Support NeoGAF

[Ninja Scooter]

The most reasonable post ITT.

Also pretty funny to me that Hogan was spited and verbally sent to hell by Gaf when it came out that he was a massive racist, but everyone is patting him on the back today.

He can be a total shitbag racist and also be in the right when it came to this trial. Those things can co-exist. Somebody doesn't lose their right to privacy because they are racists or because you don't like them.

 

[ANDS]

The most reasonable post ITT.

Also pretty funny to me that Hogan was spited and verbally sent to hell by Gaf when it came out that he was a massive racist, but everyone is patting him on the back today.

Who is giving Hogan attaboys? He deserved his day in court, regardless of the crap he said.

 

[slightconfuse]

More surprised at Ziff Davis still exist

 

[stufte]

You don't think it's weird to begin a line of assuming questioning like this when I merely refuted the fact that Gawker isn't like the National Inquirer, with proof?



I said they're not the National Inquirer lol - you have made some leaps here.

Here's a story about how the National Enquirer is right sometimes.

http://gawker.com/the-national-enquirer-has-been-right-before-1767130028

 

[ReAxion]

I just wished you linked a source that was not written by the subject itself, proving they are not like the National Inquirer.

Read the parts from other the outlets citing a Gawker media property as the one breaking the story, it's really not difficult.

 

[kirblar]

They had years and years to fix their practices and avoid leaving themselves open to this kind of event.

They deliberately chose not to do so, and this is the result. It reminds me of Countrywide bringing down Wachovia.

 

[Kaizer]

Man, that sucks. Gawker brought it upon themselves however with their loose & flimsy policies on personal info. I hope the writers for Kotaku, io9, Jezebel & Deadspin land okay - I visit those blogs everyday and would hate to see them go.

 

[CountAntonius]

 

[The Jackdog]

I get that people didnt like them, and I get that a lot of people are happy to see them gone....

But gawker did have a few damn huge stories break. And even if you want to discount that, its still real fucked up to me that a billionaire can just silence people he doesnt like

 

[God Dayumm]

He can be a total shitbag racist and also be in the right when it came to this trial. Those things can co-exist. Somebody doesn't lose their right to privacy because they are racists or because you don't like them.

And also Gawker has been harassing more people than just Hogan. They advocate for bullying, invasion of privacy and harassment. Nobody cares about old racist Hogan, but we are actually happy that such a vermin media conglomerate is going down.

 

[stufte]

I get that people didnt like them, and I get that a lot of people are happy to see them gone....

But gawker did have a few damn huge stories break. And even if you want to discount that, its still real fucked up to me that a billionaire can just silence people he doesnt like

This again. Do you think he could have sued them if they had done nothing wrong?

 

[Kinyou]

I get that people didnt like them, and I get that a lot of people are happy to see them gone....

But gawker did have a few damn huge stories break. And even if you want to discount that, its still real fucked up to me that a billionaire can just silence people he doesnt like

That kind of ignores that Gawker itself did some really questionable stuff.

People act like the trial was bought.

 

[wesleyshark]

I get that people didnt like them, and I get that a lot of people are happy to see them gone....

But gawker did have a few damn huge stories break. And even if you want to discount that, its still real fucked up to me that a billionaire can just silence people he doesnt like

Broken clocks are still right twice a day.

No one is discounting the good stories they broke, or some of the talented writers they have (hi Jason!), but as a whole, Gawker Media brought this onto themselves.

 

[Ratrat]

I get that people didnt like them, and I get that a lot of people are happy to see them gone....

But gawker did have a few damn huge stories break. And even if you want to discount that, its still real fucked up to me that a billionaire can just silence people he doesnt like

How about not publishing revenge porno, aiding blackmailers etc? Its a little more than 'people not liking them'.

 

[Alavard]

I get that people didnt like them, and I get that a lot of people are happy to see them gone....

But gawker did have a few damn huge stories break. And even if you want to discount that, its still real fucked up to me that a billionaire can just silence people he doesnt like

The source of the funds fueling the litigation is irrelevant to the jury's decision.

