Peter Thiel Is Now Bidding on Gawker.com (reuters.com) 132
An anonymous reader writes:
Its official. "Venture capitalist Peter Thiel has made an offer for Gawker," reports Reuters, adding that the potential acquisition "would let him take down stories regarding his personal life that are still available on the website, and remove the scope for further litigation between him and Gawker." It was Thiel's 2016 lawsuit which bankrupted the site, prompting a Washington Post blogger to write that Thiel "killed Gawker once. Now it looks like he may kill it again."
Elsewhere the Washington Post argues the whole episode "highlighted the immense legal risk borne by news outlets already facing a precarious financial reality in the digital age." The Post's blogger describes Thiel as "a billionaire leveraging his wealth to obliterate a media outlet...as part of a personal vendetta."
Last month former Gawker staffers attempted to crowdfund the purchase and relaunch of Gawker.com as a nonprofit media organization. But their 1,496 backers only pledged $89,844, far short of the campaign's $500,000 target.
Elsewhere the Washington Post argues the whole episode "highlighted the immense legal risk borne by news outlets already facing a precarious financial reality in the digital age." The Post's blogger describes Thiel as "a billionaire leveraging his wealth to obliterate a media outlet...as part of a personal vendetta."
Last month former Gawker staffers attempted to crowdfund the purchase and relaunch of Gawker.com as a nonprofit media organization. But their 1,496 backers only pledged $89,844, far short of the campaign's $500,000 target.
Maybe... (Score:1, Troll)
Trump should take notice and buy all the fake news outlets...
Re: Maybe... (Score:1, Insightful)
Because you don't like him? News flash, the world does not revolve around YOU.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was Thiel's 2016 lawsuit which bankrupted the site,
Now this is fake news. It was not Thiel's lawsuit. It was Terry Bollea's lawsuit.
/. is going down.
The quality of editing on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was paid for entirely by Thiel. What's your point?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, it was, and if Gawker weren't run by complete sociopathic morons who couldn't figure out how to keep their fucking traps shut in the middle of a courtroom the worst that would have happened is a 6-7 figure fine and having to take down and apologize for the Bollea sex tape. But when the people running Gawker do things like proudly declare they would publish child porn as newsworthy, well, they dug their own fucking grave.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Maybe... (Score:1)
Actually, fake news captures it really well. Fiction which is presented as news. Or stuff that's not news , is printed as news.
"Teen-ager moves out of parents house, jobless, not sure how he'll make a living," can easily be fake news as he's going to college. He could also be moving to his uncle's ...
You see variants of this all the time on slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
Who needs a billionaire backing you when the defendant is working so hard to earn the death penalty on it's own.
The death of Gawker was not that of a valiant news network, it was the just end of a sub-grade tabloid who'd post anything for a quick buck in ad revenue and had flaunted the la
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Informative)
Correct:
From TFA:
Venture capitalist Peter Thiel has made an offer for Gawker, hoping to overcome legal hurdles and rival bidders for the online news site the billionaire helped shutter by funding litigation against it , people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, Thiel was paying for it, so it was kind of his.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Thiel was paying for it, so it was kind of his.
Thiel sponsored indeed. I sponsor the EFF and ACLU, but that does not make their lawsuits mine.
/. off-topic Trump/Hillary bashing)
Blaming Thiel for Gawker's end is the same thing as blaming Trump for Hillary's loss... (and with that, back to the regular
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were paying the ACLU and EFF most of the costs of pursuing specific lawsuits at your request, I'd say they're kind of your lawsuits.
Merits of case had nothing to do with Thiel (Score:2)
To be fair, Thiel was paying for it, so it was kind of his.
Not really. The case was decided on the actions of Gawker and Bollea, decided on the merits of the case. Thiel's funding does not change the underlying facts. That's why the case is Bollea's. All you can really argue is that Thiel allowed Bollea to have good representation and make a good case and see things to the end.
... but the case is al
Having an agenda, shopping around looking for a person to make your case upon, that happens all the time. Environmental activists do it, civil rights activist do it,
Re:Merits of case had nothing to do with Thiel (Score:4, Informative)
All you can really argue is that Thiel allowed Bollea to have good representation and make a good case and see things to the end.
