Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Social Networks The Media Privacy News

Gawker Media To Require Commenters' Facebook, Twitter, Or Google Logins 231

Posted by timothy
from the guys-guys-guys dept.
First time accepted submitter wynterwynd writes "In a move that seems to be in line with Gawker Media founder Nick Denton's opinion of his sites' commenters, some Gawker Media sites are now instructing their commenters that they will have to link their Gawker commenter ID with their Facebook, Twitter, or Google accounts in order to log in. Is this really a good idea, considering the security issues Gawker has had in the past? Per the article, for 'security purposes' Gawker is 'putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business — major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web.' To my mind, it's hard to see this as anything but a grab to milk Gawker commenters' social networking accounts for targeted ad revenue — which really shouldn't be a surpirse considering Denton's contempt for most of the Gawker community. Is this a step too far for an online community? Is it a cash grab or a genuine effort to encourage secure and responsible posting?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gawker Media To Require Commenters' Facebook, Twitter, Or Google Logins

Comments Filter:
  • Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mholve (1101) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:23PM (#39513205) Homepage

    Add Gawker to the same list the New York Times is on. That is, "pass."

    • Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @03:02PM (#39513785)

      The St. Paul Pioneer Press went this way last year. Unsurprisingly, participation in the comments has dropped to near zero.

      I can see why companies do it - this saves them the trouble of moderation, as people moderate themselves when their real names are used and they conceivably could face real-life consequences for what they post. Is real-life intimidation really the best way to police comments? Certainly not if you want more participation...

      I don't have an issue with it. I think the most important right we have online is the right to remain anonymous. I don't want an employer or anyone else to look at my comments on news or sports and judge my worthiness as an employee by them - which is why I simply choose not to participate when companies choose not to allow anonymity.

      • Re:Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 (626475) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @03:45PM (#39514335) Homepage Journal

        The St. Paul Pioneer Press went this way last year. Unsurprisingly, participation in the comments has dropped to near zero.

        I can see why companies do it - this saves them the trouble of moderation, as people moderate themselves when their real names are used and they conceivably could face real-life consequences for what they post. Is real-life intimidation really the best way to police comments? Certainly not if you want more participation...

        Not to mention...not everyone has a Facebook or Google+ or Twitter or...xyz social network account.

        I find it interesting that these two sites assume everyone that is on their forums have FB, etc accounts....are there other sites out there following this assumption? The assume you have a 3rd party membership established so you can use their forum/services???

        Why would anyone limit themselves based on that type assumption?

        • Re:Okay... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by nolife (233813) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @04:13PM (#39514745) Homepage Journal

          On the flip side, the more sites that reference facebook for their own services and advertising, the more estsablished Facebook gets and the more users that get cemetened in or stuck using it. I find it odd that more and more companies are now advertising "See us at www.facebook.com\ourcompany" instead of their own companies web site.

      • The St. Paul Pioneer Press went this way last year. Unsurprisingly, participation in the comments has dropped to near zero.

        From a site perspective, that could be seen a seen as a good thing. The average mainstream reader has little desire to read through 400 comments, most of which could be categorized as 'troll' or 'flamebait'.

        (Maybe I'm just cynical, but many sites added these comment sections just to punch up their "engagement" numbers, not because they actually wanted to engage with their readers. So yo

      • Re:Okay... (Score:4, Informative)

        by cain (14472) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @06:24PM (#39516363) Journal

        You don't have to give up anonymity, at least not according to the io9 people (the sci-fi site under the Gawker umbrella). They are encouraging everyone to just create a throw-away twitter account that is only used at io9. Whether this is acceptable to twitter may be another story...

    • Gawker sites weren't worth anything before. I'm sure Nick is right and his site's have comments without intelligence but if the website has no intelligence then how would you expect to find intelligence in the comments?
    • Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by siddesu (698447) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @03:56PM (#39514489)
      I would add this "Gawker" you speak about to my boycott list, but what is it? Is it one of those "websites" that you open with no-script and see a blank page? If so, they've been "boycotting" me for a few years now.
    • Already did, an told them I was doing so.

    • Login with your username and password

      Or

      Log in to Gawker using Facebook, Twitter or Google. If you wish to remain anonymous, we suggest creating a separate Twitter or Google account.

      It is an option. Not a requirement.

