4 ms·
I don't like Gawker, but I like the idea of a billionaire being able to bankrupt news sites that he doesn't like even less.
by mevile 10y ago
I don't like Gawker, but I like the idea of a billionaire being able to bankrupt news sites that he doesn't like even less.
- lujim 10y agoWell Gawker isn't exactly the Wall Street Journal and they didn't get the bankruptcy treatment for having a differing political opinion or some different viewpoint. They were bullying people and now they are getting bullied.
- BryantD 10y agoFalse equivalency. They bullied Thiel, and made him unhappy. I don't see any evidence that his ability to do business has been affected. Thiel has now made it impossible for Gawker to continue as a company. The effect of the bullying is vastly different.
- lujim 10y agoWho said it has anything to due with equivalency? Go try to bully your boss, or a cop, or a 6'9" meat head. You're free to try, but you might not like the result. Part of life if using your brain to determine what you are free to do vs what makes sense to do.
- BryantD 10y ago"don't do things that people who are more powerful than you will dislike."
- lujim 10y ago"when unethical, unnecessary, and/or pointless to do so, and may result in you taking a literal or figurative beating". ie "common sense" meets "pick your battles"
- mevile 10y agoSo you're totally OK with the chilling effect impact of wealth and political power on journalism. Got it.
- lujim 10y agoWhile I do appreciate Gawker telling me about PT's sexual orientation and showing me the hulksters junk, I will reserve journalistic martyrdom status for Assange and Snowden. That's the ethical, necessary,pick your battles part of my previous post.
- ryanlol 10y agoUnless you're going to create some imaginary communist paradise, you kind of have to be. Those with more money, skills, whatever will always be in a position of power over those with less. Thiel could've most certainly crushed Gawker even without the court system.
- praneshp 10y agoHe didn't. Gawker chose to do all the things that got them sued in the first place.
- eanzenberg 10y agoIt wasn't direct, it was through a legal system. Are you therefore arguing that Gawker should be allowed to publish private video they obtain that was filmed without consent from the subject?
- protomyth 10y agoIf Gawker hadn't acted in a manner opening themselves up for lawsuit, the billionaire wouldn't have been able to do anything. News organizations have some serious legal protections already.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoGood thing it was just Gawker then, instead of a principled news site. Yes I understand there's collateral damage under the corporate umbrella. It happens.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jshevek 10y agoWhat do you think of the idea of the ACLU being able to bankrupt a news site that they don't like?