Slashdot Mirror


Gawker.com To End Operations Next Week (gawker.com)

After nearly 14 years of operations, Gawker.com will be shutting down next week, the company's outgoing CEO Nick Denton told the staff Thursday. The decision comes days after Univision said it would buy Gawker Media properties -- Gizmodo, Jezebel, Kotaku etc (but not Gawker.com) -- for a sum of $135 million. The publication is currently in the middle of multiple lawsuits, with billionaire Peter Thiel revealing his clandestine legal campaign against the company. In a blog post, Gawker made the announcement. From the story:Nick Denton, the company's outgoing CEO, informed current staffers of the site's fate on Thursday afternoon, just hours before a bankruptcy court in Manhattan will decide whether to approve Univision's bid for Gawker Media's other assets. Staffers will soon be assigned to other editorial roles, either at one of the other six sites or elsewhere within Univision. Near-term plans for Gawker.com's coverage, as well as the site's archives, have not yet been finalized.

134 comments

  1. As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks. They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

    1. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks.

      You just described about 95% of "new media"

    2. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halfstop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's true. The media was awful in 2003 when they failed to do their job before we invaded Iraq, it's only gotten worse. It's just wretched right now.

    3. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Woldscum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And nothing of value was lost

    4. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Publishing the truth is one thing, but I don't believe you're allowed to publish video acquired illegally.

    5. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The takeaway to gawkers demise is that publishing something that is true does not protect you from liability. Much like libel and slander which protect a persons right not to be lied about, people have a right to privacy with things done in the privacy of their bedroom. If gawker had just reported on the existence of the sex tape and that they had verified it's authenticity, that would have been journalism and they would have been protected. The fact that they distributed the actual video without iron clad rights to do so (i.e. signed contract with all those who appear on the video) exposed them to liability by violating Hogan's right to privacy, which everyone has (and which juries tend to protect).

    6. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nor a video you've been ordered by a judge to take down.

    7. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a problem. The only argument against the public figure's financial support against GAWCRAP is that "Journalism is the one which should regulate itself, and nobody else is allowed."
      Yet those same idiots arguing this did nothing to regulate the bias, lack of objectivity, and shady idiotic practices of GAWKER, which is itself an organization which defines everything wrong with journalism and which should have been the first thing cut off by that journalist collective if it in any way cared about saving its own dignity and self-righteousness. After all, there is no lack of journalists laughing at the idea of GAWKER sites being labeled as "journalism", yet those same people did nothing.
      So because Journalism obviously can't be expected to self-regulate, because it is a gigantic corrupt body now which is far past its necessary recycling period,
      it's now up to society to give it the good old guillotine treatment.

    8. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by 2ms · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think Hillary would have voted differently if journalism had been different?

    9. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halfstop · · Score: 1

      I think so. I think had news orgs drilled into the claims being made by the Bush Administration I think politicians would have had a harder time supporting the war.

    10. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halfstop · · Score: 2

      If you're referring to Hogan. Yes, he's a public figure, but there are still instances when he has an expectation of privacy. Doing it is generally one of those situations. My media law professor would agree, Gawker messed up big time.

    11. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halfstop · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

    12. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. If that was the case, the US government would be tossing all kinds of journalists in jail for publishing leaked information. The whole debate was about the "news-worthiness" of the video. If it was a video of a senator having sex with a woman it probably would stand up in court, but the truth is that see the hulk screw a woman does not really do anything of journalistic value.

      There are very few things that the first amendment will not cover and the fact that something was obtained illegally or is illegal itself does not inherently mean the first amendment will not override the other legal factors.

      The below are not quite the same, but illustrate how the courts have said that preventing publication of illegally distrubuted/obtained materials is not always illegal

      Pentagon papers
      watergate
      publication of Snowden files

      More appropriate to this situation is Bartnicki v. Vopper. Basically, as long as the press played no role in obtaining the material in an illegal manner/solicited the material, did not receive the information in an unlawful way (I admit the difference between these first two is hard to grasp), and finally, the problem here I think, the material/issue needs to be of at least general public concern.

      You really need to meet all three or you are open to civil and/or criminal legal actions.

    13. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Closer to 100%

    14. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think Hillary would have voted differently if journalism had been different?

      Journalism different, no.

      Public opinion different, yes.

    15. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Publishing the truth is one thing, but I don't believe you're allowed to publish video acquired illegally.

      The government does this all the time, what makes you so special?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    16. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

      No they didn't. They saw Hogan as a lame target - one who does not have a resources to sue them. They have a lot of money on lawyers, so they thought they were immune - just publish away and the well-paid lawyers will keep any lawsuit squashed.

      The miscalculation was that someone who they burned earlier had a lot of money and was looking for a case with merit (because bringing forward his own case would've had negative consequences) and thus was willing to fund Hogan to bring the case forward.

      (This is not unusual - many entities often provide legal aid in cases they deem important - if you think Thiel acted wrong, what do you think of the ACLD, EFF, EPIC, etc., doing the same thing?)

      The big problem was thinking journalists were above the law and as a news organization, they were well above the judicial system and reproach and had complete freedom.

    17. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. If that was the case, the US government would be tossing all kinds of journalists in jail for publishing leaked information.

