Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gawker Files for Bankruptcy, Will Be Put Up for Auction

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 566 posts

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

#321

Post by spriggan3 »

smt88 wrote: post #84
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…

> 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)…

> 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.

And Romney had the right to sue.He didn't what you're point ?

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

#322

Post by jlarocco »

deong wrote: post #255
jlarocco wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't have to have sympathy for them to want this not to have happened. I don't like Gawker. If you want to argue the world is a better place without them, I'm not going to take the other side. But the way they've been destroyed is terrifying for anyone who wants to live in a free and informed society. The ends don't justify the means.

I agree with you, and my point was that the ultra-rich influencing the media isn't new, and is actually more visible in this case than it normally is.

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

#323

Post by spriggan3 »

beatpanda wrote: post #58

Lovely to see Hacker News praising the wisdom of the billionaire who just managed to shut down a press outlet he didn't like. This new era of feudalism is off to a great start.

"press outlet" . That billionnaire didn't force Gawker to act like scum. Good riddance.

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

#324

Post by CM30 »

olliej wrote: post #147
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…

And engadget and kotaku and most of the other tech related websites you probably read. Also its a good lesson to other sites to police content to ensure no one says anything bad about billionaires. Thank god for thiel protecting us from horrible things like censorship!

Ziff Davis has possible plans to buy Kotaku:

http://www.recode.net/2016/6/10/11904892/memom-here-s-what-z...

Of course, whether those sites should be saved is another question. Some have some good content, but some are exactly the kind of low quality, often legally shaky muckraking that got Gawker sued into oblivion in the first place.

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

#325

Post by jdbernard »

BurningFrog wrote: post #94
Navarr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech protects you from government persecution. That's not happening here.

The Sixth Judicial Court of Florida is part of the government.

Adjudicating between two private parties. Or are you advocating for privately-owned courts?

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

#326

Post by 1024core »

dsabanin wrote: post #133
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…

A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately. For example, it's illegal to film what's happening inside a slaughterhouse[1]. Some people are getting into trouble for filming cops[2]. I'm not saying Gawker shouldn't be punished, but legality doesn't imply morality and free press in theory could be helping to review and change the immoral laws. The chilling effect from Gawker bankruptcy will be t…

> A lot of questionable things are becoming illegal to publish lately.

Come on. What goes on in a slaughterhouse affects all meat-eaters. It's a matter of public interest. But what happens in Hulk Hogan's bedroom between 2 consenting adults? And something that we all expect to keep private (except the exhibitionist types)? Not in the public interest at all. Would you call upskirt photos in the public interest? Or spycams in public bathrooms?

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

#327

Post by untog »

fullshark wrote: post #29
baldfat wrote: post #5

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.

The court doesn't even have to rule against the journalist for the legal costs to destroy a media organisation. By example, this exact thing happened to Mother Jones:

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/billionaire-sued...

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

#328

Post by makomk »

smt88 wrote: post #221
cjahsh wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, society should recognize the positive impacts of investigative journalism. I can hardly see a between the Pentagon Papers and a sex tape!

What if a conservative politician lobbies for adultery being illegal, and then a sex tape emerges of him cheating on his wife? That's important journalism. What if the CEO of a company intimidates an employee into having sex with him and secretly films it, and that gets released? That's also important journalism. There are lots of other ways sex tapes could be newsworthy: a famous person makes racist comments in it (…

As I understand it, Gawker considered the racist remarks so uninteresting they didn't even include them in their original edit or coverage of the sex tape. They only became public as a result of Hulk Hogan suing.

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

#329

Post by CM30 »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #103
danso wrote: post #65

Sad in a way. AFAIK, Gawker is not only one of the few independent online media companies (VICE/Vox/BuzzFeed/BusinessInsider are heavily funded/owned by massive media conglomerates), it was one of the few media companies period making a healthy profit: 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 cons…

I find it kind of perverse to champion a company based solely on their profitability. Gawker was a profitable media company because they were one of the the only ones debased enough to resort to muckraking for their tasteless, voyeuristic audiences. Good riddance, I say.

Reminds me of how the Daily Mail is the most popular newspaper in the UK (and also has rather questionable quality stories and reporting):

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-titles-overtake-sun-becom...

But yeah, a company being profitable (especially a media one) doesn't mean it's a good thing for society.

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

#330

Post by FilterSweep »

pmarreck wrote: post #80

I'm torn between everyone having their privacy and ripping the band-aid off by exposing everyone's private life at once so we see how things really are instead of how we think them to be For instance, I'd bet that many marriages are largely keeping up appearances while hiding some big secrets which would put the whole concept of "Western marriage" at risk (perhaps justifiably)

Hmmm....

Do you need to see how everyone's private life is, or is this just curiosity?

Sure, if you can live with the unnecessary consequences of how some people might react when their private lives are exposed - Ashley Madison Hack[0] provides a salient recent example [1].

Furthermore, it is obvious to many that some marriages are all for appearances. But they are also for children. They're also to appease nuclear and extended family. I don't understand the line of thinking where you could justify needing to know which other families are staying together "for the children" or "to keep their parents happy."

Is it any of your business?

Humans have kept their thoughts to themselves throughout their entire history (citation needed). Because the data collection practices of the Internet deceive the average person into giving their private thoughts to a SERP or telemetry-ridden OS, that gives you the right to "rip the bandaid" off everyone?

[0]: http://fusion.net/story/195787/whats-going-on-with-ashley-ma... [1]: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-ashely-madison...

Post reply on HN