    • by sl4shd0rk (755837)

      Add Gawker to the same list the New York Times is on.

      Indeed. It's on a perforated list in the bathroom.

  • Nothing like gawker having been hacked before to highlight how bad this is, as appropriately noted.

    All this says to me is "don't go to gawker websites or participate in their comment system because it sucks". Is it that hard to figure out when "web 2.0" is a good and/or a bad idea in 2012?

    • by icebike (68054) * on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:33PM (#39513365)

      Nothing like gawker having been hacked before to highlight how bad this is, as appropriately noted.

      How is this "bad"?
      Do you understand what is being discussed here? Gawker is not asking for your password for Google/Twitter/Facebook.
      Rather, the ask Google (for example) to authenticate you, and Google answers YES, or NO, and never lets Gawker see your password.

      • by SomePgmr (2021234)

        Exactly right. Nothing like a shitty summary to get the crowd all up-in-arms, though.

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        Yes, your password is not being shared - but the method of authentication between the two is a point of additional security risk. How hard is that to understand?

        • by Desler (1608317)

          What is the security risk? All Gawker gets is whether you were authenticated or not. They don't get access to your account or any of the nonsense FUD being spread around.

          • So, you're logging-in through the Gawker portal, trusting that Gawker won't peek at the user/pass as they hand it off to Facebook or Twitter or whoever for authentication, right? Doesn't sound like an opportunity for a Gawker-in-the-Middle opportunity?

            Further, since they're brokering the connection between you and the comment forum, they'll have access to the authentication credential, which would allow them to snoop your social media resources for as long as the credential is valid - they'd just need to
            • by blueg3 (192743)

              That's not how OAuth works. The party receiving the authentication (Gawker) doesn't at any point get access to the authentication data (your Facebook / Twitter / Google credentials).

              They also don't get access to your Facebook / Twitter / Google session authentication. A consumer of OAuth authentications can't use that authentication token to use any of the authentication provider's services.

          • What is the security risk? All Gawker gets is whether you were authenticated or not. They don't get access to your account or any of the nonsense FUD being spread around.

            Tons of possible fuck ups can happen.
            Since you're either retarded or willfully obtuse, I'll spell out one XSS scenario for you.

            1) Attacker uploads malicious script to Gawker's site through a flaw in the commenting system.
            2) The script replaces the standard "Login with your Google, Facebook, OpenID, or OtherBullshit account" block with a different one.
            3) Users who log in don't notice any visible difference, and their credentials are sent off to the attacker.
            4) The attacker doesn't want to get caught, so

            • by icebike (68054) *

              Since you're either retarded or willfully obtuse, I'll spell out one XSS scenario for you.

              Go read up on OpenID [wikipedia.org] and then come back and apologize for calling people names.
              See also how Google does this [google.com].

              1) Gawker puts a sign in with Gmail account button on the page.
              2) You click that and a NEW HTTPS window shows up, sent to you by GOOGLE. (You do understand HTTPS don't you?)
              3) You enter your Gmail address and password.
              4) GOOGLE sends an encrypted token saying Yes/No and possibly your name back to Gawker.
              5) Gawker waits for this token and validates it directly with Google.

    • Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)

      by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:39PM (#39513467) Journal

      Didn't you read TFS?

      Gawker is "putting our account security layer in the hands of some of the best in the business — major sites with more security expertise and resources than anyone else on the web."

      You can rest easy, HBGary is on the case!

    • My guess is they use OpenID, which is not as much a security risk as you make it to be. Gawker won't store your username/password (if they're at least semi-competent, which might be questioned ... )

  • by StuartHankins (1020819) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:26PM (#39513261)
    I already don't comment on most sites which require a login (/. is an exception) -- but I can't even imagine wanting to link my personal social media account with a commenting account. What a horrible idea.

    The privacy issues alone are a big deal, but sometimes you want to say something that you can't have directly linked back to yourself (for various reasons). I'm not defending criminal activity or hate speech, but I could think of examples where expressing your view could cause issues because of your religion / country of residence / association with others etc.
    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      >>> expressing your view could cause issues because of your religion / country of residence / association with others etc.

      Future employment. "Hmmm this guy posts a lot of anti-Bush, anti-Obama, and anti-Romney stuff. My god and he says he voted for that nutjob Ron Paul. Time to trash his resume." ----- Or just plain embarassment. It's bad enough I have posts back to 1988 following me around ~3 decades later, and popping-up when people search my name.