 

[QuantumZebra]

No more Kotaku? Good. Nothing but clickbait articles (which sadly, most gaming sites seem to go for)

You clearly don't even read Kotaku.

They're pretty much one of like, 3 gaming journo websites that actually do journalism these days. Even Colin Moriarty is a fan of them, and he's not a fan of the gaming press *at all*.

 

[stufte]

You clearly don't even read Kotaku.

They're pretty much one of like, 3 gaming journo websites that actually do journalism these days. Even Colin Moriarty is a fan of them, and he's not a fan of the gaming press *at all*.

Kotaku can get clickbaity from time to time, but nothing nearly as bad as Polygon.

 

[The Jackdog]

You clearly don't even read Kotaku.

They're pretty much one of like, 3 gaming journo websites that actually do journalism these days. Even Colin Moriarty is a fan of them, and he's not a fan of the gaming press *at all*.

honestly since last month kotaku to me has just become "overwatch clips: the website"

 

[Dicktatorship]

It'd be hilarious seeing Kotaku under the same roof as IGN and having to switch from being delusional pricks to delusional shills.

 

[Kinyou]

You clearly don't even read Kotaku.

They're pretty much one of like, 3 gaming journo websites that actually do journalism these days. Even Colin Moriarty is a fan of them, and he's not a fan of the gaming press *at all*.

I mean the research they do is fantastic, but I feel like those articles are outnumbered quite a bit by the silly and dumb ones.

 

[The Jackdog]

The source of the funds fueling the litigation is irrelevant to the jury's decision.

yeah, youre not wrong. I didnt think the lawsuit wasnt founded. It for sure was. They should of been sued. Like if their fuck up brings them down, then it brings them down. Its just weird having a billionaire say i dont like what you had to say so im going to make sure youre destroyed, idk.

 

[Alavard]

honestly since last month kotaku to me has just become "overwatch clips: the website"

Are we already forgetting the news of No Man's Sky delay?

 

[Archaix]

I get that people didnt like them, and I get that a lot of people are happy to see them gone....

But gawker did have a few damn huge stories break. And even if you want to discount that, its still real fucked up to me that a billionaire can just silence people he doesnt like

One billionaire and the courts that ordered them to take down the story in the first place, and the assholes who work there who refused, and the piece of fucking garbage that started the company who doubled down on it.

Oh woe is democracy, when one rich person can't ignore the courts and gets punished by another court. Somehow Hulk Hogan and whoever funded his court case is the flaw in all of this though. Damn him and his money which twisted reality retroactively.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I don't even hate Gawker -that- much (I do rather dislike them), but I still let out a single "Hee"

 

[ANDS]

yeah, youre not wrong. I didnt think the lawsuit wasnt founded. It for sure was. They should of been sued. Like if their fuck up brings them down, then it brings them down. Its just weird having a billionaire say i dont like what you had to say so im going to make sure youre destroyed, idk.

You notice he didn't sue for them outing him. And it's unlikely HH would have been able to bring the suit himself.

 

[The Jackdog]

One billionaire and the courts that ordered them to take down the story in the first place, and the assholes who work there who refused, and the piece of fucking garbage that started the company who doubled down on it.

Oh woe is democracy, when one rich person can't ignore the courts and gets punished by another court. Somehow Hulk Hogan and whoever funded his court case is the flaw in all of this though. Damn him and his money which twisted reality retroactively.

the fuck? where did you get that in what i said?

 

[TheCochese]

Happy day.

You made your bed, Denton. Now you get to sleep in it.

 

[Alavard]

yeah, youre not wrong. I didnt think the lawsuit wasnt founded. It for sure was. They should of been sued. Like if their fuck up brings them down, then it brings them down. Its just weird having a billionaire say i dont like what you had to say so im going to make sure youre destroyed, idk.

The one part about this whole thing I don't like is the amount Gawker Media had to put into escrow in order to appeal. That to me was absurd.

 

[saltypickles]

Deadspin will no longer exist because of some petty rich asshole. Fuck 2016.

 

[213372bu]

Great!

