[via Fimoculous]

Some later episodes lack conflict, but that doesn't stop them from being cute, and this short form can support a couple episodes of light joking. The same spirit of casual and mature portrayal of sex as a normal part of a relationship, even a backdrop for conversation, keeps the story fresh.

Season 3, which is a co-production of IFC and Nerve, premiered Tuesday; a new episode goes up for the next ten days. Watch the whole series here.

"Some Internet experts believe the next generation of the Web — Web 3.0 — will make tasks like your search for movies and food faster and easier. Instead of multiple searches, you might type a complex sentence or two in your Web 3.0 browser, and the Web will do the rest. In our example, you could type "I want to see a funny movie and then eat at a good Mexican restaurant. What are my options?" The Web 3.0 browser will analyze your response, search the Internet for all possible answers, and then organize the results for you." [HowStuffWorks]

Emily continues:

Nick figured that I was just another dumb shit/ yacht-hopping "heiress" and that the only retaliation he would get would be from Steven Brill- best of all, that this was going to 'up' his status and maybe even land him a good table at Michael's.

What sets Emily apart, of course, is not merely the distinguished name, but the coupling of that name with her profound and impressive cluelessness. In college, I had a seminar with Emily while she was a visiting student at Columbia. Her incessant references to prep school and befuddlement about how to get to the center of the Brooklyn Bridge ("Where should I tell the cab driver to stop?") intrigued me, and I had no idea who her father was. I found her website from the pre-Essentially Emily days, where she had posted a picture of herself in her Hanukkah jammies getting a brand new Lexus, complete with a large red bow, just like the ads.

(Her specialness aside from the name may be why no one bothers her brother Sam.)

But all the ridicule of the internet has not deterred Emily. As she says, "I developed a 'now or never' mindset (which I do not regret to this day)." This day is now, right? Because if it were never, that wouldn't make sense at all.

And what exactly is Emily doing now? Her dad wants to know: "He keeps telling me to 'Get a J-O-B.' got one dad."

Apparently getting mocked on Gawker is now a profession. Consider this post your spring bonus.

Blasberg, who was once implicated in conspiracy theories over who's really pulling New York's socialite strings, has appeared in a couple of pictures palling around with the younger Bush—including one of them sitting next to each other at a New York Rangers game:

So what conclusions can we draw from this weighty evidence?

1. Derek Blasberg likes hockey.
2. Barbara Bush likes hockey, or at least likes attending hockey games in the company of Derek Blasberg.
3. As well as doing some other stuff about town with Derek Blasberg.
4. Hockey may or may not become a standard event for the socialites of New York to attend.
5. Blasberg and Bush have not been photographed together at a Knicks game.
6. The Knicks suck way more than the Rangers.
7. In the words of the intrepid investigative blogger Eric McErlain himself, "Not a whole lot."

[AOL Fanhouse]

The Daily News' follow up to their own front page splash last week about Davis' client list was Saturday's front page splash about New York Rangers hockey star Sean Avery's number being present in the black book. Avery denied everything. This morning, the Post strikes back with a story purporting to debunk the NYDN's Avery connection:

"I personally spoke to her, and she confirmed that she has never had any contact with Sean Avery in any shape or form," Davis' lawyer, Mark Jay Heller, told The Post yesterday...

"It is believed that alleged black book . . . is not authentic," Heller said.

Heller also says he MAY launch a lawsuit against the NYDN. Hey, maybe he can team up with Eliot Spitzer when he decides to sue the Post for connecting him to Kristin Davis! A charge which is repeated in today's story, although it has now been reformulated slightly to read, "Davis, who was rumored to have been one of Spitzer's personal favorites, is currently jailed on charges of promoting prostitution."

Mitigating evidence in favor of the black book being real: The NYDN used it to contact several people who did admit seeing Davis' hookers. So it would be a pretty convincing and incredible forgery.

We will continue to follow this shady, unclear story until the truth comes out and we can definitively say which media outlet is most deserving of mockery.

[pic via NYP]

Writers are a sensitive bunch. We're like flowers, really. I exaggerate [Not much! –day ed], but all creative types crave validation. And it takes a long time to trust that whatever you made is just good, without praise from critics, strangers and high school English teachers. One of the things I like about keeping a private blog is that only a few of my friends read it and I don't get any feedback. For one, I'm too much of a flower to take it. And for two, I don't have to think about whether what I write is good or bad, which lets me just write.

