• Gawker.com to end operations next week
    53 replies, posted
[url]http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next-week-1785455712[/url] [QUOTE]After nearly fourteen years of operation, Gawker.com will be shutting down next week. The decision to close Gawker comes days after Univision successfully bid $135 million for Gawker Media’s six other websites, and four months after the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel revealed his clandestine legal campaign against the company. Nick Denton, the company’s outgoing CEO, informed current staffers of the site’s fate on Thursday afternoon, just hours before a bankruptcy court in Manhattan will decide whether to approve Univision’s bid for Gawker Media’s other assets. Staffers will soon be assigned to other editorial roles, either at one of the other six sites or elsewhere within Univision. Near-term plans for Gawker.com’s coverage, as well as the site’s archives, have not yet been finalized.[/QUOTE]
Good.
Get rekt Gawker
Is everyone ready for Cucks R Us.com?? Their new website is going to be sooooooo.....yeah.
bye bye
:joy:
What about their other sites
Man the comment section is terrible
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50909803]What about their other sites[/QUOTE] will still exist, and gawker.com staff will either be thrown out or intergrated into those sites
[URL="http://gawker2.com/"]http://gawker2.com/[/URL] The sequel sucks
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50909670]Is everyone ready for Cucks R Us.com?? Their new website is going to be sooooooo.....yeah.[/QUOTE] Cucks was made as a joke by some of the staff of the other sites.
Hogan's response: [media]https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/766357094652112901[/media] Lot's of salty people replying to his tweet, it's hilarious how people are defending Gawker.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;50909670]Is everyone ready for Cucks R Us.com?? Their new website is going to be sooooooo.....yeah.[/QUOTE] you do realize that was a joke, right? [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Electrocuter;50909960]Hogan's response: [media]https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/766357094652112901[/media] Lot's of salty people replying to his tweet, it's hilarious how people are protecting Gawker.[/QUOTE] I think Gawkers shit but I still don't like to see journalists silenced by a billionaire with a grudge, Hogan was the only legitimate part of all of this. Gawker fucked up their defense, and Gawker in general is shit, but they're far from the worst thing in the universe. [url]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker/[/url] I support GG, so Gawker and their bullshit helped exacerbate an issue i'm passionate about, or at least was when that was all fresh, so the fact I'm willing to put my bias aside and judge them more objectively based on the efforts of their more broad writers should say something to some of you at least. Yeah, Denton, and Daleruio along with some others who are going down hard right now were the problem and are bad people. Not arguing that. Don't even want to.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50909961] I think Gawkers shit but I still don't like to see journalists silenced by a billionaire with a grudge, Hogan was the only legitimate part of all of this. Gawker fucked up their defense, and Gawker in general is shit, but they're far from the worst thing in the universe. [/QUOTE] If people get funded by questionable motives and do good things with it, is it a problem it's like mormonism, yeah the religion is fucking weird but they arn't hurting anyone and are actively benefiting people so whats the problem
Good fucking riddance. [QUOTE=Electrocuter;50909960]Hogan's response: [media]https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/766357094652112901[/media] Lot's of salty people replying to his tweet, it's hilarious how people are defending Gawker.[/QUOTE] Haha those tweets, holy shit. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] Who in their right mind would *defend* Gawker, after all the shit they've pulled?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50910079]Good fucking riddance. Haha those tweets, holy shit. [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] Who in their right mind would *defend* Gawker, after all the shit they've pulled?[/QUOTE] Probably people who would unironically visit Gawker's last site. Not going to say the word since it is apparently the modern version of the ''stick in her'' banphase here, but it rhymes with buck and it is best described as an absolutely pathetic person. And they probably have an overlap with the permanently offended at absolutely everything crowd. Gawker should have listened to Hulk Hogan's theme song before trying any of their stupid shit against Hogan. Especially this bit: ''[I]Well, you hurt my friends, and you hurt my pride, I gotta be a man; I can't let it slide.[/I]''
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50909961]you do realize that was a joke, right? [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] I think Gawkers shit but I still don't like to see journalists silenced by a billionaire with a grudge, Hogan was the only legitimate part of all of this. Gawker fucked up their defense, and Gawker in general is shit, but they're far from the worst thing in the universe. [url]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker/[/url] I support GG, so Gawker and their bullshit helped exacerbate an issue i'm passionate about, or at least was when that was all fresh, so the fact I'm willing to put my bias aside and judge them more objectively based on the efforts of their more broad writers should say something to some of you at least. Yeah, Denton, and Daleruio along with some others who are going down hard right now were the problem and are bad people. Not arguing that. Don't even want to.[/QUOTE] First off, bloggers not jornalists. Second, the case wasn't about a millionaire using it's power to destroy a website. It was a man with a legitimate case that was proven in a court of law, that lacked funding. The millionaire part is a strawman used to try I defend the undefendable, because Gawker was found guilty in a court of law an the result would have been the same had HH got funds by any other means. They were silenced by a millionaire with a grudge, they fucked up Hogan and were going to get away with it because Hogan did have the funding required to defend himself. Honestly is it better for a victim to be unable to defend himself? Grudge or not, they fucked up and broke the law, they now have to deal with it.
