the company, it's not at all clear that co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin will be in attendance at her wedding. Mayer was not invited to Page's private-island wedding to Lucy Southworth, a source close to the event tells us, so she could hardly be expected to invite Page to her bash.

In any case, a tracking scheme will certainly help Mayer keep out the likes of Valleywag as her wedding party makes its way around the Four Seasons, even as it reinforces her rep as something of a data-hungry cyborg. No worries Marissa; we'll try not to take it out on your gift.

(Pic: Mayer, by Esther Dyson)

The local reviews portal uploaded a cache of party pics to Flickr, a trove duly uncovered by Nicholas Carlson over at Silicon Alley Insider. It comes complete with the requisite provocatively posed women, mostly-naked men and naughty company icon (Santa). Those are the sort of party props that have become Yelp's PR calling card, lending the company a "let the good times roll" vibe that helps keep unpaid contributors supplying the company with free content.

In fact, this particular gathering, trampy as it may have been, looks reasonably tame compared to the debaucheries of years past; our last picture in the gallery below is a compilation distilling the positively fleshy feel of parties past (also documented here, here, here, here, here and here.)

UPDATE: It should be noted that this particular party was in San Diego; San Francisco-based Yelp will no doubt throw something similar in the Bay Area if it hasn't already (we hear it hasn't, yet, this year).

"That would be a lump of coal you're feeling, young lady, for your, uh, untoward extreme naughtiness. You're a very, uh, baaad girl."

Don't you wish you'd had the chance to sign this little angel, too??

Girl on far left rocking about 8x harder than everyone else in the picture.

"I can't speak for Mr. Leprechaun here, but I'm totally looking you in the eyes, lady."

Yelp photographers can literally smell the female tongue leaving the mouth.

"So many bad girls at this party, so little time to admonish them..."

Come, now, sir, you can do several buttons better than this. Several flies, even.

Ooops, we did it again, and, what do you know, at another Yelp party.

Santa presumably has his own private collection of these "girls on my lap" shots.

Everyone looks equally buzzed/sober. Nice pacing!

History teaches us what a truly wild Yelp party looks like.

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)

Columnist Elizabeth Bernstein says technology is to blame for an alarming surge in sweet, refreshing revenge, since the internet makes vengeance way too easy. That it does, in part because it contains Elizabeth Bernstein's article. Here are some neat tricks she uncovered:

• Dumped by a boyfriend? Try anonymously emailing dozens of his new girlfriend's MySpace buddies, claiming she's a tramp and a home-wrecker. This might happen: "Family members called her and questioned her morals. Co-workers whispered about her behind her back. Several friends cut her off completely."
  
• Cheating husband? Just delete his Facebook privacy settings, and set his status to, "Moving back to my mom's because my wife caught me cheating with a woman from work." Answer his friends questions, as him, and then have "him" disparage his own physical attributes. He might even come crawling back and later tell the Wall Street Journal he's totally OK with what you did.
  
• Get a tacky email from the ex? Post it to your blog, with some snark. Warning: Mild future guilt a definite possibility.
  
• Just straight-out hate some lady? You can always spam Google with tons of pages about how she's a kidnapping child-abusing con artist. You just have to be ready to pay the $11 million-ish court-ordered restitution.

Of course, you might get in big trouble for doing one or more of these things. In that case, just ring up one of the psychologists quoted by Bernstein, who can back up your claim of suffering from "online disinhibition effect." That's a fancier name for what used to be called the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

(Top lolcat via)

Oh, right, like half the population. Here's right-wing panic site World Net Daily's aghast summary of the game, via Wonkette:

The elf reveals he specializes in assassination, and the other character replies, "I bet you're good at a lot of things."


The elf responds, "Mmmm, that's quite an offer, especially coming from another man – if we are both speaking of the same thing."


If the player selects the response, "I suspect we are," the elf agrees to have homosexual sex with the character.

