Gawker (Kotaku parent) Files for Bankruptcy Protection, Ziff Davis (IGN) wants to buy
- Thread starter Jonboy
- Start date
Fattony12000
Member
scooooooooooooooops
Arkam
Member
That was a legit question. You answered for them and seem to be very much in agreement. Apologies if you took it any other way.
I really think you should look a little deeper before assuming so much. You might be surprised.
It doesn't matter. The reason Gawker is fucked is because they broke the law and lost a lawsuit, not because of Peter Thiel. And for the record, he had every reason to hate them and want to see them fall. Outing him and doing what they did to Hogan does not in any stretch of the imagination resemble journalism. The people working under them don't deserve to pay for the mistakes of Gawker, but life unfortunately isn't fair.
partyphone
Banned
no I won't be. I used to be one. but you're welcome to try.
To be fair, it's both. They broke the law, but the lawsuit's results bankrupted them because Thiel sponsored lawyers to architect the lawsuit in a way that would force the company into bankruptcy.
LordRaptor
Member
I'd be more inclined to side with the fears that billionaires with vendettas are capable of silencing legitimate media if what we have here wasn't a case where a billionaire with a vendetta wasn't able to silence legitimate media for over a decade.
He was only able to do it under circumstances where there was a pretty clear cut case of journalists wilfully ignoring an individuals right to privacy, and continued abuse of those rights even after a judge had compelled them.
It's really hard to present that as evidence of the system not working.
He was only able to do it under circumstances where there was a pretty clear cut case of journalists wilfully ignoring an individuals right to privacy, and continued abuse of those rights even after a judge had compelled them.
It's really hard to present that as evidence of the system not working.
Schnozberry
Member
What you're describing is sociopathic narcissism. I've known many self described libertarians in my lifetime, and while they hold strong opinions none of them have ever lacked empathy or compassion.
It bankrupted them because one of their targets could actually afford to sue them.
True, but they opened themselves up to it in the first place. By doubling down on Hogan they rolled the dice on getting wounded or getting decapitated, and even if Thiel wasn't in the picture it still would have been a reckless move for no reason other than clicks.
Atlas shrugged because he was carrying so many presents for all the good little boys and girls bruh.
Schnozberry
Member
Gawker wasn't deprived of due process. They got embarrassed in court. The jury found their testimony and their argument unconvincing and they lost.
Peter Thiel paying for the legal fees has nothing to do with the merits of the case and had nothing to do with the outcome. There is also nothing illegal or ethically dubious about it, unless you think that sympathizing with someone and gifting them their legal fees is something we need to outlaw as a country. If anything, it's just a reminder that there is a boomerang effect when you take a scorched earth approach with people's lives and reputations.
Not only that, but celebrity sex tapes are the one of the lowest possible forms of 'story'. Absolute gutter trash and the world will be improved without it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Pretty much this.
They lynched themselves. And I would shed no tears if I were in the victims shoes for those who cannot sympathize within Gawker.
Exactly. Said it better than I could. Gawker wrongly assumed that Hogan wouldn't be able to afford to fight back, which is why they did what they did.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
No, it bankrupted them because the lawsuit was put together in such a way that would bankrupt Gawker rather than get Hogan the biggest payout.
the thing is that even if it was a legit complaint which brought down gawker, that doesn't have to be the case for something like this to work. defending against malicious lawsuits can be so time consuming and expensive that it can bankrupt reasonably sized companies on its own, and even if a publication survives it can easily be harmed and diminished.
InsaneTiger
Member
They didn't break any law, it was a civil suit not criminal and I don't think one article should bring down the company.
The damages will be reduced or wiped away. Hogan won't get a dime
partyphone
Banned
and even if you agree gawker should be punished, which I kinda do, they don't need to be driven into bankruptcy.
SinCityAssassin
Member
Well no even if they went into bankruptcy, any money from the sale still goes to creditors, i.e. Hogan.
LordRaptor
Member
If a billionaire with a grudge can bring someone down on illegitmate complaints, how come it didn't happen until there was a legitimate complaint?
Let me tell you about this billionaire's 'unusual maneuverings'...