It's amazing how people bring up the racist thing. Something you said at one point of your life doesn't suddenly change laws.
[QUOTE=Psyke89;50910482]First off, bloggers not jornalists. Second, the case wasn't about a millionaire using it's power to destroy a website. It was a man with a legitimate case that was proven in a court of law, that lacked funding. The millionaire part is a strawman used to try I defend the undefendable, because Gawker was found guilty in a court of law an the result would have been the same had HH got funds by any other means. They were silenced by a millionaire with a grudge, they fucked up Hogan and were going to get away with it because Hogan did have the funding required to defend himself. Honestly is it better for a victim to be unable to defend himself? Grudge or not, they fucked up and broke the law, they now have to deal with it.[/QUOTE] Yes they did, and I believe they deserve the punishment of being shut down for their bullshit. But to act like everything they ever did was just a blog, or worthless, or worse, intentionally harmful just isn't true. I know it's not cool to defend them, and I can't believe I am, but apparently if I see non truths being peddled as truth i'm compelled to say something. My opposition to the wider general opinion on this makes it seem like i'm sympathetic to them. I am not. I am not a fan of gawker, I'm not sympathetic to their plight, I think people like Daleruio are literally garbage, but I won't put them all in the exact same place without a reason to, and I don't believe "worked for gawker" is sufficient honestly, I don't care if that's unpopular here. There's a decent wired article right there in my post that is worth a read. Apparently going against the group think on this one lets people like Jordax openly say I'm a cuck(hiding behind "rhymes with" is so childish) just for not sharing the group think. I don't like them, I don't like what they did, I don't think they're guilt free by any means, they're clearly guilty.
PARTY TIME [video=youtube;WBrLHMCTDAA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBrLHMCTDAA[/video]
usually getting sued is enough for fucking up, but not getting driven out of business
Never forget. [media]https://youtu.be/2-avakrRUaU[/media]
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50909960]Hogan's response: [media]https://twitter.com/HulkHogan/status/766357094652112901[/media] Lot's of salty people replying to his tweet, it's hilarious how people are defending Gawker.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;guG9cVs3ms4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guG9cVs3ms4[/video]
You think former gawker employees will have a hard time finding a job if they put "gawker" on their resumes?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50911849]You think former gawker employees will have a hard time finding a job if they put "gawker" on their resumes?[/QUOTE] I hope so
It was a fair trial, typically these are reversed where person without the financial power takes on a corporate entity gets shit on because they can't afford it. If anything the financial backing Hogan got probably made the trial more fair.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50911849]You think former gawker employees will have a hard time finding a job if they put "gawker" on their resumes?[/QUOTE] Might as well type in "lived off of clickbait cancerous shit disguised as gonzo journalism for X years, while eating copious amounts of ramen noodles ('cause that's basically all I could afford)".
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50911849]You think former gawker employees will have a hard time finding a job if they put "gawker" on their resumes?[/QUOTE] I'd have to imagine anyone being stupid enough to put that on there after all this shit "lol whats wrong with leaking 4+ year old sex tapes??" wouldn't be a valuable worker anyway
about damn time
What even is Gawker anyways?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.