      • "Hmmm this guy posts a lot of anti-Bush, anti-Obama, and anti-Romney stuff. My god and he says he voted for that nutjob Ron Paul. Time to trash his resume."

        Looks like I'm screwed!

      • And that's why I consider myself lucky that my real name is so common.

        • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @03:16PM (#39513981)

          Ditto. One benefit of having a name almost as common as "John Smith" is that the signal-to-noise ratio is far too high for anyone to really know what is actually a legitimate hit or one of the other thousands of "John Smiths" in the world. Plus, I happen to share my name with several very famous people, ranging from musicians to professional athletes to actors, so you're going to have to do some serious digging to find a hit that's not related to one of them. Certainly nothing within the first dozen pages on Google (and that's just when I gave up)...

          Funny, when I was a kid I always used to think my name was boring and wanted to change it to something more unique and memorable. Sure am glad I didn't now...

    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday March 29, 2012 @03:13PM (#39513949) Homepage

      It has long been held by philosophers and courts that one of the keys to "free speech" is the option of anonymous speech. If you can't give your opinion anonymously, then there's no way you can be sure there will be no retribution.

    • by dirk (87083)

      The comments are in no way tied to your account. Basically, instead of them storing your account information, they link your Gawker account to one of the others and then asks them to verify your login credentials. The comments don't show up with your FB, Twitter, or Google handles, they all still show up under your Gawker handle. The only thing that is being passed off if the actual credential check. To me, this makes perfect sense for a site that has had security issues in the past. They no longer han

  • by mlts (1038732) * on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:26PM (#39513265)

    Call me naive, but I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication. Is there something so secure that I can trust Facebook with any and all logins and passwords for not just me, but all my users?

    Yes, FB and Google have two factor authentication as options, but when it comes to making sure my users have basic security, I'd rather pack my own parachute, and have a dedicated appliance store username/password hashes so if someone owns the rest of my boxes, they can't just scoop out passwords that can be used at other sites.

    Maybe this can be a market niche -- a site offering not just OpenID, but a custom API like the old Microsoft Passport allowing people to authenticate from that site, optionally using an app or SecurID key fob.

    • > I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication

      It's just a way to remove a barrier to entry. Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID. It's easier (and arguably more secure) to authenticate through one of those services than to ask the user to make and remember yet another set of credentials. There are other reasons as well, but this one is a biggie.

      • by tqk (413719)

        Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID.

        Check your assumptions (or did you mean, "everybody that matters ..."?). I disagree. If you don't know why, you haven't been trying very hard.

      • by JohnFen (1641097)

        Everybody already has a Facebook, Twitter, or Google ID.

        Not everybody. This infinitely increases the barrier of entry for people like me, who do not have FB or Twitter and is unwilling to use my google ID for anything at all outside of making my phone work.

        In this case, there's no loss. The Gawker family of sites are abysmal anyway.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There are many good reasons. If I were building a new web site from the ground up, I'd probably only allow Google/FB authentication. If I had an existing web site with local authentication, I might switch and I'd definitely prefer Google/FB auth.

      You have to analyze the decision from a business/marketing perspective. Site specific logins are a barrier to using any web site. If it is just one click to login with Google/FB you will get a lot more users, it's as simple as that. And returning users have a big b

      • by icebike (68054) *

        Exactly.

        Gawker gets nothing more than your email address (which they already used to require). They ask google if you are who you say, and google logs you in. Gawker never gets your google password, and stores nothing on their own servers (they don't even have to store your gmail address, because your browser will do that for you). At most, Gawker gets a YES or NO, and maybe the name you signed up to Gmail with.

        This makes any site more secure, because you have nothing there for hackers to steal.

        • by omnichad (1198475)

          Facebook Connect gives them access to your friends list and profile information. Definitely more than just your email and YES/NO.

          • by icebike (68054) *

            Exactly why I would never sign up with Facebook.

            People who do, don't care about that.

    • by Kenja (541830)
      They likies the monies.
    • by icebike (68054) *

      Call me naive, but I have no idea why websites like using other social networks for authentication. Is there something so secure that I can trust Facebook with any and all logins and passwords for not just me, but all my users?

      I won't call you naive, just misinformed.