      You may want to talk to:

      • Jim Taricani
      • Matt Cooper
      • Joshua Wolf
      • Judith Miller
      • Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams
      • Joe Hosey
      • Jana Winter
      • James Risen
    18. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      the war was a good thing. my gas jugging SUV thanks bush. my quality of life is great right now.

    19. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot one, though she's more of an author than a journalist: Vanessa Leggett

    20. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your gas "jugging" SUV didn't get a single drop of Bush's promised Iraqi Oil. It should be thanking the frackers and the arabs driving the price down to try and drive the frackers out of business.

    21. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by nine-times · · Score: 1

      They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

      Apparently their big mistake was crossing Peter Thiel. The Hulk Hogan video was just the instrument of their downfall.

    22. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      Not everyone failed. I know for a fact CNN had multiple stories on the shady information Bush was using, poking holes in his lies.

      But since people consider CNN left leaning they ignored the reports, caught up in the RA! RA! of invading someone.

      Even when the lies of how the Iraqis would welcome us, how they would pay for everything through their oil profits, were shown to devoid of reality, people kept calling CNN liars and anti-American for pointing out the ugly truths.

      If Trump had been president he probably would have sued them for libel, as he has said he might do to anyone who puts out unfavorable coverage.

      Even the guy who took a sledgehammer to Saddam's statue now vociferously regrets the invasion.

      "I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    23. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically.

      What, are you trying to suggest that a video of Hulk Hogan having sex doesn't serve the public interest?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    24. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2

      Do you feel the same about the Fappening?

    25. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      It's not a problem at all. What "truth" is there in Hulk Hogan's private affairs with people he knows inside of private places?

      Thank god Gawker is gone, it was a trash paparazzi publication which provided almost no benefit to anyone, profiting off of bullying other people. Good riddance and go fuck yourself, Denton, along with any "journalist" who thinks this is an assault on freedom of speech. Privacy does exist.

      If you really have a problem with it, I suggest you send me a video of your sex life so that I can try to make millions of dollars off of publicly humiliating you with it. Thanks in advance.

    26. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no fan of Bush but oil supplies were eaten up by US companies

    27. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he did.. he was a Democrat until a few years ago which might explain his ego

    28. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

      "I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."

      I can't help but notice that his statement comes a few years after Obama abandoned Iraq and consequently allowed ISIS to take over a third of the country.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    29. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      Which is why I find myself going online less and less lately. Hooray!

    30. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      (This is not unusual - many entities often provide legal aid in cases they deem important - if you think Thiel acted wrong, what do you think of the ACLD, EFF, EPIC, etc., doing the same thing?)

      I can certainly think he's wrong and the EFF is right. For one, I usually agree with/root for the EFF's side in a lawsuit.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    31. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It really did serve the public interest in high lighting the typical main stream media lie, of who psuedo celebrities really are (tiny dick betrayers) versus the main stream media fabricated image of the product to be sold to a gullible public. So exposing a lie is challenged because it diminishes the profits from a corporate investment lie. So this civil suit and bankruptcy simply do more to highlight the lowlights of main stream media and the ugly little realities behind those massive steroid pumped up charades.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, you are a hypocrite.

    33. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we can only hope the rest of them suffer the same fate.

    34. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by swalve · · Score: 1

      The new government of Iraq asked us to leave. GWB started that process, and Obama stalled it as long as he could.

    35. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by swalve · · Score: 0

      You mean having sex with someone else's wife, in their house, which was filled with cameras? Gawker fucked up, but I don't feel like it was all THAT bad.

    36. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      Univision, the new owner, intends to keep publishing all of the other Gawker Media blogs. It's just the main Gawker site itself that is shutting down.

    37. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      Huh? Terry Boella is an actor who is famous for playing a character named Hulk Hogan. Is Johnny Depp a liar because he's not really a pirate?

    38. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but notice

      Of course you can help it. You are actively looking for things, regardless of how small, allowing you to redirect blame to people you dislike. You are a partisan twit and part of the problem slowly but surely destroying our country from within. I do not care what "side" you are on (Democrat or Republican) but you are the real enemy.

    39. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean gay conservative billionaire Thiel? That is the problem with the rich, they will use their money to destroy anyone who crosses them.

    40. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Huh? Terry Boella is an actor who is famous for playing a character named Hulk Hogan. Is Johnny Depp a liar because he's not really a pirate?

      According to Gawker? Yes. They're also sexists, racist and homophobic and they'd have no problem publishing their nudes if they existed as well. Female stars on the other hand? No no, they wouldn't do that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    41. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I usually agree with/root for the EFF's side in a lawsuit.

      Generally when someone wins it doesn't matter if you think they are wrong, the people that matter thought he's right.

    42. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by DarkOx · · Score: 3

      Obama stalled it as long as he could

      That just isn't true. Obama from the moment he took office essentially ignored Nouri al-Maliki his executive counter part, who desperately wanted to work the US and have our help. His problem was he could not get a lot of backing for his legislature on the status of forces agreement. Obama knows a thing or two about executive power, there was a lot he could have done before the agreement expired that he/we did not do to complete the training of forces the pacifying of very rebel groups. Obama started bring troops home pretty much the day he took office with little regard for completing the mission. It was his administration and Hillary's state department that set al-Maliki up for failure. The fact is early in the Obama presidency he was not interested in Iraq and had campaigned on leveling. He even took credit for 'getting us out' despite the fact that it was Bush's status of forces agreement that was expiring, at the time it was presented as Obama delivering on a campaign promise, suddenly Bush owned it again when it was revealed to have been premature.