But having instant feedback is exciting and fun. No judgment, but I have a word document where I save all the nice comments I've gotten at Gawker. Plus, reading comments is a great way to seem engaged with work while actually just being self-involved.

Of course, the flipside is that people can be nasty, too. Most people objected that to my claim that Gawker commenters are "mad." Because of the Gawker invite system, executions and the Darwinian nature of comments, the site doesn't stand for calling our west coast editor "fucking retarded." But you guys are quick to point out any grammatical failings and let me know when things are old.

But even though I'd love to continue on about me, as yesterday's experiment showed, commenting isn't all about the writer. A good post will encourage a dialog amongst the commenters. Often a mediocre post will do the same. And after, say, the 40th comment, the conversation becomes hard to follow for the casual observer. But as a public forum, and as a business model, that's a good thing. Commenting is also an opportunity for office drones to prove themselves to be real writers. Our own Richard Lawson was discovered as a commenter, and as 8Millionth admitted, "more people will read comments on a popular blog than the same words written on an unknown blog."

But getting back to me—a friend mentioned that he likes reading the comments because people talk to me as if they actually know me. That can be fun and weird, like when my family's dog made the comments last week.

Of course, the person I am in real life (very clumsy, occasionally socially awkward) and my online persona are two different things. But maybe not that different. Earlier today I sent my dad a sappy email and then asked how much financial aide that would get me. His response: "Zero because you spelled aid wrong."

Eveyone's a commenter.

One guy, Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism ethics, thinks the rudeness of certain commenters detracts from the overall discussion:

The extreme license given individuals to vent, dissemble, excoriate and indulge their hates verbally, winds up destroying the expressive freedom that other people, less bold and less opinionated, need. ... The overall result is a less expansive, less robust sphere of expression &mdash and sound, worthwhile thoughts aren't shared.

If someone isn't bold enough to express his or her opinion anonymously in an online forum out of fear of meanie commenters, that person is a wimp. Sorry, it had to be said.

Wasserman goes on to say there should be rules. Even at Gawker, there are rules: the unfunny are executed. But what about major news organizations? How should they police the smarter than you, more insanely random than you, boring and bored? And frankly, are these people even worth policing/ Do most Times readers care about the vocal group of commenters?

And so, I open it up to you, the commenters. Why are you here? Why are you so nasty? What should be done with you?

• Someone posted to JuicyCampus links to a gay porn featuring a Yale sophomore.
• The sophomore was named.
• This sophomore was interviewed by the Times and did not deny being in the porno.
• But instead of being all, "OMG, I went from being a gay porno D-list star to attending YALE UNIVERSITY I RULE," he was all, "I'm trying to zone it out," which is still not that devastating a quote from someone who was supposedly "panicked and dispirited."
• But this other girl had it real bad: She was named in a discussion about the "biggest slut" on campus! Who wants to be called a slut in college? And who defeated her in the "biggest slut" competition? How did THAT girl feel? Why is the internet making this happen??
• The Times talked to another girl named Ashley, who was also named in a big discussion about sluts but who allowed herself to be named in the article.
• Ashley actually had some healthy perspective about the whole thing.
• Ashley: "It’s amusing, really... It’s all so exaggerated and extreme that you kind of know it’s a lie. It’s a site for cowards and melodramatic people."
• That's it, those are all the awful things named in the Times piece.
• But! We need to ban something, according to this guy from a company that goes around trying to get things deleted from the web, reputationdefender.com:
• "He added that the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides the site legal protections, was 'functionally Mesozoic' in the blogging age. Juicy Campus, he said, 'is not encouraging people to be themselves, it’s encouraging people to be the worst version of themselves.'"

