That's true, Gawker is terrible. Not trying to defend their actions here.
What I mean is, Hogan could have sued them with his own money easily, to gain justice for the way he was wronged.
I don't like Peter Thiel inserting his grubby hands into the affair for a story written about him years ago that was not even close to as bad as a sex tape.
[QUOTE=person11;50493375]There is nothing good about a billionaire using his money to fund someone else's lawsuit to bankrupt a media outlet.
Gawker was terrible, but this whole story sets an even worse precedent.
What if, instead of releasing a sex tape, they made a perfectly valid article criticizing another billionaire? Would we be ok with them suing the company into oblivion? Will we so willingly and happily discard the first amendment?[/QUOTE]
I'd be more worried about other companies thinking that Gawker made valid criticisms or exposed some sort of meaningful fact about Thiel.
Really all they did was expose a guy as being Gay when that really doesn't matter and in a country and time where being Gay could harm his business and career. Gossip news gets companies sued all the time and it hasn't really affected journalism as a whole as they're considered lowest of the low
I am essentially using the "slippery slope" fallacy here, but I think the argument works here. I am not sure Thiel was right to do this, hoping they would be bankrupt. It should have been about Hulk Hogan getting what he deserves in compensation for what they did to him.
[editline]10th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sumap;50493461]I'd be more worried about other companies thinking that Gawker made valid criticisms or exposed some sort of meaningful expose on Thiel.
Really all they did was expose a guy as being Gay when that really doesn't matter and in a country and time where being Gay could harm his business and career.[/QUOTE]
That is a great point. Like I said, this is not only about Gawker. It's impossible to defend Gawker here, I just am worried about the precedent that his sets.
[QUOTE=person11;50493452]That's true, Gawker is terrible. Not trying to defend their actions here.
What I mean is, Hogan could have sued them with his own money easily, to gain justice for the way he was wronged.
I don't like Peter Thiel inserting his grubby hands into the affair for a story written about him years ago that was not even close to as bad as a sex tape.[/QUOTE]Hogan was going up against a media empire and had all of his usual revenue streams cut off by the results of the muckraking said empire did. He may be rich compared to you and me, but Gawker could have very well stonewalled him until he ran out of funds to resolve the case on his own.
Hell, I'd bet that Gawker was banking on it. Unless they really [I]are[/I] delusional enough to believe their own lies about being in the right here.
[QUOTE=person11;50493463]That is a great point. Like I said, this is not only about Gawker. It's impossible to defend Gawker here, I just am worried about the precedent that his sets.[/QUOTE]
What precedent? Sure, Thiel's involvementin the case is shady as fuck, but it has nothing to do with any legal precedent set in any way. All the precedent this case sets up is that sex-tapes are breaches of privacy, which honestly is a great thing.
[QUOTE=Pennywise;50493488]Hogan was going up against a media empire and had all of his usual revenue streams cut off by the results of the muckraking said empire did. He may be rich compared to you and me, but Gawker could have very well stonewalled him until he ran out of funds to resolve the case on his own.
Hell, I'd bet that Gawker was banking on it. Unless they really [I]are[/I] delusional enough to believe their own lies about being in the right here.[/QUOTE]
The sad fact of the matter is perhaps with out Thiels help this would of never happened, perhaps the guy is super shady, but even then why can't we be ok with him doing something good?
If helping a man get justice and by proxy improving the games industry is some part of some master plan then honestly thus far I'm ok with that.
[QUOTE=person11;50493452]That's true, Gawker is terrible. Not trying to defend their actions here.
What I mean is, Hogan could have sued them with his own money easily, to gain justice for the way he was wronged.
I don't like Peter Thiel inserting his grubby hands into the affair for a story written about him years ago that was not even close to as bad as a sex tape.[/QUOTE]
How do you know Hogan could have paid it with his own money? If he could, why would he need Peter Thiel?
Your whole argument breaks apart the moment you realize this entire situation would have been avoided had Gawker retracted instead of going further with litigation. It really was that easy, they really thought they could have won while anybody with a vague resemblance of sense could have seen that they were in the wrong.
Oh yeah and they massively fucked up in their depositions, resulting in absolutely indefensible statements like "a 4 year old's sex tape is newsworthy".
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;50491355]You simply don't fuck with Hogan.
Isn't he gearing up for round 2 too? I almost feel bad.[/QUOTE]
[I]almost[/I]
Never forget.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/6zKcKOM.jpg[/t]
[editline]10th June 2016[/editline]
They deserve everything that's coming to them.
