Support NeoGAF

[zabuni]

Though, I also actually read the article. So that might be why I can't sympathize with most of the comments here. The idea that wealth should be able to dismantle journalism is something I wouldn't think GAF would sympathize with so much.

They aren't sympathizing with the how, more the what. It was probably the worst way for something good to happen. I would rather have them survive the lawsuit, but for the same reason I'm glad when the ACLU wins cases for undesirables. Not for the defendant, but for the precedent.

Same as this case. Terrible defendant, more terrible verdict. So it sucks, but I won't shed many tears for the site.

 

[Griss]

Good fucking riddance, now and forever. And I love the "wealth shouldn't have played a part" angle.

To use a Game of Thrones metaphor, it's like Gawker was a rogue knight riding around terrorising peasants and no one had the means to fight back so it continued year after year. All of a sudden some rich lord who hated said knight bought a peasant a suit of armour so he could fight them 1 on 1 and in this suddenly fair fight the peasant wins.

Gawker says "What horseshit is this that a peasant should be able to afford the means to challenge me? Had I known that was possible I would never have behaved the way I did."

The problem, as so many have said, isn't that Peter Thiel funded Hogan's lawsuit, it's that he had to or justice would never have been done. At least all the real revolting snarky attitude of the site was fully exposed to the wider world during that trial. Daulerio's deposition was absurd in its utter disregard for the situation he and his employers were in.

 

[shawnbuddy]

They aren't sympathizing with the how, more the what. It was probably the worst way for something good to happen. I would rather have them survive the lawsuit, but for the same reason I'm glad when the ACLU wins cases for undesirables. Not for the defendant, but for the precedent.

Same as this case. Terrible defendant, more terrible verdict. So it sucks, but I won't shed many tears for the site.

You should care about fair outcomes no matter whom the defendant is. If the worst person in the world is is falsely convicted of a crime you should not be glad that it happens because you didn't like that person for unrelated reasons. Even people that hate Gawker should be outraged at what happened.

 

[Kite]

lol anyon remember the Vice vs Gawker slapfest a few years back? Anyhow what is so special about Gawker that the other big internet news and media sites can't do (Vice, Buzzfeed, Vox, Business Insider, Financial Times ect?) As far as I could tell they were just big into click-bait and spreading rumors... which is everywhere nowadays.

 

[Night Angel]

Nah.

My exact thoughts.

Gawker wasn't courageous. They were spiteful, exploitative, and hypocritical. Glad they're gone.

 

[djplaeskool]

Other outlets have picked up what slack there was that was worth picking up.

 

[shawnbuddy]

The GAF majority attitude on this is why people like Trump and Thiel run the world. They know how to exploit emotional reactions above self-interest.

 

[kirblar]

The GAF majority attitude on this is why people like Trump and Thiel run the world. They know how to exploit emotional reactions above self-interest.

People are not having "emotional reactions". Gawker were scum w/ no journalistic ethics and they paid the price for it.

 

[shawnbuddy]

People are not having "emotional reactions". Gawker were scum w/ no journalistic ethics and they paid the price for it.

That's an emotional reaction to Gawker's content and attitude, just like the jury acted on in this case. That's got nothing to do with the merits of Bollea claim or the outsized award. Strictly on the merits Bollea should have lost, or at least gotten a much smaller award that wouldn't have ruined Gawker. The jury acted out of emotion and hate for Gawker in general (and probably the media in general) when it handed down a death sentence, and Thiel puppeteered the whole thing.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Other outlets have picked up what slack there was that was worth picking up.

There's just no way of knowing if this is true. There's no way to know what stories didn't get published, because if they didn't get published you'll of course never hear of them.

 

[diablos991]

Is courage what they call that these days?
Not surprised to see this coming from WaPo; just disappointed.

 

[KHarvey16]

There's just no way of knowing if this is true. There's no way to know what stories didn't get published, because if they didn't get published you'll of course never hear of them.

One might conclude this also makes it impossible to effectively argue we're missing out on stories due to Gawker's absence.

 

[shawnbuddy]

One might conclude this also makes it impossible to effectively argue we're missing out on stories due to Gawker's absence.

Theoretically, sure, but Gawker did have a track record of fearlessly publishing dirt, for good or ill, so it's a safer bet that they'd have kept doing that than that they would go Trump's whole term without digging up a juicy exclusive.

 

[JavyOO7]

I miss gawker even if there were times were there was some bullshit mountain stuff on their part... thankfully Deadspin is still going strong. I miss greg howard tons though.

 

[Euphor!a]

Man, if it is so easy for billionaires to shut down news outlets they don't like how are there any left at all. I wonder if maybe because it isn't? And that wallowing about how this is somehow the beginning of the end is actually just idiotic? The only thing that sucks about the Gawker situation is that it took a billionaire to fuck over a shitty outlet when anyone should be able to fuck over shitty outlets for shitty stories.

