Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction • Hacker News Board

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#231

Post by smt88 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #216

taejo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment exposed me to the big gap between the meanings of muckraker in US and UK English: 1. (US) One who investigates and exposes issues of corruption that often violate widely held values; e.g. one who exposes political corruption or the poor conditions in prisons. 2. (Britain) A sensationalist, scandal-mongering journalist, one who is not driven by any social principles.

I'm American and I've only heard a muckraker described as number 2.

ProPublica, one of my favorite investigative news sources, describes some of their articles as "muckreads". They use the word proudly, with the implication that they've gone to lengths that the general public would/could not to find out important information.

As someone said, it was a pejorative term that was reclaimed, and that makes a lot of sense to me now.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#232

Post by whatok » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #214

smt88 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one really seemed to have -big- issue with this until Thiel was in the picture That's because, with Thiel's involvement, the case became about something else: a personal vendetta. Regardless of the outcome, many of us are dismayed that Thiel was able to weaponize the justice system using huge amounts of money. > why should a media publication like Gawker not be held accountable? The tape of Hogan had racist comm…

There is a name for weaponization of the legal system, it is called 'lawfare', and it has been going on a long time. This was a legitimate case, not some strange and arcane proceeding based on a hitherto unknown statute; it may be the case that Thiel was 'woken up' by the post about him, and has since been keeping a lookout to stop Denton's greed from harming more people. Denton isn't running a charity. If Denton had…

> If Denton had published the tape 'for the public', he wouldn't have included the sex bit; we all know that this was classic Gawker clickbait. Denton obviously only cares about 'disclosure' when it gives him ammunition to use against his opponents, especially when he can profit off of it.

100% agree with this. Publication of the entire tape was not necessary. What would be the difference between publishing that a tape existed or a few screenshots vs the entire tape? Clicks.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#233

Post by cjahsh » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

olliej wrote: post #122

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Precedent this sets"? I think "Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video." to be a rather positive precedent, don't you? That's the sort of chilling effect on media we should all be applauding. 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…

It wasnt illegally made, it wasnt stolen, it was in the public interest (hogan is a very public figure, and has gone on at length about being faithful, not cheating, loose morals of young people). So... Reporting on that seems like actual information that should be public? Compare to the pamela anderson tape, which was with her husband, was literally /stolen from their home/, and was sold for profit. Judge ruled that…

The video WAS illegal because California is a two-party state. You can't record without the consent of ALL parties.

Also, just because it interests you and you're a member of the public does not make it a public interest

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#234

Post by jlarocco » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

bkeroack wrote: post #187

whack wrote: post #54

Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…

False. Statements must be untrue to be either libel (written) or slander (verbal). The sex tape in question was real. I would not be so quick to celebrate. This case has demonstrated that one or two very powerful, wealthy individuals (Peter Thiel et al) are able to destroy a successful business and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed . (It's worth noting that what Gawker originally wrote…

You are definitely correct that Gawker's behavior wasn't technically illegal, but it was still a shitty thing to do, so I have zero sympathy for them.

> I would not be so quick to celebrate. This case has demonstrated that one or two very powerful, wealthy individuals (Peter Thiel et al) are able to destroy a successful business and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed.

That's always been true anyway. On the bright side, this time it was all over the internet, so that's some kind of progress at least.

> (It's worth noting that what Gawker originally wrote about Thiel was also apparently true.)

In both cases the info Gawker published was really nobody's business but that of the people involved. They published it as shameful attempts to get page views and (possibly) just to be mean. So good riddance.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#235

Post by kebolio » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

pcurve wrote: post #33

cm2187 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting the Hogan suit was groundless?

It wasn't, but the damage amount is excessive.

I agree somewhat; the judge still could have bankrupted Gawker without taking too much off the number

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#236

Post by k-mcgrady » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

bkeroack wrote: post #187

whack wrote: post #54

Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…

False. Statements must be untrue to be either libel (written) or slander (verbal). The sex tape in question was real. I would not be so quick to celebrate. This case has demonstrated that one or two very powerful, wealthy individuals (Peter Thiel et al) are able to destroy a successful business and ruin the livlihoods of dozens merely because they were embarassed . (It's worth noting that what Gawker originally wrote…

He was videotaped without his knowledge in a situation he had every reason to expect was private. If you then obtain that tape and publish it you're scum. The livelihoods of the employees were ruined by their idiot bosses who thought it would be a good idea to publish the video, not by the persons defending their privacy.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#237

Post by cjahsh » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

olliej wrote: post #169

Its amazing how many people are coming to claim this is "100% awesome", but in another thread will say that reddit closing threads that share stolen nudes or preteen porn is censorship that should be illegal and is demonstrating the power of SJWs.

There's not a lot of evidence that these are the same people.

You know not everyone on the internet is the same??

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#238

Post by slg » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:02 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #72

whack wrote: post #54

Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy. By building an entire business model around such practices, Gawker is not only spreading disinformation, it is also crowding out more reputable news sources that could have better helped inform the public. The only criticism I can give in this entire tale, is that it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers. Such re…

> Libel and slander have no place in a functioning democracy One man's libel/slander is another man's investigate journalism ("muckraking" in the US). In this particular case, Gawker wasn't guilty of either libel or slander because they didn't publish anything about Hogan that was false. > it shouldn't take a billionaire to sue and win judgement against slanderous publishers It's actually much harder to win a libel/s…

Does that really change the underlying belief? Whether what Gawker did was libel, an invasion of privacy, or any other crime it boils down to Gawker violating the rights of other individuals and building a business model around that practice. This wasn't some brave investigative journalist exposing corruption, this was a hack posting the sex tape of a celebrity. They aren't even in the same ballpark.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#239

Post by bionsuba » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:02 PM UTC

keepper wrote: post #74

A racist billionaire[1], funding another racist millionaire[2], supporting another racist billionaire[3] But everyone seems to be ok with this, because of pseudo libertarianism? Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny." Oh man... what is going on!?! [1] https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/…

"A racist billionaire[1]"

Penn Jillette has a great saying on this (paraphrasing):

"Unless the person has explicitly said they're racist, claiming someone is racist requires the power to look into someone's heart, which no one has. The KKK and stormfront are very open that they are racists, and you can call those people racist because they say they are. You cannot make these sorts of claims without putting words into other people's mouth".

And you're putting words in someone's mouth. According to that article, Thiel believes that affirmative action is not helping the poor or disenfranchised, but is rather helping the middle and upper class people. Extrapolating racism from his statements is a giant leap in logic.

Re: Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

#240

Post by smt88 » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

FussyZeus wrote: post #217

smt88 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't publish a illegally made video of people in a private moment or ignore court orders to take down the video. What about that video of Mitt Romney at a private campaign event, where he said some horrible stuff about poor people? That was a private video, probably made illegally. Journalism is about making private things public when it suits the public. An individual (who is directly impacted by the revelations)…

The thoughts of a politician running for office ARE in the public interest because that person is campaigning to be elected to be a decision maker in the country. Video of people having sex may be something the public is interested in, but it is not in the public interest. It's none of the public's business and the public should find more interesting things to be interested in.

Hogan has considered running for office multiple times, including saying he wants to be Trump's running mate[1]. Why should we distinguish between a powerful, famous businessman and actor and a politician? Anyone powerful and famous should be a public figure on the same footing.

1. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/29/hulk-hogan-i...