      Had al-Maliki been seen as stronger and more successful he might have the political capital at home to go after the conditions we required for the status of forces, namely legal immunity for our troops. We could have worked to make the the case but Obama did not do so.

      Its also true that we still could have very much 'told' the Iraqi government, "look this is how it is," yes that would have crossed a line making us an occupying force but none the less we *could* have done it and I think in retrospect perhaps we should have.

      So its perfectly fair.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    43. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorta like /. being behind in the times on pretty much every story reposted here.

    44. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halivar · · Score: 1

      That is the problem with the rich, they will use their money to destroy anyone who crosses them.

      One counterexample for whom that didn't work: Nick Denton.

    45. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay, he is the same as literally everyone else on the planet at some point! Seriously, why do people throw this around like they don't do the same thing on some topic.

    46. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Courts have traditionally held that public figures have different expectations of privacy than individuals.

    47. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you're talking about. Obviously the hacker did something illegal and ought to be prosecuted. However, if a news agency decided to publish the photos then no they shouldn't be sued.

    48. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and I for one am GLAD someone wealthy enough to finish that organization did so. NO SARCASM IMPLIED.

      I had been on their sites and their level of snarky, BS, spin, and mis-representation of facts was second to only MSNBC.

    49. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      I can't help but notice

      Of course you can help it. You are actively looking for things, regardless of how small, allowing you to redirect blame to people you dislike. You are a partisan twit and part of the problem slowly but surely destroying our country from within. I do not care what "side" you are on (Democrat or Republican) but you are the real enemy.

      You sound like a partisan democrat that doesn't have an actual response to the charge levied.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    50. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Luthair · · Score: 1

      When did Slashdot turn into a place where comments you disagree with are downvoted instead of using comments to have a discussion?

    51. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Elric55 · · Score: 1

      When did Slashdot turn into a place where comments you disagree with are downvoted instead of using comments to have a discussion?

      you must be new here.

    52. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Published opinion controls public opinion

    53. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well, er yes, all actors are paid professional liars, like duh and the best and most super average (it is not exceptional looking at all, science has proven that, just more average looking than most) looking liars get paid the best. Just because a bunch of liars scammed a whole bunch of money into their enterprise and created a hole religion of celebrity worship around it, does not change what it is. The people best at falsely representing their emotions when telling untruths. Oh my god or is that your god, you don't worship them do you?!?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Publishing porn without actor permission by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who'd have thunk that that would ruin you? Not Nick Denton, that's for sure.

    Hope he likes the poor life like the rest of us.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by halfstop · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the $135 million he's getting from Univision will help ease his fall. I've run a few publications and one thing you should have, although I never did because I wasn't a gutter journalist, is insurance to cover you if you get sued.

    2. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by HBI · · Score: 2

      Sounds like E&O coverage. They'd find a way to avoid paying in this case. That's more than half of what insurance companies spend time doing - finding ways to weasel out of paying for the purchased coverage. I did that for a while and then had to take many showers to clean off the sleaze of manipulating people into screwing themselves out of payment.

      He was also personally liable to the tune of I think $10 million. I also don't think the $135 million would be all his anyway. And they'll try to siphon it all off with the judgement anyway - first thing the lawyers should do is petition to impound that money for the duration of the appeal.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by halfstop · · Score: 1

      No doubt, I was just fighting my home owners insurance company today. I appear to have one, but time will tell.

    4. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      Denton is already forced to pay up due to him lying about toe value of his stock to cover the $50mil required to hold off asset seizure. His stock was only worth $30mil.

    5. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That money is going to the Hulkster brother.

      "Univision, the Spanish-language broadcaster, is buying Gawker Media for $135 million in the aftermath of a $140 million judgment against it in the Hulk Hogan invasion-of-privacy case."

    6. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it won't, because all of that goes back to paying off gawkers debts.

    7. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately people do get away with it all too often. Gawker probably thought they would because Hogan had no money to fight them and their lawyers would ensure whatever he got was less than what they made from the tape.

      Similarly, how many people were prosecuted over the celebrity photos leaks, aka the "fappening"? These are supposed to be the elites, the people that the police actually care about. The reality is that society in general doesn't seem to care much about this sort of thing, often blaming the victim for making the images/video in the first place and "allowing" them to leak.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am saying its right to break into someones private files and publishing them but the victims are not blameless.

      My mother always told me never write something down you don't want others to read. The same logical applies to taking photos. If these people had not been photoing themselves for the sake of lewd behavior like sexting etc the leaks could not have happened.

      Again I am not saying they did anything ethically wrong, morally perhaps but not really a concern of ours, but they did do something inherently risky. When you do something risky, sometimes you lose.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    9. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by HBI · · Score: 2

      I am not sure it's a matter of 'not caring'. I think it's a matter of litigation following the money, and there was no pot of gold at the other end of the "Fappening" investigation.

