Are the kids from Gossip Girl even old enough to vote in this election? And isn't one of them British? Yes, these two GG actors in this commercial are 22 (Penn Badgley) and 21 (Blake Lively) so technically they can vote, but the question remains: who is this commercial marketed to?

While it's important for teens to learn about politics early, but this is a wink-wink commercial for adults, and not really a P.S.A. on how doing illegal drugs or underage drinking are activities comparable to voting Republican. So, theoretically, this is an ad campaign launched at adults who know the ironic format of traditional public service announcements but also watch Gossip Girl?

MoveOn.org's really got to stop catering to the blogging community in this campaign.

• Cookin with Coolio is even more absurd than we had imagined.

• Finally, an answer for P.C. liberal democrats: MoveOn.org endorses Obama.

CONTINUED »

So, after a month of civil liberties complaints, Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that the execution of Beacon, its advertising program out of a dystopian novel, was no good.

Beacon originally was an automatic opt-in program that sent data from external websites to the Facebook feed. Civil liberty groups like MoveOn.org, and their spokesman Adam Green, freaked out, and yesterday Mark Zuckerberg apologized for the program’s befuddled launch.

But who did Zuckerberg really apologize to?

CONTINUED »

In social networking news, Facebook is removing the automatic opt-in for its Beacon feature. Beacon reported users’ purchases on sites like Overstock.com and Fandango on the Facebook news feed without users' consent.

This made people feel like they were living in a George Orwell dystopian state. More importantly, it ruined Christmas as users were altered of their family members' recent purchases. Facebook announced that it would amend the function.

Even as avid Facebook users, we don't really care about this development. But oddly, this story has been reported everywhere, and everyone talked to Adam Green, a guy from MoveOn.Org.

CONTINUED »

MoveOn.org paid back the New York Times the $77,508 they were undercharged for their ad attacking General Petraeus earlier this month. If only $77,508 were enough to make this story go away. [NYT]

Without Clark Hoyt, the New York Times would still be claiming denial was a river in Egypt.

For the past two weeks, the Times has pretended that it didn’t do anything wrong by running an ad from MoveOn.org at a discounted rate. The September 10th “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad has been fodder for Republicans since it ran.

Yesterday, the Public Editor agreed with Republicans and said that the ad violated two Times house rules. MoveOn was given the standard discounted rate for a floating date advertisement, even though the Times promised the ad would run on the tenth. The Times ad policy also states, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature,” which the MoveOn ad was.

MoveOn wired the $77,000 price difference between the two ad rates to the Times today. Of course, the interest rate on the discount will be attacks on the liberal media for the next five months.

We thought CNN's "Internet reporters" had a pretty easy gig: Surf the Web, wait for Wolf Blitzer to address you then point at the screen like a newsy Vanna White. There isn't much "reporting" involved in their title, or so we assumed.

But it turns out Abbi Tatton and Jacki Schechner have much harder jobs than we thought — or at least they must be grueling, otherwise there's really no excuse for why they don't read full blog posts. (As for us, we're just lazy and overpaid.)

CNN internet reporter Abbi Tatton reported that MoveOn.org sent out an e-mail to the members saying that they "urgently need more information" on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. What Tatton didn't report about the e-mail is that it asked a bunch of loaded questions asking its members to specifically help dig up dirt on Miers.

Bias in the media that goes unaddressed? Wait — bias in the blogs that goes unaddressed? By blog reporters? We're swimming in meta media vomit.

Serious journalism? C'mon, who wants to bookmark that when you've got Sploid and the upcoming Huffington Report? (We'll hold off on the Muffington jokes until the actual launch.) But those serious, political-minded folks at MoveOn.org actually think the entertainment-skewed news media needs to be buttressed with an alternative - their alternative.

The project, headed by Fabrice Florin, CEO of the cell phone content provider Handtap Communications, would draft what Boyd says would be a nonpartisan, volunteer team of professional journalists and potentially thousands of citizen reviewers. They'd rate each news story and produce a daily selection of "news you can trust" on the Web and by e-mail. Boyd says he was shocked that the survey indicated half the respondents would volunteer, about five times the rate he expected. What's more, a lot of respondents said they'd pay $20 a year for the feed–plus extras such as personalized news feeds and the ability to publish one's own feed to share with others.

Not to point out the obvious copycat nature, but can't we all just get our wikiwikiwikiwiki on at WikiNews?