61–70 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what precedent? that if you say something, you stand by the consequences, financial and all? that people take responsibility for what they say is not a new development. new journals are free to start up and take the place of gawker. nothing here stops them from doing so.
Free speech is the opposite of that.
That's not happening here.
Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavor…
http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/gawkers-pre-hoga...
> The company’s revenue had grown from about $5.3 million in 2006 to $43.8 million in 2014. It was consistently profitable, with a 2014 operating income of $6.7 million. Most importantly, it had an ambitious plan to create a lucrative new revenue stream by monetizing third-party content on its proprietary online publishing platform, Kinja, that promised to deliver the site from many of the increasing pressures facing ad-supported digital publishing.
I wouldn't be surprised if Gawker were the only online-only media company that was making profits in the range of millions. That Hogan video, which couldn't have brought in more than a good week's worth of traffic, was a fucking dumb way to flush a nearly billion dollar company down the toilet. For legal reasons, Gawker has publicly stood by the former editor who published the post (and then who went on to create another Gawker-like site [1], that immediately folded because of non-traffic), but I wonder if Gawker employees are privately treating him like a pariah.
And nothing of value was lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting the Hogan suit was groundless?
I think the damage was not worth putting tens (hundreds?) of people out of a job, most of them who had nothing to do with the Hogan fiasco but are still being punished for it, putting their livelihood in jeopardy for the emotional comfort of a billionaire. The people responsible for the piece should have been personally held responsible.
"emotional comfort of a billionaire"
That is very dismissive. Are people worth less to you when they have more money?
Gawker may have been terrible, but we should all be a bit concerned at the precedent this sets. It's sort of like defending the free speech of terrible groups like the KKK. We do it because we treasure free speech, not because we support the KKK. I generally have positive feelings about Thiel, but his actions here make me very uneasy. I worry that the aristocracy will now use this method to try and close down unfavor…
Thief merely funded a court battle that had merit (in this case, quite a lot of merit) that Bollea probably could have won on his own. I fail to see what the hand-wringing about is about.
Messed up lawsuit and I actually don't know what to think. 1) Gawker was garbage dwelling story makers. I am glad they aren't going to do stories anymore. 2) Who will it be the next time something happens like this will it be a actual journalist and good content producer that gets sued to death? Scared for journalist???? Also would be nice to see LifeHacker survive this.
Well the hope is that the courts wouldn't rule against an actual journalist for doing his/her job in a lawsuit. I get the "slippery slope" argument but posting a video of Hulk Hogan having sex (taken and posted without his consent) doesn't really qualify as journalism in any way and they really deserved to lose.