      You can see it too with the dim view that most courts take towards ACLU/EFF type cases. The logic seems to go "this case doesn't matter, since it will have no practical effect, so why am I being forced to decide it?" In reality, it does have a practical impact on governance, but courts tend to view that as dollars and cents. I wonder if we should be upset about that, or happy that the courts are less than eager to be making political decisions?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  3. Nerds 1, football players 0 by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    MAybe they'll make Sam Biddle the waterboy now.

    1. Re:Nerds 1, football players 0 by Mashiki · · Score: 1
      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  4. GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/c

  5. Re:Freeze Peach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the answer to speech you don't like was more speech. Not if you're Peter Thiel. He used his money and power to destroy a website because they called him a homo.

    Had nothing to do with free speech. The website published a porno without permission of those in it. The website ignored a judge's order to take it down. The website destroyed itself. Mr. Thiel just helped that along. Think of that the next time you donate to the ACLU to do your bidding.

  6. Re:Freeze Peach by Megol · · Score: 1

    Good for him. And us. Helping people that have been wronged in order to "destroy a website" he don't like (and for good reasons - outing someone can have serious consequences!) is a good use of money instead of hoarding it.

  7. Re:FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FBI are usually SIGINT, whereas CIA are HUMINT. The problem is Slashdot is domestic (US) so it is FBI turf.

    This is why you see the rookie HUMINT.

  8. Re:FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. I have never learned as much about spycraft as I have in the past few months of reading /.

    I don't log in any more.

  9. What goes around... by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    Karma, dude.

  10. FBI f to the b to the i FBI FBI can I get a what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is outed as FBI we know this. What are you implying here? This seems very off-topic to post here, other than you seem to be insinuating Slashdot FBI are mad they are outed?

  11. Not much of a punishment by 2ms · · Score: 0

    So this guy publishes videos of people not only nude but having sex against their wishes (i.e., in many ways similar to rapes them), invades the private sex lives of others by outing their sexual orientation, and generally makes its money by bullying and mocking people, one defendant finally has enough money to defend himself against his army of lawyers, and all that happens to him is the one site files bankruptcy but then gets bought for 135M?

    And here I was thinking that we might finally have something that could help reduce internet abuse.

    1. Re:Not much of a punishment by kuzb · · Score: 5, Informative

      You understand they were sued for something like 150 million right? Gawker has debts, and after all the legal fees and the judgement amount is paid he's going to be lucky if he has enough for a decent lunch. Filing for bankruptcy does not absolve you of debt. It just means that how you pay it all back gets adjudicated by the court. In this case, it's getting paid back by the liquification of his entire company.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:Not much of a punishment by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      not absolve you of debt

      Not true the court may absolve all or part of an obligation, especially if its clear you will never have the ability to pay.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Not much of a punishment by manquer · · Score: 1

      OP said filing does not absolve you. That is true, Also any absolution usually can happen after the company has no assets left to pay its debt with.

  12. Obligatory quote by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    "And nothing of value was lost." -- The Cynic

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. Time to pop open the champagne by grimfate · · Score: 2

    Maybe 2016 will be a good year after all :D

  14. They won't be missed by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Gawker was a shit tabloid rag with the worst of intentions. They ignored a court order and were held to account for it, end of story.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  15. Web media is dead by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Breaking: web based media sites are dead.

    Everyone has moved on to AI in-game Pokemon avatars that deliver your news to you in Pokebite sized chunks. Best part is, they never read the comments unless they're part of your Team locally or are your family.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  16. What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Prien715 · · Score: 0

    According to this article, Gawker Media also owns Gizmodo, Deadspin, Jezebel, Lifehacker, Kotaku, and Jalopnik.

    They look safe for now, but I actually like Kotaku and Gizmodo. It's probably really shitty to work at these companies, which had nothing to do with leaking pr0n, but who's employees are still affected by it.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kotaku is indistinguishable from Gawker.com and buzzfeed.com. Fucking garbage.

    2. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Slowtaku exists for a reason.

    3. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're mediocre, but that actually results in some stuff being more niche, that I might be keen on.

      Hmm. Interesting. A sort of feedback effect.

    4. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They look safe for now, but I actually like Kotaku and Gizmodo. It's probably really shitty to work at these companies, which had nothing to do with leaking pr0n, but who's employees are still affected by it.

      They're just raging hypocrites, and claim that anyone who doesn't follow their progressive garbage are sexists. While their authors turn around and try to bully, shame, or attack people who refuse to bow down to their bullshit. Fun reminder it was Sam Biddle of Kotaku that cost them $1m-10m in lost revenue for his "bring back bullying" tweet...during bullying awareness month. And of course after that, they then started whining that the people who cost them that are the persons who are really the fascists.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

      Oh cry me a fucking river about the tweet. It was a "tweet", not an article, and one that was quickly clarified to be sarcastic joke, albeit not a very good one. I'm not going to deny that people that work for this news organization are a bunch of dicks...but this was a total red herring, with nothing to it. You're not talking about leaked secret emails or state dept. documents here.

      Here's a fucking NEWSFLASH for you - people are human beings with opinions, and senses of humor. Gawker media is made of many, many of these entities, who may or may not all agree with each other.