Gawker and its subsidiaries have produced so many shitty articles "exposing" people's sexuality, giving hit pieces/targets on unassuming people, posting unethical articles, and just generally doing bad shit under the guise of being self-righteous.

Condolences to the three people who were competent and produced good work.

 

[chaobreaker]

No more Kotaku? Good. Nothing but clickbait articles (which sadly, most gaming sites seem to go for)

Clickbait keeps the gears turning so Kotaku (and other sites) can make all those longform articles everyone loves.

 

[MHWilliams]

If you're wondering why people are worried about the Gawker situation, as I said in the previous thread, it's the specific tactic used and the limitless resources behind that tactic.

Here's Mother Jones' situation:

Today we are happy to announce a monumental legal victory for Mother Jones: A judge in Idaho has ruled in our favor on all claims in a defamation case filed by a major Republican donor, Frank VanderSloot, and his company, Melaleuca Inc. In a decision issued Tuesday, the court found that Mother Jones did not defame VanderSloot or Melaleuca because "all of the statements at issue are non-actionable truth or substantial truth." The court also found that the statements were protected as fair comment under the First Amendment.

This is the culmination of a lengthy, expensive legal saga that began three years ago when the 2012 presidential primaries were in full swing. On February 6, 2012, we published an article about VanderSloot after it emerged that his company, Melaleuca, and its subsidiaries had given $1 million to Mitt Romney's super-PAC. The piece noted that VanderSloot had gone to unusual lengths to oppose gay rights in Idaho, and that Melaleuca had run into trouble with regulators.

But that September, we broke the story of Romney's 47 percent comments, which some have argued cost the GOP the White House. Four months later, VanderSloot—who was also one of Gov. Romney's national finance chairs—filed a defamation lawsuit against Mother Jones as well as Stephanie Mencimer, the reporter of the article, and Monika personally (for her tweet about the piece).

Legally, what we fought over was what, precisely, the terms "bashing" and "outing" meant in the context of our article. (Read the decision for yourself.) But make no mistake: This was not a dispute over a few words. It was a push, by a superrich businessman and donor, to wipe out news coverage that he disapproved of. Had he been successful, it would have been a chilling indicator that the 0.01 percent can control not only the financing of political campaigns, but also media coverage of those campaigns.

Since then, Mother Jones and our insurance company have had to spend at least $2.5 million defending ourselves. That's money we can't get back, since Idaho doesn't have an anti-SLAPP statute that might open the door for recovering attorney's fees in a case like this. We also paid for the defense of Zuckerman, whom VanderSloot sued halfway through the case for talking to Rachel Maddow about his experience. (VanderSloot did not sue MSNBC or its deep-pocketed parent company, Comcast. Make of that what you will.)

Here's a moment that gives you a sense of what it was like. At one point, Zuckerman was subjected to roughly 10 hours of grilling by VanderSloot's lawyers about every detail of the controversy in Idaho Falls, including the breakup with his boyfriend of five years. (VanderSloot also threatened to sue the ex-boyfriend, backing off only after he recanted statements he'd made about the Boy Scouts episode.) As the lawyers kept probing, Zuckerman broke down and cried as he testified that the time after the ads appeared was one of the darkest periods of his life. VanderSloot, who had flown to Portland for the occasion, sternly looked on. (His lawsuit against Zuckerman is ongoing.)

This kind of legal onslaught is enormously taxing. Last spring, Lowell Bergman, the legendary 60 Minutes producer (whose story of exposing Big Tobacco was chronicled in the Oscar-nominated film The Insider), talked about a "chill in the air" as investigative reporters confront billionaires who can hurt a news organization profoundly whether or not they win in court: "There are individuals and institutions with very deep pockets and unaccountable private power who don't like the way we report. One example is a case involving Mother Jones…A superrich plaintiff is spending millions of dollars while he bleeds the magazine and ties up its staff."

Litigation like this, Bergman said, is "being used to tame the press, to cause publishers and broadcasters to decide whether to stand up or stand down, to self-censor."