 

[Acorn]

Man, if it is so easy for billionaires to shut down news outlets they don't like how are there any left at all. I wonder if maybe because it isn't? And that wallowing about how this is somehow the beginning of the end is actually just idiotic? The only thing that sucks about the Gawker situation is that it took a billionaire to fuck over a shitty outlet when anyone should be able to fuck over shitty outlets for shitty stories.

Your logic is terrible. By all means have that opinon but don't try to act like a smart arse with "there's still media outlets therefore no problems" as an argument.

 

[Euphor!a]

Your logic is terrible. By all means have that opinon but don't try to act like a smart arse with "there's still media outlets therefore no problems" as an argument.

That's not my logic at all, sorry for your reading comprehension.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Man, if it is so easy for billionaires to shut down news outlets they don't like how are there any left at all. I wonder if maybe because it isn't? And that wallowing about how this is somehow the beginning of the end is actually just idiotic? The only thing that sucks about the Gawker situation is that it took a billionaire to fuck over a shitty outlet when anyone should be able to fuck over shitty outlets for shitty stories.

It clearly isn't easy. We have/or at least had robust protections in place and it took a lot of effort and underhandedness. But it's a lot easier now than it was before, because a Thiel has proven it can be done, created a playbook for others who want to squash speech they don't like to follow and most impressively convinced a lot of people he was in the right and that what he did was nothing to worry about.

 

[Euphor!a]

It clearly isn't easy. We have/had robust protections in place and it took a lot of effort and underhandedness. But it's a lot easier now than it was before, because a Thiel has proven it can be done, created a playbook for others who want to squash speech they don't like to follow and most impressively convinced a lot of people he was in the right and that what he did was nothing to worry about.

You're arguing this slippery slope nonsense when there is zero evidence of it.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Nope. Fuck Gawker. Should have been eradicated sooner.

 

[shawnbuddy]

You're arguing this slippery slope nonsense when there is zero evidence of it.

It's not a slippery slope to point out that someone has done something people we're confident couldn't be done and created a blueprint for others to follow. Look at all the articles before the verdict where people are confident that Gawker would win and there's nothing to worry about. Thiel has proven that our speech protections are weaker than we thought.

Somebody has to be the pioneer. Trump's favorite racist, sexist, rape-apologist techno fascist has pioneered killing media outlets because they threaten rich guy agendas, and he's being cheered on.

 

[Euphor!a]

It's not a slippery slope to point out that someone has done something people we're confident couldn't be done and created a blueprint for others to follow. Look at all the articles before the verdict where people are confident that Gawker would win and there's nothing to worry about. Thiel has proven that our speech protections are weaker than we thought.

That is some revisionist history there. While there may have been plenty of stories how Gawker couldn't possibly lose, there were plenty that said they were fucked.

But the real problem is you're literally not pointing out anything. You're pointing at Gawker and saying "Look, we're all fucked!" but it means nothing when everything else is fine. You can't say "Oh, now there is a blueprint" to dismantling unfavorable media and then have zero examples of it being put into action and still reasonably believe it either exists, or that it will be used to destroy a responsible news outlet.

 

[TheCochese]

It's not a slippery slope to point out that someone has done something people we're confident couldn't be done and created a blueprint for others to follow. Look at all the articles before the verdict where people are confident that Gawker would win and there's nothing to worry about. Thiel has proven that our speech protections are weaker than we thought.

Somebody has to be the pioneer. Trump's favorite racist, sexist, rape-apologist techno fascist has pioneered killing media outlets because they threaten rich guy agendas, and he's being cheered on.

Thiel proved media corporations with incompetent lawyers and editors can be brought down with the perfect circumstances.

That's it.

 

[tearsintherain]

Good fucking riddance, now and forever. And I love the "wealth shouldn't have played a part" angle.

To use a Game of Thrones metaphor, it's like Gawker was a rogue knight riding around terrorising peasants and no one had the means to fight back so it continued year after year. All of a sudden some rich lord who hated said knight bought a peasant a suit of armour so he could fight them 1 on 1 and in this suddenly fair fight the peasant wins.

The night is dark and full of Hulk Hogan sex tapes

 

[shawnbuddy]

That is some revisionist history there. While there may have been plenty of stories how Gawker couldn't possibly lose, there were plenty that said they were fucked.

But the real problem is you're literally not pointing out anything. You're pointing at Gawker and saying "Look, we're all fucked!" when everything else is fine. You can't say "Oh, now there is a blueprint" to dismantling unfavorable media and then have zero examples of it being put into action and still reasonably believe it either exists, or that it will be used to destroy a responsible news outlet.

I agree with acorn on this one. Your logic IS terrible. It's on the level of "If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?" The fact that the media is still standing does not mean Thiel's assault isn't pernicious.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Thiel proved media corporations with incompetent lawyers and editors can be brought down with the perfect circumstances.