Times: A Crash Course in Online Gossip

Dude, you cut the page to early. It continues:

"The odd thing about Dodgeball is that it makes you realize you don't actually want to meet most FOAFs, and the awkward, vaguely opportunistic air that pervades every introduction until the other person realizes you won't be providing useful social capital and they stop talking to you makes you stay away from any location from which a number of DBers are checking in?"
99 (Emeritus) | Homepage | 03.05.08 - 11:10 am | #

I'm pretty sure I said it would be like this [YM]

"According to researchers in Palo Alto," Wilson says, "1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits." Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales believes the same; he told the Times, "the vast majority of work is done by this small core community." So Slate buys the party line. But these are fake statistics: The Palo Alto study counted the number of edits. If I add five hundred words to an article about fortune cookies, that counts the same as if I rename a category. All this proves is that a small set of wonks are organizing Wikipedia.

The masses are still writing it. Aaron Swartz compared the number of letters added to several articles and found that most articles are written by people with little other Wikipedia experience. That is, most of Wikipedia comes from people who dropped in and added a chunk of text. All the edits? Those are just Wikipedia diehards rearranging the other users' contributions. (A more thorough study confirms Swartz's conclusion.)

It's obvious, really. Why does Jimmy Wales believe that only 500 people wrote everything of import on Wikipedia? With 2 million articles on the site's English version, that would mean each core user wrote nearly 20,000 articles in the seven years since the site launched. That's eight articles a day per user, and clearly physically impossible. Is Wales unaware of this math, or is he so bent on maintaining Wikipedia's respectability that he can't admit how innovative it is?

So much for Wikipedia being in the hands of the few. But Wilson also aims at Digg, saying the site "is largely run by 100 people." The top hundred Digg users submitted almost half of the stories that went to the front page, he points out. Of course, Digg recently adjusted its algorithm to lower the influence of those Diggers.

Wilson tries to spin this: "The super Diggers published an open letter of grievances and threatened to boycott the site," he says, implying that the hundred top users were in united revolt. But the actual threat only came from four users. That's hardly enough to threaten the site.

As Wilson notes, founder Kevin Rose talked to these four Digg users and reached what Wilson calls a "shaky truce." What exactly is shaky? Rose and CEO Jay Adelson merely explained what they had just done and how it would encourage new users to contribute. They didn't actually concede anything to the four users.

Isn't Slate supposed to be the reasoned, second-guessing news source? Then why does Wilson assume Rose has any fear of his top users? Talking to these users wasn't Rose's way of saving his site. It was a cunning move to make these users feel important, and get his message out to the entire Digg community. Rose came away doing just what he wanted and making everyone thank him for it.

Wilson even reaches for unsubstantiated arguments against Digg; he points to rumors that the site hires secret moderators to delete stories. Rose has denied this publicly several times; it's hard to believe he'd lie about this one aspect of the site when he's been so open about all others.

It'd be easy to blame this story on Slate's need to be contrarian, but the message here was so conservative and mainstream, it seems it's just a plain old bad story, bad enough to be retracted. If only we could vote on that.

Most news outlets make a big deal about protecting their copyrighted content, but the "fair use" clause generally lets other outlets off the hook. Unless your little blog is making money off the link without sharing the loot, or posting content in full without the link, most are happy to take whatever views or buzz comes their way without much fuss. You won't catch the traffic-giant New York Times turning down free links. "Links may be created to The New York Times on the Web homepage, any area or articles that you can locate in a search of our Web site," reads its user agreement, which is just as grammatically confusing as it sounds. But very open-Internetish!

So why is BusinessWeek so picky? Accessing a "deep link" takes a reader to pages several layers within a site—they carry far less advertising space than the site's homepage, which is where they'd rather greet you. This kind of myopia makes it okay to link to Google's version of a BusinessWeek piece (giving the traffic to the search engine), but not to the BW article page itself. Courts have generally ruled that so long as you make it clear who the owner is, no URL is more valuable than another. But hey, they're a big scary magazine! Do as they say. At least, until they realize their business model is retarded.

The College Humor boys, most of them from the Baltimore suburbs far from the edgy inner city of The Wire, were ever bourgeois. Their famous parties have always had more in common with a prom night than a bacchanal. And it's not as if Josh was ever a design rebel: the centerpiece of the last apartment was a cabinet full of crystal wineglasses, donated by the College Humor founder's mother.