Over the past three years, we've had to face that decision over and over again. Should we just cave in—retract our article or let VanderSloot get a judgment against us—and make this all go away? It wasn't an easy choice, but we decided to fight back. Because it's not just about us. It's about everyone who relies on Mother Jones to report the facts as we find them. It's about the Fourth Estate's check on those who would use their outsized influence and ability to finance political campaigns to control the direction of the country. It's about making sure that in a time when media is always under pressure to buckle to politicians or big-money interests, you can trust that someone will stand up and go after the truth.

You can feel that Gawker did wrong in handling Hogan's video (they did, in my opinion), while also taking a pause about how Thiel brought his machine to bear.

 

[Dennis]

I am more worried that a 'media organization' like Gawker can fuck up individual lives like they did with that Conde Nast executive and they tried with Hulk Hogan.

Imagine being one person up a against an evil institution like Gawker.

 

[The Jackdog]

You can feel that Gawker did wrong in handling Hogan's video (they did, in my opinion), while also taking a pause about how Thiel brought his machine to bear.

Thats been my view on it. When does some rich guy decide a newspaper who broke a story about his/her corruption take out the newspaper he doesnt like.

 

[Dartastic]

I mean the research they do is fantastic, but I feel like those articles are outnumbered quite a bit by the silly and dumb ones.

Media in general is fighting to survive. Of course they have silly and dumb ones. Clickbait is the norm these days, sadly. Gotta get that ad traffic.

If you're wondering why people are worried about the Gawker situation, as I said in the previous thread, it's the specific tactic used and the limitless resources behind that tactic.

Here's Mother Jones' situation:

You can feel that Gawker did wrong in handling Hogan's video (they did, in my opinion), while also taking a pause about how Thiel brought his machine to bear.

Yes. This.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

They had years and years to fix their practices and avoid leaving themselves open to this kind of event.

They deliberately chose not to do so, and this is the result. It reminds me of Countrywide bringing down Wachovia.

Golden West.

Countrywide was Bank of America's albatross.

 

[ghostjoke]

The most reasonable post ITT.

Also pretty funny to me that Hogan was spited and verbally sent to hell by Gaf when it came out that he was a massive racist, but everyone is patting him on the back today.

Turns out the world isn't black and white and not all conflicts are good v evil. In wrestling terms, it's the illusive heel vs heel (with heel manager) match. Amazing isn't it?

Hogan being a racist (on top of all the other things that make him a horrible person) doesn't make Gawker any less in the wrong. Thiel, with his messed up political views, opposing Gawker doesn't make Gawker any more justified either. It was three assholes fighting it out and one looks to have been destroyed. And honestly, it was the one with the most power to cause harm to other people in the future that went under. I'd call that a win.

As for Thiel's methods:
Thiel's methods are worrying if applied to actual attempts to silence journalists (not Gawker gossip columns) - and it has happened (Mother Jones) - but in this case, a morally bankrupted (pun fully intended) company dug their grave and were just waiting, taunting almost, for someone to nudge them in. This wasn't some grand expose on corruption, it was purely profit driven as the expense of others' privacy. I'm sure any actual journalists wouldn't need to descend to Gawker's levels, and thus wouldn't get their asses handed to them in court.

And for the actual journalists stuck under Gawker's subsidiaries:
They're pretty rare on the internet these days. I'm sure they'll get picked up elsewhere and be in better environments for their talents to flourish. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I can't see a downside to people with talent getting out from under the Gawker umbrella.

 

[TimeEffect]

For some strange reason, this thread is the source on r/squaredcircle

 

[Cat Party]

If you're wondering why people are worried about the Gawker situation, as I said in the previous thread, it's the specific tactic used and the limitless resources behind that tactic.

Here's Mother Jones' situation:



You can feel that Gawker did wrong in handling Hogan's video (they did, in my opinion), while also taking a pause about how Thiel brought his machine to bear.

Yup. What if the judge didn't rule in Mother Jones' favor and a jury tagged them for all they were worth? It didn't happen, but it absolutely could have. I'm a lawyer, so I have faith in the courts, but they don't always get it right at the trial level. Appeals take a long time. Thiel and assholes like him know this, and use it as a weapon.