I would argue that Thiel's patronage altered the proceedings of the case, turning down settlements and dragging out the trial as long as possible to bleed Gawker dry.
Re: (Score:1)
All you can really argue is that Thiel allowed Bollea to have good representation and make a good case and see things to the end.
I would argue that Thiel's patronage altered the proceedings of the case, turning down settlements and dragging out the trial as long as possible to bleed Gawker dry.
Not really. Gawker was bankrupted by the judgement not the case. And aren't you really arguing that without Thiel Gawker could have bled Bollea dry and forced him to settle, not letting the case be denied on its merits? Theil allowed to care to proceed, neither side bled dry, and a verdict based on the merits rendered.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really arguing that Bollea might've preferred to settle if not for Thiel's meddling.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm really arguing that Bollea might've preferred to settle if not for Thiel's meddling.
I'm arguing that Bollea might have been forced to settle due to uncertainty or cost without Thiel's meddling, despite having the legally stronger case. That is not a decision on the merits. Theil has nothing to do with the facts or merits of the case, that is why the case is not "his". If anything he supported justice in the sense that a case was decided on the merits rather than one side running out of money first. That his motives were impure does not change this fact.
Re: (Score:3)
It was Peter Thiel's in the sense that Peter Thiel paid for it. Hulk Hogan couldn't have financed that lawsuit on his own.
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Funny)
Trump should take notice and buy all the fake news outlets...
Breitbart and Fox?
Re: (Score:1)
As are your fears.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody ...
You know that includes newborns and kids under a year old, right?
Those typically want a tit.
Re: (Score:2)
So are your ears.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't.
I go to Cheers.
Where everybody knows your name.
You're AC.
Re: (Score:2)
- Sam Malone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in her ears.
Re: (Score:2)
This will probably all end in tears.
Re: Maybe... (Score:1, Troll)
As were yours for the 8 years you cried yourself to sleep with Obama in office. Hey remember when Fox News said Obama was going to invade Texas and take everyoneâ(TM)s guns? What ever happen with that? Fake news I guess
Re: (Score:2)
As were yours for the 8 years you cried yourself to sleep with Obama in office. Hey remember when Fox News said Obama was going to invade Texas and take everyoneâ(TM)s guns? What ever happen with that? Fake news I guess
He forgot he had golf that weekend.
Re: Maybe... (Score:1)
I guesss weâ(TM)re lucky Trump is golfing enough for 10 presidents. Hey remember when Fox News said Obama was recruiting âoeurban youthâ to be his gestapo? That was both comparing him to hitler and fake news! A two-fer if you will
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker wasn't fake news. In fact, Thiel sued them because they were too real.
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker wasn't fake news. In fact, Thiel sued them because they were too real.
Gawker is garbage. 99% of the posts on their entire network are bullshit clickbait ad-whoring. They can't die soon enough.
Re: (Score:3)
That is correct, but don't forget the stories they were sued over were completely and 100% true.
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct, but don't forget the stories they were sued over were completely and 100% true.
They could have got away with the Thiel thing. But posting those other pieces of media was completely and 100% a shit idea, and in one case it was clearly illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you are correct. It was a shit idea, though 100% true. Gawker could be called a lot of things, but "fake news" is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker could be called a lot of things, but "fake news" is not one of them.
Fox News occasionally kicks out a real story about real things and says real things about them, but it's still fake news. Ditto Gawker.
Re:Consequences? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it turns out running this story was not a good idea
http://gawker.com/a-judge-told... [gawker.com]
Who'd have thought that contempt of court could turn the judiciary against you and get you nailed for crippling damages when someone whose privacy your tabloid bullshit has violated sues you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a failure of one particular entity. I suspect that total viewership
Re: (Score:2)
I bet whoever steps in to replace Gawker will realise if a judge orders them to take down sex tape, they either comply or get bankrupted when the person in the sex tape sues.
Funnily enough when people refused to take down Jennifer Lawrence's leaked nudes Jezebel denounced them, even though they'd previously drawn everyone's attention to the leak. Jezebel was owned by Gawker media. Meanwhile Gawker decided to keeping up a leaked sex tape of Hulk Hogan in defiance of a court order was the hill they'd die on.
Re: Good (Score:1)
Quite probable other "news" sites had replaced Gawker, but their punishment is still useful pour encourager les autres.