From: [Rick Stengel]
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:16:21 -0500
To: +TI-TM-ALL_TIME_EDIT
Conversation: Staff Announcement
Subject: Staff Announcement

December 7, 2007

To: TIME Staff
From: Rick Stengel

I'm pleased to announce that Michael Scherer is joining TIME as a political correspondent. He'll be reporting and producing videos for TIME.com, as well as writing for the magazine. He's done terrific work in his current role at Salon.com and he's certain to take those talents to even greater heights here. Michael represents the new TIME correspondent: adept on-line, on-air and in print.

Prior to joining Salon in 2005, Michael wrote investigative pieces for Mother Jones magazine. He's a graduate of Columbia Journalism School, a California native and another great addition to the best political team in journalism. He'll be based in the DC bureau, starting in two weeks.

Please join me in welcoming Michael to TIME.Earlier: The New Model

Michael Wolff was talking to lefty media blogger Rory O'Connor at the bar.

We asked him if he'd been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement for Newser.

He laughed. "Never! No NDAs, never," he said. "That's the rule of the road."

So there might very well be a tell-all in his future. Rory laughed and said, "It's inevitable!"

Wolff agreed: "Inevitable."

"It could be called, "I can't believe those idiots gave me money to do it all again!" Rory said.

We asked Wolff about the algorithm that is Newser's kind of main claim to fame. Users can move an indicator on a continuum that runs from hard to soft news. "I have no idea how it works," Wolff said. "The tech guys explained it to me but I zoned out halfway through. Go ask that guy," he said pointing into a web of white-haired bespectacled men. "The one with white hair and the glasses."

Later, Caroline Miller was lingering by the door, ready to escape. Man, why didn't she get an NDA out of Wolff? "Because I'm feckless!" she said. Nice.

"Michael doesn't even have a contract," she said. "This whole thing is all on a handshake."

So what exactly does Wolff do for Newser? Here's what he does not do: "He's not allowed to talk to anyone on the inside," Miller said. "He's not allowed to manage anybody. What he discovered a long time ago about himself is that he likes to fire people. He has the ideas but I make them happen."

So he has ideas. And did he bring the money? No. "It's all Pat's money anyway!" That would be Patrick Spain, the CEO of HighBeam and soon to be the main character of a really harsh book about how the internet sucks.

Rocketboom Video Blogger Not Renewed by ABC News; HBO Project Never Surfaces [B&C]

But users also include publicists and party promoters who use the site as a personal database. In theory, they are just a few clicks away from [Harvey] Weinstein, a member, or boldface names like Naomi Campbell, Quentin Tarantino and Frédéric Fekkai. (Sycophants beware: members who engage in cyber-social climbing may find themselves exiled to the chilly Siberia of a Big World, aSmallWorld's less-exclusive sister site.)

A Small World, the private and by invite only is notorious for hookers. 80% of their members [are] men from the Middle East. They were blocked in Dubai and set up a mirror site to continue with this practice.

A Facebook for the Few [NYT]

All eight were arrested on prostitution charges here, snared in a new sting operation by the Nassau County police that focuses on Craigslist.org, the ubiquitous Web site best known for its employment and for-sale advertisements but which law enforcement officials say is increasingly also used to trade sex for money.

"Craigslist has become the high-tech 42nd Street, where much of the solicitation takes place now," said Richard McGuire, Nassau's assistant chief of detectives. "Technology has worked its way into every profession, including the oldest."

Police seem confident that they'll be able to use Craiglist to track down these marauding trollops, but we're dubious: The forward march of technological progress cannot be stopped. Stamp them out on Craigslist and they'll move somewhere else. Like Facebook. Or eBay. Or Gawker Sponsored Quicklinks, available now at a low introductory price of $149. You just can't keep a good ho down.

Prostitution Targeted on Craigslist [NYT]

According to the site's most recent annual report, filed at the end of June, Salon is planning an initiative called "OpenSalon," which will be "a new service for its users allowing them to post user profiles; contribute blogs and other content; and collecting all their contributions to Salon, including Letters to the Editor, in one place." We're envisioning something like Facebook plus that failed Assignment Zero site, plus the LA Times' recent attempt to get people to contribute for free. So basically, Salon is looking for a way to monetize its most self-absorbed readers' contributions to the site. (Wait, isn't that why they hired Brazil-loving liberal scold Glenn Greenwald?)

