Gawker files for bankruptcy

[Ultimate Paragon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/media/gawker-bankruptcy-sale.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

"A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post.  We Won't.  We'll Go Bankrupt Instead."

[niam2023]

Such a pity.

I enjoyed the sheer Schadenfreude involved if nothing else.

[ironbite]

I bet UP's really upset about this.

Ironbite-absolutely crushed.

[Dakota Bob]

HULKAMANIA IS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH BROTHER

[Sigmaleph]

Wow.

[Cloud3514]

I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.

It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.

It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.

They didn't just "criticize" Thiel, they outed him against his will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1

As for Kotaku and io9, speak for yourself.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.

It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.

They didn't just "criticize" Thiel, they outed him against his will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1

As for Kotaku and io9, speak for yourself.

Er, I was speaking for myself. I've never claimed to represent a "movement". Unlike some.

And outing people against their will sucks, creating an attack fund to punish your enemies in the press sets a dangerous precedent O noble defender of FreezePeach. Wonder what the Koch brothers make of this case...

Also, direct question UP if this is your definition of "censorship"

The way I define censorship is the suppression of expression for no reason other than its perceived offensiveness. 

Doesn't trying to shut down an entire publication fall under this category?

Sure, Gawkers invasions of privacy are disgusting but-io9, Jalopnik and lifehacker aren't in the business of invading privacy, they are reporting on science fiction news, cars and whatever lifehacker is about. Saying "your publication is offensive and I'm going to shut down it's ability to publish anything" certainly seems like an attempt to suppress expression for no reason than its perceived offensiveness. And Thiel is trying to shut down Gawker, all of Gawker, forever, and you are cheering him on.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm not weeping for the assholes who decided that posting a sex tape was an ethical move, but it really sucks that good writers are likely to lose their jobs because of the actions of shitty bosses.

It was an incredibly daft move on their part. All they needed to do was admit they did a shitty thing and remove the privacy-breaching material and that would have been that. As it is their dick move has opened the way for billionaires with a grudge to litigate critics out of existence by proxy and we lose Kotaku and io9. Which sucks.

They didn't just "criticize" Thiel, they outed him against his will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?_r=1

As for Kotaku and io9, speak for yourself.

Er, I was speaking for myself. I've never claimed to represent a "movement". Unlike some.

And outing people against their will sucks, creating an attack fund to punish your enemies in the press sets a dangerous precedent O noble defender of FreezePeach. Wonder what the Koch brothers make of this case...

Also, direct question UP if this is your definition of "censorship"

The way I define censorship is the suppression of expression for no reason other than its perceived offensiveness. 

Doesn't trying to shut down an entire publication fall under this category?

Sure, Gawkers invasions of privacy are disgusting but-io9, Jalopnik and lifehacker aren't in the business of invading privacy, they are reporting on science fiction news, cars and whatever lifehacker is about. Saying "your publication is offensive and I'm going to shut down it's ability to publish anything" certainly seems like an attempt to suppress expression for no reason than its perceived offensiveness. And Thiel is trying to shut down Gawker, all of Gawker, forever, and you are cheering him on.

1.  Gawker is worse than "offensive," it's harmful.  Ever heard of the Gawker Stalker?

2.  How would you propose attacking Gawker without attacking its outlets?

[davedan]

You know I don't have a problem with Thiel. I think UP's position is difficult because of the hypocrisy. But that's only a problem if you want to hold him to any form of consistency. This is just a great example of UP's 'morals' being determined by whether he likes the person (Organisation) or not.

[Ultimate Paragon]

You know I don't have a problem with Thiel. I think UP's position is difficult because of the hypocrisy. But that's only a problem if you want to hold him to any form of consistency. This is just a great example of UP's 'morals' being determined by whether he likes the person (Organisation) or not.

No double standard here.  Invasions of privacy like these deserve to be punished.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Well If Thiel's legal "philanthropy" came with a specific demand like "stop invading peoples privacy for clicks you assholes" I could get behind that. If it's done with the purpose of simply crushing your enemies for slighting you you...not so much.

As I said it sets a precedent, if other parties with deep pockets want a model for crushing pesky media for asking uncomfortable questions a heck of a lot more legitimate than Gawkers creepy clickbait they now have a good model. In any case the support of certain "online movements" for this case has more to do with naked revenge than any concern for Hogan or Thiel's privacy.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

You know I don't have a problem with Thiel. I think UP's position is difficult because of the hypocrisy. But that's only a problem if you want to hold him to any form of consistency. This is just a great example of UP's 'morals' being determined by whether he likes the person (Organisation) or not.

No double standard here.  Invasions of privacy like these deserve to be punished.

Does Reddit deserve to be punished in the same way Gawker is for publishing invasions of privacy on its website? That is, litigated into nonexistence. How about 8chan, or Brietbart?

Ever heard of the Gawker Stalker?

I had to google it, and it is indeed repulsive. Again. We arent talking about a request for somebody to stop doing a particular thing. We are talking about an attempt to stifle their ability to communicate at all. Different.

How would you propose attacking Gawker without attacking its outlets?

My problem is not attacking Gawker per se, Hulk and Thiel both had their privacy invaded and were damn right to sue Gawker because of it. I'm not opposed to restitution for civil wrongs, what I am opposed to is setting up a slush fund for the explicit purpose of crushing your enemy. That goes beyond restitution, it's not responding to a specific wrongdoing it's just revenge for the sake of revenge.

In any case Gawkers properties are just that, properties. They retain value and will probably be sold to another interested party after the umbrella organization goes bankrupt so reports of their early demise may be exaggerated.

[davedan]

I thought Thiel was pretty open about the fact that he was funding it because he had a grudge against Gawker. The fact that his motives weren't pure doesn't change the fact that it was appropriate to help fund someone who couldn't afford to litigate when they had a genuine claim.