Eventually Peter Thiel will end up owning (Score:2)
Nick Denton.
And I don't mean in a metaphorical sense either. He'll have him serving drinks to Trump in a MAGA hat when Trump comes to visit.
Re:Eventually Peter Thiel will end up owning (Score:2)
And I don't mean in a metaphorical sense either. He'll have him serving drinks to Trump in a MAGA hat when Trump comes to visit.
You'd like that wouldn't you?
As a generally progression to a free democracy, indentured servitude, debt slavery have all been abolished. What's amazing is the number of people who seem to want to destroy the principles that they society they claim to revere is based on.
Fortunately for now Nick Denton could alwas plead the 13th.
Re: (Score:2)
Peter Thiel is an agent of the God Emperor, a Gandalf to Trump's Eru Ilúvatar.
In this analogy Nick Denton would be Saruman type figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Patrick Curry says Tolkien is "hostile to industrialism", linking this to the widespread urban development that took place in the West Midlands where Tolkien grew up in the first decades of the 20th century. He identifies Saruman as one of the key examples given in the book of the evil effects of industrialization, and by extension imperialism. Shippey notes that Saruman's name repeats this view of technology: in the Mercian dialect of Anglo-Saxon used by Tolkien to represent the Language of Rohan in the book, the root word searu means "clever", "skillful" or "ingenious" and has associations with both technology and treachery that are fitting for Tolkien's portrayal of Saruman, the "cunning man". He also writes of Saruman's distinctively modern association with Communism in the way the Shire is run under his control: goods are taken "for fair distribution" which, since they are mainly never seen again, Shippey terms an unusually modern piece of hypocrisy in the way evil presents itself in Middle-earth.
It seems to me that Denton, as Democrat and city dweller has much on common with Saruman.
Also if you read Emily Gould's piece it's striking how the Gawker people all seem to betray their friends.
https://www.theguardian.com/me... [theguardian.com]
Not surprisingly Gould has often found herself alienating the people who are closest to her. A former boyfriend went public in the New York Post, penning a critical piece about the way she published details of their relationship on her secret(ish) blog, Heartbreak Soup. After her memoir, And the Heart Says Whatever, was published in 2010, her family, stung by the way she characterised her parents' relationship, stopped talking to her for a time. Even her best friend, Ruth Curry, took umbrage at the depiction of Bev, one of the two central characters in her recently published debut novel, Friendship (they are still close, but Gould says that Curry trusts her less).
Emily Gould was the Gawker Orcer who was sent out to explain the indefensible Gawker Stalker on Jimmy Kimme
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. all these NYC leftists seem to hate each other. It's this sort lack of lack of discipline and team solidarity
Or, you know, the other explanation is that there is no global conspiracy of leftists and the "team" is entirely in your mind.
Re: (Score:3)
I just assumed you guys were better organised. Personally I have a phone conference every day for the Vast Righwing Conspiracy. So Vladimir Putin gives a report on his international electoral outreach operations. Whoever is in charge of Fox News that week explains how they're reforming that narrative. The Koch Brothers explain how they're funding right wing think tanks. James O'Keefe talks about how he sows mistrust in the public mind when it comes CNN/WashPo/NYT etc. We all have a chat about talking points
Not about indentured servitude (Score:1)
You'd like that wouldn't you?
As a generally progression to a free democracy, indentured servitude, debt slavery have all been abolished.
We'd all like it. But it wouldn't be a case of indentured servitude, it would be the courts ordering Denton lobotomized and then hit drooling husk would serve drinks for the pleasure of all he had wronged. That would be a just scenario for people like Nick Denton.
You may want to support people who love to publicize the rapes of others and revenge porn, but the rest of u
Re: (Score:2)
Funny I remember you absolutely stark fucking raving over the fappening leaks but when people you like post leaked pornography of a famous man suddenly it's the end of democracy as we know it when they face consequences for their actions. Once again Serviscope you prove yourself a hypocritical sexist.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny I remember you absolutely stark fucking raving over the fappening leaks but when people you like post leaked pornography of a famous man suddenly it's the end of democracy as we know it when they face consequences for their actions.
Huh, OK so you have come out and stated you do support the repeal of the 13th amendment. That is the only logical conclusion given the post of mine that you responded to.
nce again Serviscope you prove yourself a hypocritical sexist.