      They didn't write some elaborate article pontificating on the merits of bullying, as a news organization. One person made an unfunny joke in a whiny tweet, and the #Gamergate crowd apparently had skin thickness measuring in the sub-microns. FFS. Grow up. Everyone involved in this sucks, all around, and are a bunch of fucking crybaby drama queens. I shudder to imagine the epic meltdown when someone fucks up your Taco Bell order.

      This same logic applies to "hypocrisy" you're attempting to point out. That concept only applies here, if we assume that there is one unifying voice that these entities all speak with. The authors at Jezebel and Gawker were obviously different people, with different motivations for what they were doing. At most, you're simply pointing out contradictory viewpoints from different authors, published on two different websites owned by the same company. That's not exactly a case of "hypocrisy" any more than it is for Fox to have their news channel, and run a blatantly left-leaning program like Family Guy, or a newspaper running contradictory editorials. You need more evidence, showing a biased intent, to support such a claim.

      If you want to talk about hypocrisy - how about the attempts to crucify some NY dumbass over a tweet, while meanwhile, the #Gamergate crowd was saying and doing some pretty horrific shit, in a lot of the places that they had an online presence. Can you really fucking bring up "bullying" with a straight face, when women were literally receiving deaththreats for the injurious crime of having unpopular opinions, and wanting to voice those in a public place? If you're so against "bullying" in games journalism why wasn't that the focus of your goddamn campaign? I imagine you have some BS definition of "Gamergate" that does the No True Scotsman's shuffle to distance yourself from those folks, and some token "hey guys...chill out" forum post, but seriously - fuck that. You can't remove those parts of your "movement" for being too extreme, and then condemn something like Gawker media, as a whole, without, yourself, being pretty big fucking hypocrites. I'd put the onus of responsibility on YOU to explain why so many terrible fucking people flocked to your banner, and said and did some pretty terrible things in your name - on your forums, in your comment sections, and so on.

      Like I said - you all suck. Gawker sucks for what they did to Hogan, and deserved to lose the case. Gamergate sucked, and was a bunch of horseshit that embraced terrible people saying terrible things. Fuck you all.

    6. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You had to pull out salty as your flavor huh? Maybe you should just get up and walk away from the internet for awhile.

      Here's a fucking NEWSFLASH for you - people are human beings with opinions, and senses of humor. Gawker media is made of many, many of these entities, who may or may not all agree with each other.

      They didn't write some elaborate article pontificating on the merits of bullying, as a news organization. One person made an unfunny joke in a whiny tweet, and the #Gamergate crowd apparently had skin thickness measuring in the sub-microns. FFS. Grow up. Everyone involved in this sucks, all around, and are a bunch of fucking crybaby drama queens. I shudder to imagine the epic meltdown when someone fucks up your Taco Bell order.

      Oh they didn't? You should go back and re-read some of their stuff. If you think bullying in any form even joking is such a light hearted topic to simply say people should be bullied because they're calling out your serious ethical misconduct, well you're just a shitty human being like many of the writers for Gawker. One can't forget either the parts where they simply lied. You know much like how all those people who claimed harassment, really didn't get any harassment from GG. 3rd party trolls yep. But GG? Then again, perhaps you can come up with the point why someone who is using their work account(on twitter) and is expressing that viewpoint shouldn't be held up to said standard that bullying is bad.

      Yeah all those people at all those organizations had a reason. They were writing clickbait to draw in the views, it didn't work. And it even backfired. As one can see with all of those advertisers having decided to say "fuck it, we're not renewing/continuing to advertise with them." Who knew? Actions have consequences. Isn't that what you'd say if Gawker had said(to paraphrase) "the tape of a 5yr old(or older) being raped is acceptable to post and is in the interest of the public."

      If you want to talk about hypocrisy - how about the attempts to crucify some NY dumbass over a tweet, while meanwhile, the #Gamergate crowd was saying and doing some pretty horrific shit, in a lot of the places that they had an online presence. Can you really fucking bring up "bullying" with a straight face, when women were literally receiving deaththreats for the injurious crime of having unpopular opinions, and wanting to voice those in a public place? If you're so against "bullying" in games journalism why wasn't that the focus of your goddamn campaign? I imagine you have some BS definition of "Gamergate" that does the No True Scotsman's shuffle to distance yourself from those folks, and some token "hey guys...chill out" forum post, but seriously - fuck that. You can't remove those parts of your "movement" for being too extreme, and then condemn something like Gawker media, as a whole, without, yourself, being pretty big fucking hypocrites. I'd put the onus of responsibility on YOU to explain why so many terrible fucking people flocked to your banner, and said and did some pretty terrible things in your name - on your forums, in your comment sections, and so on.

      If you believe that, you deserve to be lied to. And you deserve the yellow press that gawker has been printing. Since it's been going on for nearly 2 years at this point and there has been 0 actual cases of anyone in GG proven to have done this. None, you go digging back through the sources of those claims? No proof. No proof offered. No police complaints, no one arrested, not a single person even charged that belongs to GG. But there are cases of anti-GG doxing people, there are cases of people calling in bomb threats against GG, in multiple cases at multiple meetups, and at the SPJ conference. There was a case just last couple of weeks of prominent anti-GG members attempting to dox someone. It doesn't get any clearer then that bit of reality.