      1) Gawker will not know your Google/FB password.
      2) You won't have a Gawker password any more.
      3) Gawker asks google to authenticate joerandomuser@gmail.com
      4) Google pops up a SECURE web page and gathers your gmail password
      5) Google sends Gawker a YES or a NO, and possibly your name.

      That's it. You have one less password, and you get logged in with what ever gmail account you enter. That gmail account need never be stored on Gawker's server, (unless you ask for notific

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29, 2012 @04:02PM (#39514571)

        The upshot: You want this. You didn't know how it works, so you rightly mistrusted it. But Its better.

        No, I don't want this.

        It's none of Google's business what I do on Nick Denton's sites. And it's none of Nick Denton's business what my G+/Y!/FB profile was.

        If I had any use for Gawker Media, all it means is that I'd have to set up yet another browser profile and associate that with whatever disposable email address I'd originally created for use with his sites.

        Anyone who gives a damn about security or privacy issues knows the value of compartmentalization, and ought to be rightfully resentful of any attempt to bridge unrelated accounts.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:28PM (#39513287)

    I refuse to link facebook or twitter or any other account that has my real name. If I can't login under an Email handle/alias then I simply don't post on that website.

    Sorry gawker. You lost my business/ad views.

    • by Altanar (56809)
      I have a feeling that as time goes on, more and more sites will be losing your business/views.
    • To be fair, they lost my ad views long ago, as has pretty much every other website on the net.

      Hooray for adblock and scriptblocker!

      Yeah, I know, I'm "stealing the web". Let me count how many sleepless nights I've had over that....uh....how do you count to zero, again?

      • I'm not sure if you've made the connection - with NoScript, all of those properties display a blank page.

        Enabling scripts brings up the content, and a bunch of stories on the right side where the "posted" time continually counts in *seconds*.

        I am very sensitive to movement, and every second as I read those stories my attention is grabbed by those ever changing numbers. If it's something I really want to read, I enable scripts, refresh, and then revoke temporary scripts immediately.

        I'm not stealing the web

    • Just create a throwaway anonymous and Gawker-specific Twitter account, as if you were creating an account on Gawker. Don't use that Twitter account for anything other than logging into Gawker.

      Problem solved.

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      You know that two of those options -- Google and Twitter -- provide pseudonymity.

  • Issue? What issue? (Score:5, Informative)

    by neokushan (932374) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:28PM (#39513291)

    The summary, as you might expect, is a little off.
    What's happening here is that Gawker is switching from its own account system to using the accounts of existing social services (Google, Facebook or twitter). This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details. If this is an issue, please go talk to Disqus or even Twitter/Facebook/Google themselves, who also let you "link" accounts from other services, as well as a bunch of other sites. This is the way the web is going and is nothing new.

    • AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details

      No thanks.

      Twitter/Facebook/Google themselves, who also let you "link" accounts from other services

      Big difference. 'let you' vs 'require'
      • by v1 (525388)

        time to make another disposable gmail account huh?

    • by icebike (68054) *

      This!

      Too many people posting here have no clue about how this works.

      But its even more restrictive than that. At least in the case of Google.

      Gawker sends an email address to Google, gets a YES or NO from Google. Google pops up its own https page to gather your password. Gawker sees none of this. And Google tells you exactly what Gawker asks for as far as "Real" name (wink wink).

      And you can control this from your Google Dashboard "Websites authorized to the Account". If that page (Direct link) [google.com] simply has

      • Too many people posting here have no clue about how this works.

        To be fair, the submitter doesn't either - at least assuming he is the one who wrote the title for this submission. And, this being Slashdot, a lot of people here probably didn't read any further than the title before commenting.

    • by huge (52607)

      This is not them asking for your account but rather asking you to AUTHORISE gawker's access to your account details.

      The way I read it is that Gawker is using Facebook as authentication service. Once authenticated Gawker is authorizing you to do certain things, like post comments.

  • by icebike (68054) * on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:29PM (#39513301)

    Just because you let Google handle the login [google.com] doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past. And since Gmail is already great at handling spam, there is precious little opportunity for Gawker to profit from this by selling your email address. Spamming Gmail accounts is already a fools errand.

    At least in Google's case, they glean nothing either, other than the fact that you use Gawker, but any advertising revenue that comes to google via that knowledge goes to Google, and not Gawker. All they provide Gawker is a YES or NO answer when you ask to log in.