You know "sexist" is a word that means so
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry what was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of you once again loudly proving that in reality you and feminism stand for the exact opposite of all the values you loudly claim to stand for and are really just a hypocritical sexist bigot hiding behind rhetoric about "equality".
Re:Spin spin spin (Score:5, Insightful)
Gawker violated a court order. That was the cause of their downfall. Gawker outed Thiel as a homosexual and claimed the Hogan sex tape was public interest. Meanwhile they claimed viewing photos of Jennifer Lawrence nude was the equivalent of sexual assault. The head of Gawker told a jude he would publish nude photos of a four year old if it was in the public interest. Gawker deserved everything they brought upon themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Jude ...
Re: (Score:1)
All true.
Thiel is also a disgusting, degenerate piece of shit that the world would be better without.
None of these things are mutually exclusive.
You're missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I suppose you could make the argument that our legal system shouldn't be used to this, but then again the public at large allows it because they find this kind of public theater intensely amusing; even if you and I find it stupid and wasteful. But again, that's missing the point. Gawker's real mistake was not seeing through Hogan to Thiel in time to save themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
*surfers
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
No it highlights that contrary to what shithead blogposter thimk (gawker people are not what I would call journalist or even news) privacy protection DOES exists even in the US and the web is not a free post-it-all-for-money, there are consequences. Gawker be damned they earned their happenstance.
I've got Karma to burn (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have here is a pretty scary precedent. We have a billionaire using his money and the legal system to shut down somebody critical of him. If anyone honestly believes that'll end well for us working stiffs then they haven't been paying attention to the last 300 years of labor relations...
Re: (Score:1)
Precisely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thiel didn't shut them down because he was outed as gay, he shut them down because they kept reporting on his shady business deals.
I see the tin foil hat brigade has arrived... In all seriousness, what really sparked Thiel's animosity towards Gawker was how they outed Thiel when they knew he was working with investors from countries with a less-than-positive view of gay people (Saudi Arabia even has the death sentence for gay people) and did so after Thiel had personally asked Nick Denton to not out him as gay. It's hard to figure out a more legitimate reason for someone to hold a grudge.
However what really killed Gawker was how the
I'm not a conspiracy theorist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. In a fair system everyone would have equal redress against bad journalism. In practice rich people can afford to destroy organizations giving them bad press or exposing their misdeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice rich people can afford to destroy organizations giving them bad press or exposing their misdeeds.
Pretty homophobic of you saying "being gay" is a "misdeed". Because that's what Gawker exposed about Thiel. But I guess homophobia is OK if it's against conservatives right ?
The fact is, and you and the "anti-anything-conservative" crowd might not like it, Gawker destroyed Gawker. It was a shitty blog, like Buzzfeed "news" is. There was no journalism there, it was a clickbait farm out to get ad revenue by using naive leftists wanting confirmation bias, and "Conservative takedowns". And it was working u
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the USA and other countries with third world legal systems. In other countries where loser pays ie the loser in a civil suit pays the winners court costs based upon recognised rates (no legal fee inflation). So far less likely to play games with lawyers and courts. Of course the US legal system is also really corrupt, where by certain cases are tried in certain locations, where judges have a known bias and also in location where they are elected by campaign donations from companies likely to trigger
Re: (Score:2)
The billionaire can't shutdown someone who isn't doing something to violate the laws. Regardless of how you paint this as a David and Golliath issue, the fact is that David left himself open as heck. Just because someone is a celebrity doesn't mean the entire world is entitled to a breach of their privacy. That is what got them, not the fact that the other person was a billionaire.
Just because muck raking is tradition doesn't mean it should continue, and doesn't mean it should be exempt from laws. And based
You do realize what you just wrote, right? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that is exactly what I just wrote. It is basically the fundamental principle of a "justice" system. Or do you think Hulk Hogan would have extracted a large settlement out of Gawker for NOT publishing a sex tape and NOT violating his right to privacy?
Let me turn this around: It shouldn't be up to billionaires to hold people accountable. You should be able to be bankrupt and bring down those who violate your rights just as easily as Theil did (and the fuckwits working at Gawker really did make this very e
Gawk would not remove pictures of a rape (Score:1, Insightful)
Gawker refused to remove pictures of a woman being raped when asked to [nypost.com]. There are limits to free speech: We do not allow revenge porn, we do not allow sites like Gawker which have no respect for people's privacy or feelings. Gawker was the site with a writer who ruined a woman for posting an insensitive but harmless joke on Twitter [nytimes.com].