      I know, reality hurts.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

      First off - no - , you made a claim that you utterly failed to follow up with. I've read their response - they still didn't write an article, or take an official stance, defending bullying, which is the impression the hysteria from your camp projects. Other people chimed in about the tweet, but nothing you folks clutch your pearls about holds water. You were basically farming for something - anything - to try and legitimize your group as being some kind of misunderstood victim, due to the term "sexist asshole" being nearly synonymous with "GamerGate". Nobody bought the act, sorry. You can't get blood from a turnip, and it was just a fucking tweet, not a Wikileaks dump, ffs.

      Seriously fuck off with the whole "shitty human being" schtick. As I already pointed out, you GG folks didn't give TWO SHITS that actual female games journalists were getting DEATH THREATS and publicly doxxed - not having to deal with the much more severe problem, apparently, of reading a sarcastic tweet. How the fuck can you even bring up doxxing with a straight face...as though those women didn't have their personal information spread far and wide, all over the Internet in an attempt to cause them harm? Are you really THAT fucking delusional, that you see all the terrible shit that happened to those women as having nothing to do with what you call GG? Like no connection? All just a big coincidence?

      The irony here is thick...on Monday you go on and FUCKING ON about how terrible easily offended "PC" culture is, with all of their SJW melodrama...and give us a lot of emo reasons as to why they're ruining your life, or whatever, and then, on Tuesday, you expect us to call in the national guard because some dipshit made a stupid NY-attitude tweet that hurt your little feelings. Yeah fucking right. Do you people not have a dictionary? Do you not know what a "contradiction" is?

      The case is real simple, here. You can't bitch about some tweet, that offended you, when you didn't come to the defense of female journalists that were being ruthlessly threatened, and both condemn such cowardly acts and strongly clarify your group's positions in contrast - at the time. That didn't happen. You fucks added fuel to the fire and made these women's lives miserable.

      Just for clarity, again, - my position is that you all suck. Fuck Gawker and their public shaming tabloid horseshit, and fuck GG and your anti-SJW mob-mentality bro-time horseshit. You fucks are two sides of the same god damn coin, and frankly I'm glad that both of you are dropping from the limelight. The world will be a better place. Maybe now people can be gay in the privacy of their own home, if they want to, and a woman can use her 1st amendment rights to speak about video games without a bunch of fucking neckbeards having an god damn aneurysm.

      The rest of what you say is bullshit too. Like I predicted, you immediately pulled out the "No True Scotsman" card to explain away how GG is never responsible for anything...it's those mysterious "3rd parties". Give me a fucking break. Assholes have been saying shit like this since the dawn of time to scapegoat blame. Again, you'd have us believe that it was all a coincidence? That these "3rd parties" just happened to target female journalists at the same time your "totally legitimate" organization also had a lot of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at them? Sure....Fuck that.

      So yeah, no fucking way do you get to start drawing imaginary borders between the things you do and do not want your little anti-SJW crusade to be associated with, and expect others to simply accept your convenient distinctions. Like a SJW, you know a GG jerk-off pretty much immediately.

  17. And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good riddance.

  18. Re:FBI f to the b to the i FBI FBI can I get a wha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is outed as FBI we know this. What are you implying here? This seems very off-topic to post here, other than you seem to be insinuating Slashdot FBI are mad they are outed?

    Yessss... I see your point.

    You would be the person, I presume, to explain how the moon landings were faked and how the Earth is not quite the shape that we've all been led to believe it is?

    Allow me to save you the time and effort of replying; I'll say it for you-

    ...ahem...

    WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!

  19. Re:Freeze Peach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone not condoned by the group-think SJWs saying things that they disapprove of = SHUT IT DOWN FOR BEING HARASSMENT

    Group-think SJWs getting owned in court after ignoring a judge's order to remove a leaked sex tape video = FREEZE PEACH WE NEED FREEZE PEACH YOU AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT WING MORANS

  20. Damn shame this also wasn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Jezebel...that site is for a bunch of butthurt wannabe fascists posing as feminists. I've never seen so damn much whining about retarded bullshit in my life. Listen, if you want to be a feminist, try going after real issues but not nonsense like "zomg, air conditioning temperatures in offices is mansplaining sexist propaganda"(seriously, that's a real issue among many "feminists"), and be sure to call out any of the ladies who follow you when they start gawking(ha!) at the male Olympic swimmers or the like. Seriously, if we guys can't even look at you in public, don't think we don't judge you when you do it to other men, objectification is objectification regardless of who is doing it. There are REAL issues that feminists are needed for but Jezebel probably hasn't hit on anything that wasn't clickbait in years.

    Bonus, CAPTCHA=decency

  21. Re:FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't log in any more.

    Do you honestly think that keeps us from tracking you? I mean, really, mutt. You've been watching group porn, you -love- \r\conspiracy (you have been spending more time on voat lately, however), you haven't been on Rense or NewsMax as much though.

    If I hadn't fucked up so badly on a field assignment, I wouldn't have gotten stuck watching your sorry ass. Go out to the parking lot around 9 this evening and look for a dark blue Taurus and wave.

  22. Boo hoo! by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    na na na na, na na na na, na na na na, HEY HEY...GOODBYE!