LordRaptor
Member
I mean, if rich powerful people are out to get me, maybe I don't go walking down dark alleys alone late at night, you know?
this is a gross analogy.
nobody's arguing that gawker is without fault. the fact that someone with a grudge can use any transgression to wipe them out only so long as he has enough money is still disturbing.
Netherscourge
Banned
The follow up was even better.
"A Judge Told Us to Take Down Our Hulk Hogan Sex Tape Post. We Won't."
Well, add jail time to the sentence then!
He enabled someone with a legitimate complaint to win a legal battle to prove it, he also had a legitimate complaint it just wasn't something he could sue for. What's the problem?
I was joking, paraphrasing Totillo's words.
SolidSnakex
Member
But he's rich long before this case, so why didn't he wipe them out then? They outed him in 2007. This thread is going through the same cycle of avoiding what Gawker did to cause this all to happen. They didn't just get sued for no reason.
Ok gotcha.
I love how these motherfuckers think they're Woodward and Bernstein cause they reported on adultery.
InsaneTiger
Member
I mean to say the damages won't stay, it will be wiped. No matter the sales of Gawker, Hogan isn't getting a dime.
the problem is
1. it takes millions to pursue a legitimate case
2. it takes millions to defend against any case, legitimate or not
3. a single relatively minor case of copyright infringement can cost $140 million
the kind of money it takes to get justice in this country is the problem. it means bad behavior goes unpunished while rich assholes can suppress speech and dismantle publications they don't like.
it shouldn't have cost hogan so much to bring the case that he needed thiel. it shouldn't have cost so much to defend that people like thiel can grind their opponents down through the weight of their fortune. it shouldn't utterly destroy a company if they infringe copyright in a single instance.
LordRaptor
Member
Do you consider being told by a judge to stop doing it, and ignoring that order to continue doing it to be a part of that "single instance"?
Plus leaking court records to damage the other party
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Implying that Hulk wanted that money? I mean, this whole thing was made with the purpose of produce this outcome.
Even if he does not get any coin from this whole thing he won in the end.
Gawker had enough money to fuck over people's lives and get away with it under the guise of "journalism". Thiel happened to have more money, and fucked their lives up instead. Getting into a discussion over how much power Gawker should have and how much power Thiel should have is about the fundamentals of capitalism and pretty wide in scope, but the bottom line in this case is Gawker made a huge mistake and paid for it.
Green Yoshi
Member
Leaking games as AC Syndicate and Fallout 4 is called journalism?
partyphone
Banned
i disagree that that is the bottom line. the bottom line is closer to this:
y'all is blinded by bloodlust.
Now that would be interesting... I don't think it's an auction-type sale (Gawker owners probably have a say in who they want to sell to) but Thiel could establish a holding company or consortium anonymously to do so.
It's absolutely true that money and class affects justice (Making a Murderer), but Gawker is not an example of being a victim here. They did behave badly and deserved the punishment.
Ugh. Why is Totilo so supportive of the guy?
I understand being part of a company and wanting the best for the organization but it genuinely seems like Totilo sides and agrees with Denton. I just don't get it.
Denton has showed his true colors on multiple occasions. It's something I'd want no part in whatsoever. What's best for Kotaku is to get as far away from him as possible.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
A decade of shitty behavior tends to induce a bloodlust in many people.
Kadin
Member
Well I imagine you have to pick your battles and while you're still under the leadership of Denton, you have to not try and piss him off any more. I imagine if Totilo had left and found another role somewhere else, his response would have been far different.
I still think no response would have been better but who knows, maybe he was directed to say some of that. We just don't know.
Souldestroyer Reborn
Banned
Quite frankly I hope Gawker does disappear and never returns.
It was a shit hole of a website that brought out the worst in people and quite frankly went out of their way to ruin people's life's, whether or not it was merited.
It was a shit hole of a website that brought out the worst in people and quite frankly went out of their way to ruin people's life's, whether or not it was merited.
Being well known for producing good content and having many contacts is NOT nepotism.
Nepotism is being favored bc you are related.
Spiral Insanity
Banned
What the hell.
Similar threads
- Locked