    Given the rapidity with which one can create gmail/facebook/twitter accounts it won't assure "secure and responsible" posting either. Its easy enough to have an account that is reserved for such postings, even one per web-site if you want.

    All this does is allow Gawker to off-load all user account stuff to some other entity, making them less of a hacking target, because there will be Nothing Much There to Gain. (Some would say this is an attribute of Gawker Media in general.) Having one less web site holding my passwords in an insecure database is a plus as far as I am concerned.

    • It's unbelievable how far I had to scroll down to find this. Handing off your authentication to another more established entity is a growing trend. I don't remember seeing so much vile when OpenID showed up, but apparently its bad if Gawker uses it, and only wants to use it with the most established entities in the industry. IMHO, it speaks of a pretty good risk assessment after having such a huge security breach.

    • Just because you let Google handle the login doesn't mean Gawker gets anything more from you than an email address which you were already obligated to provide in the past.

      The only situation where that is true is where you previously provided them an email that was already associated with a social networking account (like GMail is). You could avoid providing Gawker with information about your social networking account by using an unrelated email account. No you know longer have that option. You must authenticate using some method which tells Gawker the account you use for social networking. And this is useful information to them. Gawker advertizes on Facebook, this indirectly

      • by icebike (68054) *

        Try this example.

        Log out of Google if you are logged in.

        Go to CNET.COM

        Click Login (upper right), then the little "Sign in with Google icon.
        Notice you get a HTTPS (Secure) page from Google. Google is the only one that sees your LoginId or your Password.
        It sends a token to Cnet. Maybe sends your Gmail name (real or fake).

        CNET gets nothing more. You control access to this via your Google Dashboard: https://accounts.google.com/b/0/IssuedAuthSubTokens?hl=en [google.com]

        If you were already signed in to Google when you went

  • Lifehacker (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slapout (93640) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:29PM (#39513305)

    I really wish someone would buy Lifehacker. I really like it but not Gawker.

    • Jalopnik should be liberated as well. The journalistic value has gone downhill from the early days but at least it's entertaining.

    • Re:Lifehacker (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:45PM (#39513557)

      Someone did buy Lifehacker. Unfortunately, it was Gawker. I liked them a lot better back when Gina was still around and Gawker wasn't their corporate overlord.

      • by darrylo (97569)

        This. It was great when Gina was around, but I believe the quality can, IMO, "vary wildly". My favorite was last year's article on "Thawing Frozen Food in the Washing Machine". I kid you not [lifehacker.com].

      • Sorry to report, Nick Denton _started_ Lifehacker. It was always a Gawker property. Kind of tainted it for me.

        • I stand corrected. Not sure why I believed otherwise. In checking it out, I can't find anything to support my former belief and plenty that indicates you are correct.

  • So what about those like me, who don't have an account on those social sites?
    • by Caerdwyn (829058) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:42PM (#39513513) Journal

      Then you can't be monetized, and therefore are not of interest to Gawker. From his perspective, you take but contribute nothing in return. Cynical, but Gawker's a business not a charity. They're also criminals, but that's another matter.

      Denton's right about comment sections being basically useless, though. Just look around you. Look at Slashdot's comments. Just a bunch of adolescent OS bigots who don't know shit.

      Yes, I am aware of the irony.

      • "Just look around you. Look at Slashdot's comments. Just a bunch of adolescent OS bigots who don't know shit. "

        In soviet russia, adolescent os biggots don't know shit about YOU!

        (and here gawker is trying to change that!)

    • by icebike (68054) *

      So what about those like me, who don't have an account on those social sites?

      Seriously, how hard is it to set up a Gmail account, even if using a fake name.
      If you got an android device, you already have a google account.

  • by koan (80826)

    I'm on the Internet where I'm going to sign up for Facebook, Twitter, Gawker, ETC, let them all build a marketing profile off me, let them build a record of my email addresses and friends/associations, allow them to build a psych profile, allow them to determine my worth, and finally I'm going to give them all that for free.

    Goldman Sachs referred to their clients as "muppets" I wonder what the above refers to their customer as...

    • by chrismcb (983081)

      , and finally I'm going to give them all that for free

      No you aren't. You are getting something in return, therefore you aren't getting it for free.