Except, Salon already has a virtual community—or at least, they did. And they were never able to monetize or popularize it. So what makes them think they'll be able to do it now?

In April of 1999, Salon bought a property called The Well, one of the original online communities (started in 1985). By the time Salon bought it, it had been built into a healthy amalgam of e-mail services, personal web pages, message boards, and the like. In 1995, it had 10,000 members, and endless online-wonk cred. But what happened? It has become almost an afterthought on Salon's website, and according to its SEC filing, The Well currently only has 2,700 paying members.

Salon generally doesn't have a great track record when it comes to meshing with online trends—some of that is no fault of their own, except for bad tea leaf reading. The magazine got caught up in the IPO fever of the late 1990s and went public near the height of the hysteria, in June 1999. But even then, investors were cool to Salon's IPO, and the stock's price never really went anywhere. Then, in one of the most colossally misguided decisions the magazine would make, it decided to launch Salon Premium in April 2001—just as the stock market was going into freefall. But even at its height (the 2004 elections), Salon Premium had fewer than 90,000 subscribers. Today, the magazine acknowledges that it needs to emphasize getting ads over getting Salon Premium memberships; obviously, if more people visit the site, or at least the right sort of people, they can charge more for ads. (Update: A good point has been made to us—that Salon wouldn't have weathered that crash without the infusion of cash from subscribers, which they recruited with ardor. That does make sense as well.)

After years of turmoil, Salon might be getting its act together. The magazine is actually starting to turn a profit, and its stock today was trading at $1.35—up from a low of $.05 in the dark, dark days of 2003. But is social networking the right choice for their financial future?

Manager, Social Networking Site at Salon.com [Gawker Jobs]
Salon Annual Report [SEC]

After reading about the Webby Awards Party at the Box, I expected last night's Webby Gala After-Party at Hiro to be douchey with a chance of chode. Maybe there would be a fist-fight over CSS standards! Instead, it was filled with a suspiciously high amount of beautiful women gyrating to the schmoove sounds of DJ Jazzy Jeff on the wheels of steel. My guess? Webby organizers walked across the street to Buddakan and gave 100's to models to please oh God improve our party. And improve it they did.

Seeing as this whole Internet thing seems to be working out for some, Nikola and I set out to try to find some web billionaires. Then we realized we didn't know any moguls by appearance; I suggested looking for older men with big faces and tall dates. We found some, but they were pornographers. In our struggle we also talked to lots of people who thought their award-winning sites were so very interesting. One woman bragged to me that her site just set a record for the highest amount of traffic ever sent to the Webby website! I told her that she also just set a record for the highest amount of boring
ever sent to my ears.

Eventually, we found the YouTube guys, Chad and Steve. They seemed pretty chill but so would you if you were crazy wealthy. Steve told us something about it being 99% luck and 1% them, but maybe he was talking about his successes with women. If I were them, I'd probably enjoy using the line "do you want to go viral?" a whole lot more than I should.

Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object). It is work that requires disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's (or filmmaker's or painter's) entire body of work, among other qualities.

A poet named Peter Schjeldahl got his start as an art critic writing, largely about emerging artists in the East Village; now he's, unfortunately, saddled with only covering The Big Shows for the New Yorker. In 1968, the New York Times appointed an inexperienced cultural journalist named Renata Adler as a film critic. Today we have Frank Bruni, who came to the New York Times restaurant critic post by way of covering Bush and Rome, after a long-ago stint as a young film critic in (shudder) Detroit.

We could go on. A great number of the critics of our time have no experience in their fields of which to speak apart from an Ivy League degree followed by some newspapering experience and then the years that they have performed their duties as critics for pay. Which is to say; they're all enthusiasts with experience and a copy desk—and are only one step up from bloggers in that they don't have a day job. Except for the ones that actually are forced by their papers to blog. Heh.

And what does Schickel's great education and decades of learning bring to the world of criticism? At Time, he and Richard Corliss put together a list of their top ten movies of 2006. That list put "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Borat" at the top and rounded the list off with "United 93" and "The Queen." Any domesticated animal could have put together that list, except it wouldn't have included "Cars." Or "United 93."