[QUOTE=Riller;50493520]What precedent? Sure, Thiel's involvementin the case is shady as fuck, but it has nothing to do with any legal precedent set in any way. All the precedent this case sets up is that sex-tapes are breaches of privacy, which honestly is a great thing.[/QUOTE]
if the precedent that is set is that rich people can team up to protect against privacy violations, that's fine
i am worried that it could go further than that, with any rich person suing any media outlet that says bad things about them into oblivion, not by winning, but by keeping them in court with legal fees until the end of time
[QUOTE=person11;50493452]That's true, Gawker is terrible. Not trying to defend their actions here.
What I mean is, Hogan could have sued them with his own money easily, to gain justice for the way he was wronged.
I don't like Peter Thiel inserting his grubby hands into the affair for a story written about him years ago that was not even close to as bad as a sex tape.[/QUOTE]
Yes outing someone as gay when most of their clients are from the middle east totally isn't worse than some sex tape.
Yeah no Gawker is terrible
i just don't like the idea of billionaires secretly funding other peoples lawsuits
what Gawker did to Thiel was not right, but he could have sued them himself instead of hiding behind hulk hogan
god its so hard to defend them, they are terrible
[QUOTE=person11;50493787]if the precedent that is set is that rich people can team up to protect against privacy violations, that's fine
i am worried that it could go further than that, with any rich person suing any media outlet that says bad things about them into oblivion, not by winning, but by keeping them in court with legal fees until the end of time[/QUOTE]
As opposed to, having media empires profit out of destroying the careers of whatever public figure you can think of with a single tweet, while being absolutely immune to retaliation by merit of just being able to afford better lawyers?
Like, what did you expect that was going to happen? The precedent set by Hulk Hogan losing the lawsuit would be far more dangerous than what ended up happening.
[QUOTE=person11;50493911]but he could have sued them himself instead of hiding behind hulk hogan[/QUOTE]
No he couldn't, because the one who got legitimately harmed by these allegations was Hulk Hogan.
What are you doing dude?
Everything about this would be even better if somehow Peter Thiel ends up buying Gawker.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50493648]Never forget.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/6zKcKOM.jpg[/t]
[editline]10th June 2016[/editline]
They deserve everything that's coming to them.[/QUOTE]
Observe, if you will, how those are from two different blogs. On the left, you have Gawker (the blog, not the media conglomerate), which is basically your standard shitty celeb-gossip rag. Just like any other shitty celeb-gossip rag, they're morally bankrupt and a complete waste of oxygen. On the right, you have Jezebel, which is their... I'm not sure what they officially call it, but it seems like "women's interest blog" is a good descriptor. Sexism issues are one of the things they cover, and while they're not the greatest, they don't actively do things wrong, the way Gawker (the blog) does.
And that's why I'm kind of perturbed by how readily people are celebrating Gawker Media's demise. Sure, Gawker (the blog) is an absolute piece of shit. As far as I know, they've never done anything good, and they were pretty clearly in the wrong here. But they're taking a lot of good people down with them. Jalopnik is a pretty good gearhead blog - they don't deserve to be shut down. io9 is a pretty solid geek-culture blog. Gizmodo is a decent tech blog, whenever they take Apple's dick out of their mouth. Hell, even Kotaku is an above-average gaming blog, although that's not exactly a high bar to clear, and they're one of the few that isn't afraid to hold publishers accountable for their fuckups.
Maybe my perspective is "weird" because I actually read the Gawker Media blogs that are both good and relevant to me, but I'm overall saddened by this whole affair. Yes, Gawker (the blog) needed to suffer some consequences for their shit. But there's a lot of collateral damage here, and to be perfectly honest, the people behind this legal assault are kind of scummy people as well. Bankrolling a lawsuit you're not involved in just to get revenge is behavior that should concern anyone who actually values a free press. Peter Thiel is definitely no hero.
[url]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/disapproval-matrix-billionaires-ruining-media/[/url]
[url]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker/[/url]
[QUOTE]Bankrolling a lawsuit you're not involved in just to get revenge is behavior that should concern anyone who actually values a free press. Peter Thiel is definitely no hero.[/QUOTE]
You're not going to win any sympathy here with that argument, I've made it before and been told it's not relevant.
It's 100% relevant.
The man who runs a freedom of speech and journalist protection foundation is shutting down speech, not for any good reasons, but for vengeance. I get that Gawker is shit, but this isn't really something to cheer about in this context IMO.
Gawker's terrible but shadowy lawsuits are not worth cheering over and I think it's a little bit more than sad to do so.
