5 ms·

This is completely wrong. Gawker Media was a profitable, growing company until Peter Thiel wrecked it and its subsidiary sites were sold to a series of increasi

This is completely wrong. Gawker Media was a profitable, growing company until Peter Thiel wrecked it and its subsidiary sites were sold to a series of increasingly incompetent owners. Deadspin's "non-sports" articles were regularly among its most widely read. In fact, here's a person whose job it was to sell ads for Deadspin explaining that you are incorrect: https://twitter.com/jillian_schulz/status/1189673861270429696 https://twitter.com/jillian_schulz/status/118967386127042969...

manigandham 7y ago
Gawker was a $200M company taking on a much smaller person until Thiel got involved. He used their own strategy of outspending the other side against them, and they decided to die on a hill of tabloid gossip rather than real news. Regardless if Deadspin did so well then it would continue doing so in the years since the lawsuit.
at-fates-hands 7y ago
> until Peter Thiel wrecked it. This is wrong. Gawker media were confident they could operate freely in legal grey areas and fall back on their “freedom of speech” defense when they published Hulk Hogan’s sex tape without his knowledge. The fact they decided to go to court and challenge Hogan over his claims of defamation was their own poor choice. The only thing Thiel did was bankroll Hogan’s legal team. A.J. Daulerio’s deposition and subsequent cavalier appearance and court testimony was probably the last nail in their coffin. In short, Gawker had been playing with fire before and escaped. The fact they thought this would be another easy escape proved to be their undoing. Nobody but Gawker and their editors who thought they could publish anything, about any celeb is what cost them their publication and their jobs - not just one guy who financially supported Hogan in his civil case.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Let's not forget why Thiel was upset at Gawker. They outed him as gay, putting his life in danger because he did business in places where the penalty for homosexuality is death.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    No, a billionaire is not in danger of death because he does business somewhere that has such a penalty. A billionaire can afford security or not go in person. Does not going in person harm his ability to make deals? Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't even resemble "life in danger".
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Maybe the claim is exaggerated but having money doesn’t make you invincible, especially to larger organizations. Regardless nobody should have such personal details revealed as news without their own doing, no matter how rich or famous they are.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        Money doesn't make you invincible to everything. But when it comes to "I need to visit this country for business", money easily solves that. > Regardless nobody should have such personal details revealed as news without their own doing, no matter how rich or famous they are. Yeah, sure. Though I'd say that the existence of billionaires is a significantly larger problem...
        manigandham 7y ago
        No, money doesn’t easily solve anything, and it can actually bring attention (like tabloids that want to expose your sex life). And existence of billionaires? Envy of other people’s wealth and taking it away by force is at the forefront of every catastrophic economic outcome.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        > No, money doesn’t easily solve anything Anyone who has ever had an unreliable car begs to differ. Among a million other examples. Not being able to just solve unexpected problems is the worst part of being poor. > Envy of other people’s wealth and taking it away by force is at the forefront of every catastrophic economic outcome. I didn't say 'taking it away', it's more a comment on how taxes should be more progressive. But if you did knock every billionaire down to 100M... nothing bad would happen. It's less than one percent of one percent of people going from "filthy rich" down to "still filthy rich".

manigandham 7y ago

Gawker was a $200M company taking on a much smaller person until Thiel got involved. He used their own strategy of outspending the other side against them, and they decided to die on a hill of tabloid gossip rather than real news. Regardless if Deadspin did so well then it would continue doing so in the years since the lawsuit.

at-fates-hands 7y ago

> until Peter Thiel wrecked it. This is wrong. Gawker media were confident they could operate freely in legal grey areas and fall back on their “freedom of speech” defense when they published Hulk Hogan’s sex tape without his knowledge. The fact they decided to go to court and challenge Hogan over his claims of defamation was their own poor choice. The only thing Thiel did was bankroll Hogan’s legal team. A.J. Daulerio’s deposition and subsequent cavalier appearance and court testimony was probably the last nail in their coffin. In short, Gawker had been playing with fire before and escaped. The fact they thought this would be another easy escape proved to be their undoing. Nobody but Gawker and their editors who thought they could publish anything, about any celeb is what cost them their publication and their jobs - not just one guy who financially supported Hogan in his civil case.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Let's not forget why Thiel was upset at Gawker. They outed him as gay, putting his life in danger because he did business in places where the penalty for homosexuality is death.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  No, a billionaire is not in danger of death because he does business somewhere that has such a penalty. A billionaire can afford security or not go in person. Does not going in person harm his ability to make deals? Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't even resemble "life in danger".
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Maybe the claim is exaggerated but having money doesn’t make you invincible, especially to larger organizations. Regardless nobody should have such personal details revealed as news without their own doing, no matter how rich or famous they are.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Money doesn't make you invincible to everything. But when it comes to "I need to visit this country for business", money easily solves that. > Regardless nobody should have such personal details revealed as news without their own doing, no matter how rich or famous they are. Yeah, sure. Though I'd say that the existence of billionaires is a significantly larger problem...
      - manigandham 7y ago
        No, money doesn’t easily solve anything, and it can actually bring attention (like tabloids that want to expose your sex life). And existence of billionaires? Envy of other people’s wealth and taking it away by force is at the forefront of every catastrophic economic outcome.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        > No, money doesn’t easily solve anything Anyone who has ever had an unreliable car begs to differ. Among a million other examples. Not being able to just solve unexpected problems is the worst part of being poor. > Envy of other people’s wealth and taking it away by force is at the forefront of every catastrophic economic outcome. I didn't say 'taking it away', it's more a comment on how taxes should be more progressive. But if you did knock every billionaire down to 100M... nothing bad would happen. It's less than one percent of one percent of people going from "filthy rich" down to "still filthy rich".