 

[ReAxion]

If you're wondering why people are worried about the Gawker situation, as I said in the previous thread, it's the specific tactic used and the limitless resources behind that tactic.

Here's Mother Jones' situation:

One thing that appears different, Mother Jones had insurance help. Thiel's multiple cases are structured to prevent insurance coverage.

It's 100% about who is paying, not compensating victims for any damage done.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

If someone with a gun is aiming for you, don't give them the ammo.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

No more Kotaku? Good. Nothing but clickbait articles (which sadly, most gaming sites seem to go for)

I don't get it. What exactly has Kotaku posted that's sensationalized? I see lots of unimportant fluff, but nothing that qualifies as clickbait.

Is this just a case of people defining clickbait as something they just don't like?

 

[NihonTiger90]

Unfortunately, for those if you saying "Heck yeah! But I hope X is unaffected...", the people must vulnerable (niche sites like Jalopnik and journalists across the board) are the ones who will take this on the nose hardest.

Denton and Co. will walk away from this battered but still with the riches they've made. I wouldn't be shocked to see some of the smaller sites folded (io9, Lifehacker, Jalopnik) or sold off (Deadspin) in the coming weeks, with some layoffs to follow on the sites that are kept in the name of synergy.

EDIT: The other possibility is folding IGN subsites into the Gawker blogs, this using their name recognition to help boost non-gaming traffic. But I'd still expect layoffs.

 

[E92 M3]

I am more worried that a 'media organization' like Gawker can fuck up individual lives like they did with that Conde Nast executive and they tried with Hulk Hogan.

Imagine being one person up a against an evil institution like Gawker.

Yes, the article on the executive was despicable.

 

[SecretMoblin]

Thiel tried to take GM down for 10 years. The idea that this was simply a case of a rich dude killing a company out of malice is bizarre. The wealthy have been crushing opposition media outlets since forever; the important distinction in this case is that Thiel wasn't able to do it until GM opened the door. It's hardly setting a dangerous precedent.

 

[The Shadow]

I know no one cares about freedom of speech in the real world and that "free speech" is just used as a cudgel against minorities getting mad at you, but this thread still seems like a weird thread. Gawker is a terrible site and I'm fine with Thiel getting revenge, but laws should probably be enacted to stop billionaires from funding lawsuits with the sole purpose of financially ruining a media outlet.

Does it seem fair to you to protect the free speech of one entity (Gawker) while simultaneously stifling the free speech of someone else (Thiel).

Money doesn't magically win or lose cases. It has less to due with Thiel winning because he has money, and more to do with Gawker losing because they overstepped the bounds of what media should be.

 

[The Shadow]

DP. Oh yeah!!!!

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Thiel tried to take GM down for 10 years. The idea that this was simply a case of a rich dude killing a company out of malice is bizarre. The wealthy have been crushing opposition media outlets since forever; the important distinction in this case is that Thiel wasn't able to do it until GM opened the door. It's hardly setting a dangerous precedent.

The idea that an organization like Gawker can write thousands of stories, then screw one up and get driven into bankruptcy is absolutely a dangerous precedent. This is going to encourage other websites to avoid making enemies like Thiel because they don't want to risk a similar vendetta.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

The idea that an organization like Gawker can write thousands of stories, then screw one up and get driven into bankruptcy is absolutely a dangerous precedent. This is going to encourage similar websites to avoid making enemies like Thiel because they don't want to risk a similar vendetta.

If you consider outing a gay man for no reason and posting a sex tape that was filmed without the participant's consent a simple "screw up" then sure.

 

[Archaix]

The idea that an organization like Gawker can write thousands of stories, then screw one up and get driven into bankruptcy is absolutely a dangerous precedent. This is going to encourage similar websites to avoid making enemies like Thiel because they don't want to risk a similar vendetta.

And wouldn't it be terrible if sites had to perform due diligence and check whether it was legal to report on something or if in fact they were specifically given a court order to take down the story they are reporting on. How could they ever function with the weight of asking questions like "Hey, didn't that judge say we can't print this?"