  23. Re:FBI f to the b to the i FBI FBI can I get a wha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Yessss

    That is affirmative. They are mad.

    The rest is just nothing anybody said. The moon landings were not faked. The Earth is as expected but was not always known.

    FBI could flip burgers but it would mess up their Nordstrom Rack floodpants.

    keep it real /. feds.

  24. Re:FBI f to the b to the i FBI FBI can I get a wha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese missions supported by NASA show video of the earth looming huge, filling the sky above the lunar horizon.

    The Apollo missions show the earth as a tiny blue marble in the sky.

    Use your brain, go do some research, stop being a moron.

  25. What you overlooked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This case shows how a decision by a small number of editorial staff can shut down not just one publication but a publishing empire. The result will be far less journalistic freedom for reporters and far more caution by media proprietors who say "Hey, because I don't want to lose my company, just in case, let's *not* run this story."

    Gawker's actions were mean and tacky, but your (understandable) dislike for them is clouding your judgment. As a "former journalist" you should have been able to see that.

    1. Re:What you overlooked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my, it's almost as if companies can be punished too, *gasp*! We need more of this, not less.

    2. Re:What you overlooked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A small number of judges can shut down anything, dumbass.

    3. Re:What you overlooked by swalve · · Score: 2

      The rules are pretty clear: don't break the law, don't slander, don't violate privacy.

    4. Re:What you overlooked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a "decision by a small number of editorial staff". The decision to ignore a court order to take the video down, which is what caused Gawker's downfall, was made by the owner of the company Nick Denton.

  26. 14 years, never read it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason I knew that site existed was the Gaymer Gators all hot and heavy over it. They told me of the greatest evil that existed on the internet, Gawker. So now the internet is safe again? Time magazine does not agree.

  27. Journalists are not above the law. by Nova+Express · · Score: 2

    Neither are the people who worked for Gawker.

    That Venn diagram doesn't intersect.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  28. Um... it kinda is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because of the _reason_ they're going under. They got targeted by a billionaire who used the Hogan lawsuit & his incredible wealth the crush one of his journalistic enemies. As a former journalist you should probably be horrified by that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Um... it kinda is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means you should always be legitimate when you go after the big fish. If you skirt the law (as gawker did), the people you piss off _will_ crush you. But if you're NOT doing stupid stuff, it's hard for billionaires to sue into oblivion.

      Gawker thought it couldn't be touched, so it did questionably ethical things. It wasn't untouchable. Just because Thiel was the one who nailed the coffin shut doesn't mean it's a "war on journalists." This isn't the same as Hearst banning ads for Citizen Kane in his papers.

      Moral of the story?
      Keep your house clean if you're going to shine a spotlight on corruption.

  29. SERIOUSLY, SLASHDOT? by sootman · · Score: 0

    Is it just me? Are all my computers messed up? Am I the only one seeing this happen almost every day? "...as well as the siteÃ(TM)s archives..."

    CLICK "PREVIEW" FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  30. Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a homo by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    they were calling him out on a ton of shady business deals he had. Gawker did quite a bit of real journalism and used crap like Hogan's sex tape to pay the bills. That's sort of the trouble with modern journalism. It's tremendously beneficial to have them watching the 1%ers for us but these days it's tough to get that paid for. It doesn't help that we've let Murdoch buy up just about everything out there. Here, go watch this.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. kbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good riddance to bad rubbish. It's too bad the SJW propaganda rags pretending to be gaming sites aren't going down with the ship.

  32. Re:Freeze Peach by JesseEnjaian · · Score: 2

    I thought the answer to speech you don't like was more speech. Not if you're Peter Thiel. He used his money and power to destroy a website because they called him a homo.

    Had nothing to do with free speech. The website published a porno without permission of those in it. The website ignored a judge's order to take it down. The website destroyed itself. Mr. Thiel just helped that along. Think of that the next time you donate to the ACLU to do your bidding.

    It's a league game, Smokey.

    Or in the Hulkster's own words:

    They messed with the wrong guy brother HH

    — Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) August 18, 2016

  33. Re: FBI f to the b to the i FBI FBI can I get a wh by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    The truth about the moon is that it's made of cheese. That's why Pizza Hut charges so damn much for some small amount of extra cheese. Rockets there and back ain't cheap. #cheesegate #truefacts

  34. Re:FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your IP has been tracked, anyways.

  35. Re:FBI f to the b to the i FBI FBI can I get a wha by Lakitu · · Score: 1

    Not them, but I can oblige. Here is clear and recent poof of NASA faking space images of Jupiter, taken from NASA's own website site

    and on the same website site, you can see that the "faked" June 30th photo is credited as being taken May 19. No wonder the photos look the same, they were taken during the same time period.

  36. Please do not call Gawker Journalism by sciengin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Calling what Gawker does, journalism, is like calling that evil monster from a horror flick "innocent girl" just because he is wearing her bloody face over his.

    1. Re:Please do not call Gawker Journalism by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Their tagline was literally "Today's gossip is tomorrow's news". Pretty trashy, and borderline journalism at best.

      That, and their articles are always full of typos and grammatical errors, never mind the poor conclusions and sloppy research. They're not even good writers!

