2 ms·
I mean they did. The actual business we are talking about was started the way you suggest, and was then destroyed by a vindictive billionaire, and is now being
by CPLX 7y ago
I mean they did. The actual business we are talking about was started the way you suggest, and was then destroyed by a vindictive billionaire, and is now being (apparently) mismanaged by a bunch of other rich people.
Is your premise that the journalists have no right to be mad at what they perceive as an unjust wielding of economic power?
- xyzzyz 7y agoThe actual business we are talking about was started the way you suggest, and was then destroyed by a vindictive billionaire, and is now being (apparently) mismanaged by a bunch of other rich people. If so, that's only more reason to leave. If they all leave, they can start a competing business managing it the way they want, while the rich people are left with worthless husk. I'd also like to note that it was not destroyed by "vindictive billionaire", but by a result of jury trial, which punished them for keeping a private sex tape up despite the court order telling them to take it down. Allow me to opine that it doesn't really give me a feeling that they know how to run a successful business.
- donw 7y agoThey were destroyed for publishing revenge porn[1]. Whoever at that organization gave the greenlight on publishing and publicizing sexually explicit videos without the express consent of the people appearing in them are lucky to not be in prison. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn
- manigandham 7y agoGawker was trying to destroy someone by publishing tabloid news and then overpowering them in court, until someone richer than them showed up (because they did the same to him before). It was their own strategy used against them in a legal battle, over tabloid news instead of some hard-hitting report. They aren't a victim in any sense.