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50491467]Shame about Jalopnik but the rest can fuck off and die in a fire.[/QUOTE]
Fuck Jalopnik and their uneducated clickbait recycled crap journalism too, plenty of other automotive sites out there that are actually worth looking at.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50494388][URL]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/disapproval-matrix-billionaires-ruining-media/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker/[/URL]
You're not going to win any sympathy here with that argument, I've made it before and been told it's not relevant.
It's 100% relevant.
The man who runs a freedom of speech and journalist protection foundation is shutting down speech, not for any good reasons, but for vengeance. I get that Gawker is shit, but this isn't really something to cheer about in this context IMO.
Gawker's terrible but shadowy lawsuits are not worth cheering over and I think it's a little bit more than sad to do so.[/QUOTE]
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to publish things that violate the privacy of others for the sake of more clicks.
And as I've said before, Thiel didn't force them to ignore a court order to take it down.
Thiel didn't make them joke about hosting a sextape of a 5 year old.
This isn't "Big business paying off polticians and acting as lobbyists", this is literally "Person helps pay for legal case"
Would you give a damn if the story ended with "And the big media company set the precident where the privacy of others means jack shit, because one celebrity couldn't afford to pay the legal fees"?
How about considering that precident instead of trying to misconstrue a case because you dislike someone involved.
Where a company stomps on people's privacy because they can't afford to pay the legal fees on their own.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50494360]Observe, if you will, how those are from two different blogs. On the left, you have Gawker (the blog, not the media conglomerate), which is basically your standard shitty celeb-gossip rag. Just like any other shitty celeb-gossip rag, they're morally bankrupt and a complete waste of oxygen. On the right, you have Jezebel, which is their... I'm not sure what they officially call it, but it seems like "women's interest blog" is a good descriptor. Sexism issues are one of the things they cover, and while they're not the greatest, they don't actively do things wrong, the way Gawker (the blog) does.
And that's why I'm kind of perturbed by how readily people are celebrating Gawker Media's demise. Sure, Gawker (the blog) is an absolute piece of shit. As far as I know, they've never done anything good, and they were pretty clearly in the wrong here. But they're taking a lot of good people down with them. Jalopnik is a pretty good gearhead blog - they don't deserve to be shut down. io9 is a pretty solid geek-culture blog. Gizmodo is a decent tech blog, whenever they take Apple's dick out of their mouth. Hell, even Kotaku is an above-average gaming blog, although that's not exactly a high bar to clear, and they're one of the few that isn't afraid to hold publishers accountable for their fuckups.
Maybe my perspective is "weird" because I actually read the Gawker Media blogs that are both good and relevant to me, but I'm overall saddened by this whole affair. Yes, Gawker (the blog) needed to suffer some consequences for their shit. But there's a lot of collateral damage here, and to be perfectly honest, the people behind this legal assault are kind of scummy people as well. Bankrolling a lawsuit you're not involved in just to get revenge is behavior that should concern anyone who actually values a free press. Peter Thiel is definitely no hero.[/QUOTE]
Not only no, but fuck no. Nearly everything under Gawker Media, [I]particularly[/I] Kotaku and Jezebel, suffered from a significant lack of oversight and a complete disregard for journalistic ethics, Kotaku in particular is [B]far[/B] from above average and dearly held onto complete hacks like Patrick Klepek. They acted like a tabloid but claimed they were news and that's exactly why they lost the trial.
Those folk with actual journalistic integrity that worked at Gawker Media and its subsidiaries surely won't have any problem finding new jobs, the rest of them though? They should find another line of work.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50494360]
And that's why I'm kind of perturbed by how readily people are celebrating Gawker Media's demise. Sure, Gawker (the blog) is an absolute piece of shit. As far as I know, they've never done anything good, and they were pretty clearly in the wrong here. But they're taking a lot of good people down with them. Jalopnik is a pretty good gearhead blog - they don't deserve to be shut down. io9 is a pretty solid geek-culture blog. Gizmodo is a decent tech blog, whenever they take Apple's dick out of their mouth. [B]Hell, even Kotaku is an above-average gaming blog[/B], although that's not exactly a high bar to clear, and they're one of the few that isn't afraid to hold publishers accountable for their fuckups.
[/QUOTE]
Are you having a laugh?
[QUOTE=Thlis;50494461]Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to publish things that violate the privacy of others for the sake of more clicks.
And as I've said before, Thiel didn't force them to ignore a court order to take it down.
Thiel didn't make them joke about hosting a sextape of a 5 year old.
This isn't "Big business paying off polticians and acting as lobbyists", this is literally "Person helps pay for legal case"
Would you give a damn if the story ended with "And the big media company set the precident where the privacy of others means jack shit, because one celebrity couldn't afford to pay the legal fees"?
How about considering that precident instead of trying to misconstrue a case because you dislike someone involved.