Anyhoo. Schickel's horror at the "new, more democratic literary landscape where anyone can comment on books" is for starters a bogeyman and is for seconders insane. For one thing, Motoko Rich's piece on the subject didn't mean that "anyone" was going to be made a book critic at a newspaper. For another, it's not the people who like and who actually read books and then blog about books who are killing newspaper book reviews. More likely, they're the only ones still reading them.

Not everybody's a critic [LAT]

1. Bloggers cover stories that interest them, not all the news that's fit to print.
Guess what, we don't care about Darfur! I mean, sure, we care in the sense that human suffering on a mass scale is a terrible thing to have to hear about at dinner parties, but if it's not about vagina pictures or poetesses like Meghan O'Rourke (or, ideally, a combination thereof), we can't do anything with it. It's great that you want to save the environment and everything, but our Joel Stein jokes aren't going to write themselves, unlike Joel's. Just send us the stuff we can use.

2. Bloggers are lone individuals with limited amounts of time rather than large institutions with a space quota to fill.
This is decidedly not the case for us. Sure, we're lone individuals (for good antisocial reason), but we have MASSIVE quotas. We need whatever we can get. Except crap about Darfur or the environment that isn't about lady-flowers.

3. Bloggers write about topics in their areas of interest from a particular point of view.
Absolutely. Here's a handy guide to who is interested in what and how they'll write it. Emily likes stuff about how the ladies are oppressed by the patriarchy. Also feline friends. She will write with strident wit. Doree is interested in media shenanigans and anything that makes kids at Columbia look stupid. She will drill down. Josh is all about restaurants and real estate. He will use many words which you will have to look up in the dictionary, and might have sex with your girlfriend. Balk tosses off whatever falls out of his brain, often without regard to spelling or logical conclusions. He is also interested in finding a new job, one that involves getting or dispensing alcohol. Choire is a master at examining the intersection of class and culture in New York. Expect many exclamation marks. Also at this point, he will basically do anything to get with any kind of man. Particularly one with a big neck and a beard, maybe a little bit dumpy, 38-44, under 240 pounds, tall is good but short works, preferably with a six-figure salary. He is both desperate and serious.

4. Bloggers need material for posts rather than quotes from both sides.
Yep. We don't even give a shit if it doesn't even have one side!

5. Consider giving exclusives, especially to more prominent bloggers.
Again, yes. Who's more prominent than us? Maybe the panda chick from Gothamist. Or 874 other weblogs. Even so, we love exclusives. They make our owner happy, which keeps him off our backs for a little while. (Ten or so minutes, but you have no idea how valuable, and soothing, those ten minutes are. It's like right after you put the lotion on but before you put it back in the basket.) Also, we are total whores for exclusives. We will so quid whatever your quo is.

6. Bloggers aren't party operatives.
This is true on across the board. Don't assume that because we've said something nice about you once we'll always follow your lead. We make our own decisions and call things as we see them. Unless you've got an exclusive, in which case we'll say whatever you want, and trash our mothers in the process.

7. Less is more.
Right. Guess what happens the third time we hear about your amazing product/brilliant blog/penis-erecting pill in a single day? It goes into the trash folder alongside all the e-mails from Choire telling us "PLEASE TO USE, PROPER PUNCTUATION, YOU COMMA, SPLICERS." Sure, sometimes we forget about things, but if you've e-mailed us something five times in two hours and we haven't done anything about it, there's a reason: We don't give a shit. And you're pissing us off.

Simple enough, right? Keep those cards and letters coming! And those sweet exclusives. Our goal is to get to the point where we don't have to produce an original material at all, except all of your original material, of course. Won't you help us make that dream a reality?

Netiquette: How to befriend a blogger [The Politico]

The following note came down the pike from Gawker Media Overall King And Managing Editor Lockhart "Not Remington!" Steele:

Along with Scott's push to update the staff directory, we're asking for a new form of contact information for you, too. We want you to create a Facebook page.

(This request is actually a non-negotiable demand for everyone at Gawker Media, so do read on. This should take you about three minutes to complete.)

Note: Okay, we totally don't quit, we've got addictions to feed! But seriously, this is bullshit! Fortunately, we're apparently on Facebook in something of a "protected" network, and we don't really want to be your friend, but should you somehow break through the wall and see our profile, know this: The line "Alex Balk and Emily Gould are now friends" is a total lie.