|
Thiel is also a literal vampire. I mean gently caress I know some of you are contrarian but think for one god damned second.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They were the only ones to show it in its entirety. The racist part is possibly newsworthy, everything else, not so much. the racist bit was never seen by Gawker until the trial and never made it into the article that started this the FBI did an investigation into the tape years ago, and got the full tapes. Gawker sued the FBI during discovery and got their records including the full tape. then a few days later, the sealed evidence started circulating through the media. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Thiel is also a literal vampire. I mean gently caress I know some of you are contrarian but think for one god damned second. i agree, legal judgements should be based in how distateful the litigants are the free speech amendments remind me of bitcoiners in this case, everyone swears theres some huge earthshattering precedents being set and everything is changing but i can't help but think that everyone involved is a moron rear end in a top hat and nobody's right
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i agree, legal judgements should be based in how distateful the litigants are You could have just posted this, it would have had the same meaning. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Thiel is also a literal vampire. I mean gently caress I know some of you are contrarian but think for one god damned second. And the Neonazis in this case were fuckheads but they were entitled to dress up in their Nazi uniforms and goosestep, as the US Supreme Court decided. Just because the party that wins a case is abhorrent doesn't mean that the ruling is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:And the Neonazis in this case were fuckheads but they were entitled to dress up in their Nazi uniforms and goosestep, as the US Supreme Court decided. Just because the party that wins a case is abhorrent doesn't mean that the ruling is flawed. Yeah I can disagree with the Supreme Court about that one too. Just because a ruling was made doesn't make the ruling good, or just, or unflawed. Hell even in the Skokie case 4 justices dissented. Also Thiel being involved mars this case as much as people in this thread don't want to admit it. Motives matter, so does where the money comes from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:You could have just posted this, it would have had the same meaning. just because you're really really upset about what happened, doesn't make your argument correct like if peter thiel had destroyed an actual journalism outlet like the NYT i'd be worried, but im not losing any sleep over a site that posts final fantasy listicles
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:just because you're really really upset about what happened, doesn't make your argument correct the NYT gave a platform for Judith Miller to help convince half the country that Iraq had WMDs (according to numerous, extremely legitimate secret sources) and we had to invade or die. her actual journalism consisted of repeating stories from "white house sources" for the sole purpose of allowing bush administration officials to point at her reporting to justify the war (they literally leaked fake intel to her to "launder" by publishing it in front-page scoops, and then used those articles to back themselves up). Ok, to be fair, I guess she had other sources--including an iraqi expat who everyone knew was a liar (Germany entirely dismissed him as a crazy gently caress), but she reprinted whatever he said as THE SCOOP FROM AN IRAQI WMD ENGINEER with zero fact-checking, despite the fact that some of his "intel" was literally plagiarized from The Rock. the NYT bears some culpability for hundreds of thousands of deaths gawker, on the other hand, printed "'i'm gay' -pete thiel"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i agree, legal judgements should be based in how distateful the litigants are vexatious litigation is absolutely a thing tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:the NYT gave a platform for Judith Miller to help convince half the country that Iraq had WMDs (according to numerous, extremely legitimate secret sources) and we had to invade or die. her actual journalism consisted of repeating stories from "white house sources" for the sole purpose of allowing bush administration officials to point at her reporting to justify the war (they literally leaked fake intel to her to "launder" by publishing it in front-page scoops, and then used those articles to back themselves up). Ok, to be fair, I guess she had other sources--including an iraqi expat who everyone knew was a liar (Germany entirely dismissed him as a crazy gently caress), but she reprinted whatever he said as THE SCOOP FROM AN IRAQI WMD ENGINEER with zero fact-checking, despite the fact that some of his "intel" was literally plagiarized from The Rock. exactly, NYT actually matters where gawker got big off gossip and nonconsensual sex tapes
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Has Gawker lost the appeal yet? I thought they were expected to win the appeal, but still closed down because Thiel specifically had the suit altered in a way to circumvent Gawker's suit insurance and essentially force the closure through bankrupting them directly. It's legally above the board and all, but still very pointedly done to kill Gawker first, seek damages second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Rich fucks quashing media they disagree with through legal threats is nothing new. Rich fucks destroying an entire media outlet by weaponizing other people's lawsuits is something new. And incidentally, society decided that the former was a dangerous activity that needed to be regulated, which is why we have anti-SLAPP statutes in many states. That's probably what will ultimately happen here, although admittedly it's going to be more difficult in this case because the legal strategy in question is more complex. The kind of financing Thiel did actually does have some legitimate uses, so it's not just a case of just banning it outright. I doubt this is the end of free and independent journalism the way some people are predicting, but its another lovely development for an institution that's already unwell. Like a lot of people, my feelings on the matter are mixed - I'm happy that Gawker is finally getting what's due to it, but I'm dismayed that this is the way it had to happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