Where a company stomps on people's privacy because they can't afford to pay the legal fees on their own.[/QUOTE]
You know, it'd be nice if you'd stop putting words in my mouth, and stop strawmanning my point of view on this
but you won't stop, so i'm done arguing with you.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50494553]You know, it'd be nice if you'd stop putting words in my mouth, and stop strawmanning my point of view on this
but you won't stop, so i'm done arguing with you.[/QUOTE]
How is it strawmanning to say the following?
1) That you're statement that this endangers freedom of speech is incorrect and that they were violating the privacy of others for no adequate reason other than cash.
2) Thiel didn't force them to practically show up to court drunk and covered with blood. As far as we know he did not bribe the judge or sabotage them, he helped fund a case.
3) The precedent of this case failing would potentially be that a media company can post anything that violates the privacy of others. That big companies could stomp on individual's rights (More so than usual).
The reason why I question if you would give a damn about point 3 is because that was a much graver looming threat that this case could have resulted in.
The reason why I accuse you of misconstruing it as an attack on freedom of speech is because it isn't, it's the defense of individual privacy.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50494589]No. Have you [I]seen[/I] the average gaming blog?[/QUOTE]
Have you seen Kotaku?
[QUOTE=Thlis;50494520]Are you having a laugh?[/QUOTE]
No. Have you [I]seen[/I] the average gaming blog?
[QUOTE=Thlis;50494583]How is it strawmanning to say the following?
1) That you're statement that this endangers freedom of speech is incorrect and that they were violating the privacy of others for no adequate reason other than cash.
2) Thiel didn't force them to practically show up to court drunk and covered with blood. As far as we know he did not bribe the judge or sabotage them, he helped fund a case.
3) The precedent of this case failing would potentially be that a media company can post anything that violates the privacy of others. That big companies could stomp on individual's rights (More so than usual).
The reason why I question if you would give a damn about point 3 is because that was a much graver looming threat that this case could have resulted in.
The reason why I accuse you of misconstruing it as an attack on freedom of speech is because it isn't, it's the defense of individual privacy.
Have you seen Kotaku?[/QUOTE]
I never even implied 1 or 2 and I agree with point 3
I just don't think this is as momentous or wonderful as you do. I don't see a billionaire waging a shadow war in the legal system as a great thing. The precedent that privacy shouldn't be violated like that is the only good thing about this IMO
Thiel is a little bit of a dark spot on the whole affair, but Gawker still brought this on themselves and Thiel himself was only a mere cog in the wheel. It also doesn't help that once he was outed as the funder behind Hogan's cases, Gawker opted to make a thinly-veiled threat right back at him as if they'd be out for blood should they of survived the bankruptcy.
I'd say treat the whole thing as a second layer of interest and vindication between the two, but ultimately Hulk Hogan's victory represents the primary layer of taking down a company that abused freedom of speech to get profit. It's always going to be a bit morally gray, but on the primary layer, no one's going to gripe about Gawker going down besides the only few good writers there having to get jobs elsewhere.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50494755]I never even implied 1 or 2 and I agree with point 3
I just don't think this is as momentous or wonderful as you do. I don't see a billionaire waging a shadow war in the legal system as a great thing. The precedent that privacy shouldn't be violated like that is the only good thing about this IMO[/QUOTE]
I think most people are more happy to see a judgement actually strike a company hard rather than the usual slap on the wrist.
I think what Thiel did here in helping fund the lawsuit was good, that does not mean I think Thiel himself is good.
[QUOTE=Thlis;50494790]I think most people are more happy to see a judgement actually strike a company hard rather than the usual slap on the wrist.
I think what Thiel did here in helping fund the lawsuit was good, that does not mean I think Thiel himself is good.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
I just see Thiel as the quintessential right wing billionaire from the 1890's where the saying was "Never cross a man who buys ink by the barrel" but brought into the modern day.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50494589]No. Have you [I]seen[/I] the average gaming blog?[/QUOTE]
As far as writing goes, Kotaku is... mediocre, at least until they get a chip on their Social Justice shoulder. Tune out Patricia Hernandez and the website isn't [I]too[/I] pants-on-head retarded.
[QUOTE=Saber15;50494828]As far as writing goes, Kotaku is... mediocre, at least until they get a chip on their Social Justice shoulder. Tune out Patricia Hernandez and the website isn't [I]too[/I] pants-on-head retarded.[/QUOTE]Kotaku also said with the death of their parent company, they're looking for [url=http://kotaku.com/a-note-to-readers-1781773021]new ownership.[/url] It's just cutting one head off, the other head will find another one to replace it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