  • Seriously? Given how many people happily make wall posts that range from the simply offensive to the downright illegal?
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:37PM (#39513443) Homepage

    Gawker already uses tracking from Google, Facebook, Quantcast, Dedicated Networks, Comscore Beacons, Google Analytics, ChartBeat, DoubleClick, Parse.ly, New Relic. (Abine.com has a tool to detect and block such things.)

    Now Gawker wants an anal probe, too?

  • Just use your fake facebook page for your logon. Don't have a fake facebook account? Well that sounds like a personal problem. Poison the data well, make fake accounts. Garbage in, garbage out.
    • by Altanar (56809)
      I use this a lot. - https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=167722253287296 [facebook.com]
      • Feel free to report me them. PS, the facebook johnny cashed isn't me. You need to be sure of your target before you shoot. Good luck tracking down all the Robert Smiths while you're at it.
    • by brit74 (831798)
      I believe sites that use Facebook-based comment systems have various ways to validate the Facebook account. (I assume this is done by facebook, not the site itself.) But, one test they use seems to be that they count the number of facebook friends you have. If you don't have any Facebook friends, they'll probably assume you're a fake account. This means you need to go and find some fake friends to go with your fake Facebook account. I believe this is also why I occasionally get facebook requests from f
      • That is basically my point. I just made a comment last week on a site that required a login with a choice of various ones (twitter, FB, and others). What I did was create a fake facebook account, and posted my comment. Maybe my account will be suspended or deleted in the future, but I already made my comment on the site that required a login. If I can create a fake facebook profile and comment, then what is the point, unless I'm a frequent commenter (which I'm not). I did this not so much because I w
  • by future assassin (639396) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @02:47PM (#39513611) Homepage

    on telling us your devs are not capable of doing their jobs and letting me know I can't use your site because I don't want to use any of the social sites.

  • ...how fast I would be barred for commenting with a twitter handle "IReallyHateGawker"
  • After all the warnings from about not using the same password on multiple sites the New Hot Thing(tm) is to use a single logon like facebook or google.

    If that's guessed or compromised, it can be used at many sites.

    How is that any less of a security problem?

    The fuuture: "We at Crudnblood Bank value your security. Please log in to your account with your Facebook or Google login."

  • Denton: "The idea of capturing the intelligence of the readership — that's a joke."

    Ok, I admit, I find some interesting stuff on occasion on Lifehacker, but that aside, with the insidiously moronic nature of the typical Kotaku article, churned out 3 or 4 times per hour, who else does he expect to comment on such contrived stories as this:

    http://kotaku.com/5567040/star-treks-levar-burton-is-not-pleased-with-e3 [kotaku.com]

    Or just posting random unnamed sources with PS4 specs that sound absurd. No one would
    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      The problem is twofold - all the good writers left, and the damned site design killed off all the thoughtful commenters and pageviews shrunk.

      Because pageviews shrunk, all the leftover writers (who are paid by the pageview) have to scramble to raise viewership or get stuck with ever-shrinking paycheques.

      So writing goes down, and it's more trolling and flamebaiting to get the eyeballs in. And when you stoop to that level, the only people who comment are trolls and it spirals down from there.

      There are many mor

  • I've got other places to be.
  • 1. I don't even link my Pinterest boards with my Facebook account.

    2. I've never visited gawker until just now, to see if it could possibly be worth the trouble. Answer is no.

  • I now require Gawker Media to link their lips to my ass.

    There...I've just changed my TOS agreement to reflect this change in policy. Their continuing to exist represents their assent to this binding legal contract (and by the way, they also agree to give up any right to legal recourse beyond binding arbitration before a panel made up of me).

    I can't tell you how much richer my life has become since I've decided to jettison any commercial entity who I believe is hostile to my best interests. I'm saving thou

  • I mean, seriously, Gawker's comment system is a wreck - as are the comment sections of most sites - and this doesn't really bother me. I think it could even be a Good Thing in some regards, as you're likely to find bigoted idiots posting something offensive in the comments for a new Mario Party game on Kotaku - it's ridiculous the things some people say on Gawker sites, enough so that I tend to avoid their sites in general these days (comments + terrible new layout = no thanks).

  • ...if I ever had occasion to view, much less comment on any gawker media site. Those clowns have been on my shit list ever since that stunt they pulled that got them banned from the CES a couple of years back.

    -jcr

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...