WND then quotes selectively from gay blogs ("Gay geeks rejoice, all your gaming fantasies have come true") and YouTube comments ("We're a bisexual nation living in denial") and provides a list of retailers (like Wal Mart!) presumably for boycotting. Because, you know, if there's one way to make gay sex look hot and appealing, it's by showcasing it with stilted dialog, jerky body movements and elf ears, in a role playing videogame like Dragon Age. Hottt.

And by "Google Phone" we don't simply mean another Android handset. We're talking about Google-branded hardware running a version of Android we haven't yet seen.

Over the next few weeks, Google Phones (most probably in early, prototype form) will flood the Mountain View campus. They'll don large LCDs while running a new version of Android—either Flan or the version of Android beyond it—which our source spotted running on Google's handset as well as a laptop. (Whatever the software was, it most certainly wasn't Chrome OS, we were assured.)

But maybe the most intriguing bit is what someone said to our source offhandedly, that the current Android, the we all know and love, is not the "real" Android. So what makes for a "real" version of Android?

Our best guess is an Android OS with Google Voice at its heart.

The most popular story on WSJ.com today has been their semi-exclusive about Joe Lieberman saying he's never going to vote for a health care bill with the public option. If you heard about Lieberman making news on health care today and went to Google "lieberman public option," you'd get these results. The shaded red boxes are the News Corp. properties: WSJ.com and Foxnews.com. Those would disappear, but there would be no shortage of results showing you what Lieberman told the WSJ in the top results.

But let's say you were really motivated to find the specific Wall Street Journal story about Joe Lieberman derailing health care and you searched "lieberman public option" and "wall street journal." That would currently bring up the story in question, as well as the Fox News result and an old WSJ blog post. But it would also bring up plenty of other sites that can tell you what was in the WSJ story. Those all likely will also provide a link to the WSJ story, but if they put up the pay wall Murdoch has promised, why would you bother to click through?

Lastly, here's a search for "lieberman public option" and "wall street journal," but with results from WSJ.com and FoxNews.com filtered out—in other words, what Google would return if they weren't allowed to index News Corp. pages.

All but the top two results — irrelevant HuffPo stories — show you exactly what Lieberman said in the Wall Street Journal. And would conceivably show you a link to the WSJ. So, no big loss.

So, like, you might assume that interviewer Hank Plante would ask about this mysterious absense from all his official events, and his unannounced, Mark Sanford-style trip to Hawaii. But Newsom just wants to grin and laugh the soulless laugh of a cornered Scientologist, and talk about the budget deficit. It is a terrible, terrible interview, with the rictus smile and the mirthless laughter. And it ends with Newsom removing his mic and bitching, off the record, about how mean it is of journalists to ask what the hell is up with him.

And then the Wall Street Journal reported that Newsom was going to quit politics and go back to his winery. Newsom called the reporter to deny it, but there's no way in hell this guy's remaining in office until 2012.

Courtenay Semel, for those who are not familiar with her heiress-level fameballing, is not a shy and retiring person. A person does not make out with her attention-craving girlfriend Tila Tequila on red carpets because she mistrusts the media; a person does not scream at a club bouncer to "just fucking Google me, you dumb fuck" because she mistrusts the media; and a person certainly does not "joke" to a magazine reporter that "I'm kind of like the Don Juan of the lesbian world," as Semel did with Curve, because she mistrusts the media.

So it's odd that Semel would tell Curve that the "media kind of ruined that relationship" she had with Lindsay Lohan by saying the pair were dating. Semel added: "I can't even have a best friend because I guess I'm going to be linked with them next." But maybe she also can't have friends because she gives underminey quotes about them, like this one, from the new interview:

I think, you know, everyone scrutinizes, Lindsay for everything she went through, but they should thank her, because it shows you exactly what not to do.

That's a fairly cutting quote considering that Lohan has yet to enter rehab per Semel's urging. Of course, when Semel only went to rehab herself after her dad cut off access to the trust fund, something she left out of her little zinger. Semel, it would seem, grasps the advantages of strategic oversharing as well as the rest of her internet-bred generation; if only daddy Terry had been so savvy, Yahoo might be in a better place today.

[via People]

(Semel with heiress Casey Johnson this past May, top, via INF; Semel-Tequila pic, lower, via x17online.com)