That's it.

It's probably comforting to be so trusting of authority even if that includes shadowy fascist billionaires, but as a former reporter myself I just can't do it. Democracy dies in darkness, and there are always people out there trying to shoot out the lights.

 

[Euphor!a]

I agree with acorn on this one. Your logic IS terrible. It's on the level of "If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?" The fact that the media is still standing does not mean Thiel's assault isn't pernicious.

Except that isn't my logic and never has been. I'm sure it is easier to use that as a strawman though instead of actually having to defend your nebulous argument since you have zero evidence to support it, so keep on keeping on I guess.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Except that isn't my logic and never has been. I'm sure it is easier to use that as a strawman though instead of actually having to defend your nebulous argument since you have zero evidence to support it, so keep on keeping on I guess.

Your argument is that one has no right to worry about a potential disaster until after it happens. That's bad logic. Yes, I can't prove Thiel's playbook has been used to destroy democracy, but the fact that it's clearly intended for that purpose is worrying.

 

[Euphor!a]

Your argument is that one has no right to worry about a potential disaster until after it happens. That's bad logic.

No, my argument is show me some evidence of this looming disaster beyond baseless speculation.

 

[KHarvey16]

Your argument is that one has no right to worry about a potential disaster until after it happens. That's bad logic.

Gawker being allowed to stay open would have led to countless people being outed without their permission.

 

[shawnbuddy]

No, my argument is show me some evidence of this looming disaster beyond baseless speculation.

A gate has been opened. Just because nothing has successfully walked through it in the last year and five months doesn't mean we should be confident nothing ever will.

Gawker being allowed to stay open would have led to countless people being outed without their permission.

Countless is a huge exaggeration. Gawker "outed" obviously gay and rumored to be gay public figures like Anderson Cooper until they outed the Condé Nast guy, which was unfair because he's not really a public figure. They regretted it and removed the story. I can't remember a major outing after that.

 

[SecretMoblin]

what does "obviously gay" mean

 

[KHarvey16]

A Countless is a huge exaggeration. Gawker "outed" obviously gay and rumored to be gay public figures like Anderson Cooper until they outed the Condé Nast guy, which was unfair because he's not really a public figure. They regretted it and removed the story. I can't remember a major outing after that.

I don't believe public figures deserve to be forced out either. I count way more forced outings than I do valid exclusive stories that never would have been reported on by anyone. By the reasoning we for whatever reason must accept it is a given they would continue to out people, they would continue to publish illegal spy tapes showing people having sex and they'd continue to show victims of potential sexual abuse despite their pleas they not do so.

 

[shawnbuddy]

what does "obviously gay" mean

Well known in their industries to be gay and often seen with a partner, like Cooper.

 

[Euphor!a]

A gate has been opened. Just because nothing has successfully walked through it in the last year and five months doesn't mean we should be confident nothing ever will.

No, it means we should be reasonable and not reactionary. You're using this gate metaphor but in reality you can't prove the fucking gate even exists, let alone that it is open to be exploited by anyone else.

 

[shawnbuddy]

No, it means we should be reasonable and not reactionary. You're using this gate metaphor but in reality you can't prove the fucking gate even exists, let alone that it is open to be exploited by anyone else.

Bad, bad logic and increasingly circular at that. I can't engage on your level anymore.

 

[Euphor!a]

Bad, bad logic. I can't stoop to engage on your level anymore.

I know, it's hard to be on the level where you actually have to base your argument on evidence. Go back to your level where you can spout bullshit uncontested.

 

[TheCochese]

It's probably comforting to be so trusting of authority even if that includes shadowy fascist billionaires, but as a former reporter myself I just can't do it. Democracy dies in darkness, and there are always people out there trying to shoot out the lights.

What complete bullshit. You'll excuse us if we don't act like chicken Little over this.

How many other rape victims being videoed would make them irredeemable past this slippery slope bullshit?

You don't have to engage with me either if your entire argument is based on what ifs.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

My point is that the method in which news outlets are able to being taken down for their practices is not necessarily a fruitful one - i.e. that justice for malpractice shouldn't be dependent on billionaires and their lawyers, but through other more just means.

Which is more of an argument of the way the legal system is set up, but you are sort of shifting the goalposts because I asked who felt the chilling effect of the Gawker case. I'm not seeing a disproportionate increase in cases where millionaires/billionaires are going after news media and I've cited cases that show an opposite effect to your argument (which proves this whole concern about rich men going after news media is overblown and hyperbolic and an illogical "slippery slope" claim).

 

[Tripon]

Don't need a site that felt like it had a moral duty to out people in the closet.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Because of Peter Thiel and the Gawker case, even if an outlet somehow got a hold of the Pee Pee Tape they would never release it. It should be bottled up, building more and more pressure.