5 ms·

Same thing I was thinking. That said, I hate the National Enquirer and I am praying this leads to their destruction. On a tangentially related note I also beli

Same thing I was thinking. That said, I hate the National Enquirer and I am praying this leads to their destruction. On a tangentially related note I also believe there ought to be laws restricting paparazzi from harassing people. I think it's awful every time I see someone trying to walk down the street or out of a hospital or courthouse and swarmed by cameras that won't leave them alone even in moments of grief. They're people. I don't understand why it's considered perfectly acceptable to treat them that way just because they've become well-known. Just a thought connected to my disdain for tabloids.

gesman 8y ago
Regulation is required. Otherwise destroying 1 paparazzi or 1 tabloid will make another 5 pop up in their place.
- aerovistae 8y ago
  Partially agreed. Journalism should always be unregulated, but justice should act faster and be more reliable when journalism strays to evil. I wish there was any way for the commoners to make public policy proposals. Imagine like a reddit for discussion of policy, but where the most upvoted things actually got looked at by people in decision-making positions. It's very frustrating to me that I sometimes see really deep, interesting analysis of issues (and actual back-and-forth exchanges!) on reddit and never any such thing from actual politicians. Look at this thread here~ [0] Honestly insightful and meaningful discourse that anyone can participate in. They took what sounded on the surface like a great idea and pointed out critical flaws, and suggested superior alternatives. The constructiveness of the thread astounds me. I wish this type of thing actually connected to the government somehow, like in Ender's Game where Ender's siblings construct internet aliases and join policy conversations, slowly gaining influence and popularity through their rhetoric and insight. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aicgpz/serious_americans_would_you_be_in_support_of/?st=jrvdhxme&sh=c07361aa https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aicgpz/serious_a...
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    I doubt Bezos is going to stop at a legal thumping. He has the resources to destroy every dollar Pecker ever saw, ever dollar any of his employees or friends ever saw. I have little doubt many people in Bezos's employ have already developed multiple branch and sequel plans to ensure their boss never even has to acknowledge Pecker's homelessness in a cold city in winter.
sytelus 8y ago
You are missing the point. Entities like National Enquirer are not like Gawker that was bankrupted by Thiel with his wealth might. These entities are funded by politics aka American GDP aka your tax dollars. As Bezos clearly outlined in this letter, Trump administration helped these people have very lucrative deals with Saudies to get their financing, very likely, US government doing some favors to Saudies in return. Even if Bezos managed to bankrupt them, they will immediately popup with new name pretty much next day, by same owners and would run in exact same way doing exact same things. You can't kill it.
- cr1t1calh1t 8y ago
  National Enquirer is funded by US tax dollars? I'm no friend of the National Enquirer, but we should make sure we're talking about facts here.. Do you have any proof for your assertion that they're "funded by politics aka American GDP aka your tax dollars"?
- aerovistae 8y ago
  You might overestimate how much people care to pour into the National Enquirer. Or I might underestimate it, sure. Time will tell.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  the justice department certainly can in fact kill it
  - sytelus 8y ago
    It takes less than an hour of paperwork to spin a new business entity that is exactly the same as old. Bankruptcy laws limits financial losses for owners. Entities like AMI are often set up in a way so such financial losses would be negligible, if any.
    - nyolfen 8y ago
      it's pretty difficult when you're in prison
Shivetya 8y ago
Well they have broken some amazing stories, they pretty much ended John Edwards career in the face of a lot of criticism. They broke their first in 2006 and followed up with the final is 2008. so while tabloids can be annoying they sometimes are capable of breaking a story, usually only the sordid type, but those can be amazing
- aerovistae 8y ago
  No, I don't support this argument. Pedophile priests probably gave support to many people and did a lot of good, too. They still need to be thrown forcefully from their offices and straight into prison. We are not so desperate that we must accept evil just because it comes with a small payment of good. You can have the good on its own. That reporter or his team could just as easily have found that story while working for a different publisher.

gesman 8y ago

Regulation is required. Otherwise destroying 1 paparazzi or 1 tabloid will make another 5 pop up in their place.

aerovistae 8y ago
Partially agreed. Journalism should always be unregulated, but justice should act faster and be more reliable when journalism strays to evil. I wish there was any way for the commoners to make public policy proposals. Imagine like a reddit for discussion of policy, but where the most upvoted things actually got looked at by people in decision-making positions. It's very frustrating to me that I sometimes see really deep, interesting analysis of issues (and actual back-and-forth exchanges!) on reddit and never any such thing from actual politicians. Look at this thread here~ [0] Honestly insightful and meaningful discourse that anyone can participate in. They took what sounded on the surface like a great idea and pointed out critical flaws, and suggested superior alternatives. The constructiveness of the thread astounds me. I wish this type of thing actually connected to the government somehow, like in Ender's Game where Ender's siblings construct internet aliases and join policy conversations, slowly gaining influence and popularity through their rhetoric and insight. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aicgpz/serious_americans_would_you_be_in_support_of/?st=jrvdhxme&sh=c07361aa https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/aicgpz/serious_a...
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  I doubt Bezos is going to stop at a legal thumping. He has the resources to destroy every dollar Pecker ever saw, ever dollar any of his employees or friends ever saw. I have little doubt many people in Bezos's employ have already developed multiple branch and sequel plans to ensure their boss never even has to acknowledge Pecker's homelessness in a cold city in winter.

sytelus 8y ago

You are missing the point. Entities like National Enquirer are not like Gawker that was bankrupted by Thiel with his wealth might. These entities are funded by politics aka American GDP aka your tax dollars. As Bezos clearly outlined in this letter, Trump administration helped these people have very lucrative deals with Saudies to get their financing, very likely, US government doing some favors to Saudies in return. Even if Bezos managed to bankrupt them, they will immediately popup with new name pretty much next day, by same owners and would run in exact same way doing exact same things. You can't kill it.

cr1t1calh1t 8y ago
National Enquirer is funded by US tax dollars? I'm no friend of the National Enquirer, but we should make sure we're talking about facts here.. Do you have any proof for your assertion that they're "funded by politics aka American GDP aka your tax dollars"?
aerovistae 8y ago
You might overestimate how much people care to pour into the National Enquirer. Or I might underestimate it, sure. Time will tell.
nyolfen 8y ago
the justice department certainly can in fact kill it
- sytelus 8y ago
  It takes less than an hour of paperwork to spin a new business entity that is exactly the same as old. Bankruptcy laws limits financial losses for owners. Entities like AMI are often set up in a way so such financial losses would be negligible, if any.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    it's pretty difficult when you're in prison

Shivetya 8y ago

Well they have broken some amazing stories, they pretty much ended John Edwards career in the face of a lot of criticism. They broke their first in 2006 and followed up with the final is 2008. so while tabloids can be annoying they sometimes are capable of breaking a story, usually only the sordid type, but those can be amazing

aerovistae 8y ago
No, I don't support this argument. Pedophile priests probably gave support to many people and did a lot of good, too. They still need to be thrown forcefully from their offices and straight into prison. We are not so desperate that we must accept evil just because it comes with a small payment of good. You can have the good on its own. That reporter or his team could just as easily have found that story while working for a different publisher.