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Re:Gawk would not remove pictures of a rape (Score:5, Informative)
https://nypost.com/2016/03/11/... [nypost.com]
Jurors at Hulk Hogan's invasion-of-privacy trial heard Friday how former top Gawker editor Albert "A.J." Daulerio - who put the infamous Hogan sex tape online - also posted video of the young woman engaged in sex in a bathroom stall at a Bloomington, Ind., sports bar in May 2010.
Days later, the woman wrote Gawker, begging that the video be taken down from its sports-themed Deadspin Website, according to e-mails read in court by Hogan lawyer Shane Vogt.
"I am the girl in it and it was stolen from me and put up without my permission," the unidentified woman wrote on May 11, 2010.
Gawker's complaint department forwarded the message to Daulerio, along with a note saying, "Blah, blah, blah," Vogt said.
Daulerio then e-mailed the woman and told her to "not make a big deal out of this," adding: "I'm sure it's embarrassing but these things do pass, keep your head up."
Then-company lawyer Gaby Darbyshire also e-mailed the woman, defending the video as "completely newsworthy" and scolding her about how "one's actions can have unintended consequences."
But Gawker reversed itself the next day and removed the entire posting, with Daulerio later admitting to GQ magazine he had regrets because the video "wasn't funny" and "was possibly rape."
Three women and one man on the six-member jury scribbled notes about the e-mail exchanges, with the man sternly peering over his glasses at Daulerio, 41, a co-defendant in the Hogan case.
An expert witness appearing for Hogan also testified that Gawker boosted its corporate value as much as $15.5 million by posting the hidden-camera sex recording of the pro wrestling legend.
Jeff Anderson, director of valuation and analytics at Consor Intellectual Asset Management, said 5.4 million people viewed the Hogan tape at Gawker between October 2012 and April 2013, resulting in a 28.5 percent spike in traffic to the site.
Awful people. And look at Daulerio's expression in the picture - he knows both he and his employer are screwed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gawker was the site with a writer who ruined a woman for posting an insensitive but harmless joke on Twitter [nytimes.com].
Gawker is a trash rag but none of their writers made that woman write a racist joke through an account tied to her real name. She deserved any consequences she happened to attract.
Re: (Score:1)
Gawker is a trash rag but none of their writers made that woman write a racist joke through an account tied to her real name. She deserved any consequences she happened to attract.
That's right, anytime anyone makes a single mistake, they definitely deserve to have their lives ruined. Second chances? Benefit of the doubt? Nah, signaling your virtue to the world by calling out a stupid tweet is true justice! /s
I'm not defending racism (or that tweet, which I don't think is racist but is certainly borderline), but the idea that we can (and should) ruin someone's life over a single stupid and harmless thing they said or did is really, really stupid, and really, really shortsighted (unle
Gawker (Score:2)
For the sake of us who are new here... "Who?" (Score:2)
Who is he? What is his goal? Where is he doing this stuff? Why is he so pissed-off? When did he learn of the offense? How is he intending to achieve his goals?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is he? What is his goal? Where is he doing this stuff? Why is he so pissed-off? When did he learn of the offense? How is he intending to achieve his goals?
He's scum. But compared to Gawker, he's cream.
What I want to know is whether he has a donation site where I can donate to the good cause of getting rid of the site that makes 4chan look good and reddit outright saintly.
Re: (Score:2)
He's scum. But compared to Gawker, he's cream.
What I want to know is whether he has a donation site where I can donate to the good cause of getting rid of the site that makes 4chan look good and reddit outright saintly.
Worse than 4chan? How is that even possible?
Gawker Got what they Asked for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker the liberal rag (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
go on.... (popcorn bag opening). I'd also like to hear your enlightened opinion of the following "news" sites while you're at it ... common mistake!) opinion of these sites too.
- daily called
- townhall
- gateway pundit
- fox "news"
- brietbart
I'm sure you'll give us a "fair and balanced" (not the phrase - it's not fairly unbalanced
Re: (Score:2)