I wonder if he still would have allowed if her name was spelled Baidu instead.

I find this news somewhat sad on several counts, and something just above being dumped by text message.

According to the article, it is a long way above being dumped by text.

The court will only have allowed it as a last resort, in the knowledge that the respondent is known to be active on a particular social network but is otherwise deliberately unreachable.

"We tried everything, including hiring a private detective"

The court will have taken this into account.

The only novel factor is Facebook being used as an "address for service".

The alternative is to force someone to remain legally married against their will.

But the 1950s are over, even for the judiciary.

...

The alternative is to force someone to remain legally married against their will.

That would never have been the alternative-- at least not in the US. You don't need the other party's consent to a divorce; if they can't be located, things may take a little longer, but there's always a way.

Now, the analogy _I_ thought of was legal notices. In general there's no requirement about target audience, so if you don't want your Korean-speaking customers to know about something you're legally required to publish, you put it in a Yiddish-language newspaper. It's one thing if the husband is known to have an active FB account, as seems to be true in this case. It would be a far different thing if all his (real-life) friends were prepared to testify that he has never used FB.

That would never have been the alternative-- at least not in the US.

Different laws apply in each state, in some cases an "unserved" party has two years to contest.

...

Of course, now that the story is out there and making the rounds, his friends have probably told him to avoid logging into FB (if he hasn't already seen the message himself).

The way the law works in my state, when it is proved to a judge that actual service is impossible, the party wanting to serve another party with notice can do "service by publication". This service is accomplished by publishing it in whatever publication is recognized as the "legal organ", usually a particular newspaper - you know, those legal notices you've seen but never read. There is no requirement that the party being served actually read the notice. Publication itself is sufficient.