  37. Re:Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's like corruption. In corrupt places, nobody can clean things up because everybody has something on somebody. Similarly, if every new media site needs to do questionable things to get the clicks (because real journalism doesn't pay compared to clickbait), then they're all vulnerable if they step out of line when some well funded guy comes along.

  38. Re:Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a ho by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    The problem is we are not willing to pay for quality journalism any more. It's a problem that no-one has found a solution to yet. Paywalls just destroy your readership base and comments sections. Adverts distribute malware and get blocked.

    Someone needs to create a bitcoin based browser micro-tip plug-in. Set a monthly limit on tips, and automatically distribute when you spend more than 30 seconds on a page.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  39. Re:Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >Gawker did quite a bit of real journalism

    That word...

  40. Re:FBI f to the b to the i FBI FBI can I get a wha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "during the same time period" - nope, the images are identical. You don't even have to resize them they match pixel perfectly when overlaid. The one was darkened a bit so that the "aurora" could be shown. Try again, there is ZERO MOVEVEMENT IN THE CLOUDS OR PLANETARY ROTATION, which even a few minutes would have created. It's the exact image, and the one with the "aurora" is being passed off as real. That means one or both are fake.

    Now try debunking the bubbles coming off of space suits "in space".

  41. Re:Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a ho by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    Amazon does this already when you're a Kindle Unlimited customer

  42. Re:Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a ho by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    The problem is we are not willing to pay for quality journalism any more. It's a problem that no-one has found a solution to yet. Paywalls just destroy your readership base and comments sections. Adverts distribute malware and get blocked.

    That's not true at all. There's sites out there that are increasing their readership based on their quality reporting and have been outstripping other sites. While those other sites who are driving for clickbait, making up BS and so on are driving into the tank. Let's look at an example: Breitbart has increased their readership by nearly 25m/daily views in the last 2 years. Huffington post has gone from 60m daily views to just under 20m in two years. The Spectator and spiked-online have both increased, while the guardian have decreased. And other sites even from here in Canada like Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, National Post have all accelerated their loss of readership.

    You know what's unique about all of those sites who've lost readership? They're all pushing an agenda, they're all pushing far-left agendas, and they've all at one point attacked or continue to attack their readership. Whether it be in opinion/editorial or in the articles they publish. That alone shows that if you're simply publishing news, it's fairly unbiased, and so on you get viewership. Even breitbart has expanded and moved from just right-leaning reporters, editorial writers around 18mo ago and that further accelerated their gains in readership. An interesting thing with NAPO is around 15 months ago, they decided to fire their editors, replace some editors, fire a bunch of reporters, replaced their comment system to "facebook commenting" and guess what happened? Their readership fell through the floor. And many of those other sites which continue to hemorrhage, also gutting comment sections. Next up is NPR, and I expect the same to happen.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  43. Jalopnik? by Megane · · Score: 1

    So they bought all the sub-gawkers except for the main gawker.com, right?

    When do we get to see Jalopnik TV on our local Univision station? The production values of the average Univision entertainment show combined with Jalopnik's focus on all kinds of cars (low-riders, anyone?) would be an awesome match.

    La Marcha Superior! Starring Señor Jason Torchinsky!

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  44. Gawker is not journalism, they are a TABLOID by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

    Gawker is a tabloid staffed by irresponsible paparazzi cowards with zero journalistic integrity. Big difference.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  45. Unfortunately not the subsidiary sites by phorm · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of shitty "news-like" sites out there. That is, sites that act like news and have staff that do "reports", but that often ignore any sense of journalistic ethics. OK, to be fair, a what would have once been considered "real" news agencies are the same way.

    One of things about Gawker and its ilk, it's all about the clicks, and the clickbait and controversy. This resulted in a lot of "articles" that were little more than veiled attacks or flaming rhetoric. Sure, it got a lot of comments, but very little that was valuable or informative. Every now and then there would be an intelligent article but it was like finding a lost ring in a septic tank. Unfortunately while gawker.com might be dying, all those nasty little subsidiary sites appear to be continuing on to the new owners.

  46. Re:Freeze Peach by bheerssen · · Score: 1

    What does the ACLU have to do with this case? As far as I'm aware, they weren't involved at all. The ACLU does valuable work that should be important to every American. Like any organization, they will occasionally do things that you may not like, but they are there to protect you and everyone else from overreaching government intrusion into your civil rights. They have defended atheists, Muslims, and Christians in many religions liberty cases. They have defended African-American activists and the KKK in civil rights cases.

    Of course, you are free to have a poor opinion of the ACLU. You'd be wrong but, ironically, the ACLU would defend your right to your opinion in the unlikely event you faced official persecution because of it.

    --
    (Score: -1, Stupid)
  47. Re:FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI .. CLANDESTINE .. FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't log in any more.

    Do you honestly think that keeps us from tracking you? I mean, really, mutt. You've been watching group porn, you -love- \r\conspiracy (you have been spending more time on voat lately, however), you haven't been on Rense or NewsMax as much though.

    If I hadn't fucked up so badly on a field assignment, I wouldn't have gotten stuck watching your sorry ass. Go out to the parking lot around 9 this evening and look for a dark blue Taurus and wave.

    brain fart. all bullshit.