thecluckmeme posted:Has Gawker lost the appeal yet? I thought they were expected to win the appeal, but still closed down because Thiel specifically had the suit altered in a way to circumvent Gawker's suit insurance and essentially force the closure through bankrupting them directly. They haven't appealed because Florida requires they set aside the entire amount for the judgement or pay a $50 million appeals bond, neither of which they could afford. Now that the company is sold, I'm assuming they will cobble something together and appeal (and probably eventually win) All of their other post-trial motions have been denied.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
there should be a $150m fine for being sarcastic in a legal document
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
http://imgur.com/vuQZK5Q
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Thankfully Univision is eating Gawker, minus Gawker itself, of course. Surely they'll enforce a good deal of quality control and editorial to keep this from happening again while also doing everything they can to even the score with Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I can believe two things at once: that Gawker were bullies who had it coming -- outing that gay executive is only one example -- and that it is a bad thing that Peter Thiel was able to use his billions to destroy them. If I want a test case to be upset about, though, I'll pick the multi-millionaire who tried to take down Mother Jones. That wasn't a libel case, although it was disguised as one; it was SLAPP.  Hulk Hogan going wild in the year 2016. What a time to be alive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
thecluckmeme posted:It's legally above the board and all, but still very pointedly done to kill Gawker first, seek damages second. Well, duh. Who seriously thinks this wasn't the whole point. HH may be a C-list celebrity now but I'm reasonably sure he's not poor or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:03
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/768592061985464320
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
He's becoming a partner in a law firm?!?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:He's becoming a partner in a law firm?!? It's actually sort of how the system is supposed to work, since otherwise only clients with deep pockets could ever see a lawsuit through its end, no matter how legitimate their case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:Rich fucks quashing media they disagree with through legal threats is nothing new. Rich fucks destroying an entire media outlet by weaponizing other people's lawsuits is something new. I'm...pretty sure that SLAPP relates to frivolity of legal action, which makes it generally non-applicable in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
What kind of business can't scrape together $75K in legal fees to pay for a case that can net them $1 million? If they have any kind of case at all they can probably find someone who'll do it for limited money up front. This seems like it will only get used to fund the sketchiest of cases, even if they stay true to their intention to avoid the skeevy world of personal injury suits. (They probably won't). I'm also pretty skeptical of companies that use Big Data for risk underwriting. It sounds really good in theory, but in practice you often find that the data isn't really all that useful and the features that are really determinative end up being the common sense things you'd look at anyway. Just because you have a lot of data doesn't mean it says anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:What kind of business can't scrape together $75K in legal fees to pay for a case that can net them $1 million? If they have any kind of case at all they can probably find someone who'll do it for limited money up front. This seems like it will only get used to fund the sketchiest of cases, even if they stay true to their intention to avoid the skeevy world of personal injury suits. (They probably won't). Pretty sure that is less about large businesses and more about small ones/individuals. Even if I had a solid as hell case there's no way I could come up with $75K easily and quickly. Maybe I could talk to a lawyer that would agree to do the case for a slice of the settlement but there's no guarantee of that. More importantly somebody with deep pockets could just tie it up in court so long that the legal fees would exceed the potential payout. Same really goes for a little mom and pop sort of set up. Mr. and Mrs. Ownsathing may not necessarily have enough liquid assets around to mount any kind of legal defense. Really, that's one of the biggest problems with the American legal system right now; if you have enough money you can just bury legal problems in it until they suffocate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Yeah I can disagree with the Supreme Court about that one too. Just because a ruling was made doesn't make the ruling good, or just, or unflawed. Hell even in the Skokie case 4 justices dissented. Also Thiel being involved mars this case as much as people in this thread don't want to admit it. Motives matter, so does where the money comes from. One of the most important free speech cases ever heard by the Supreme Court, rejected by Something Awful poster MC Nietzsche. Clearly in your mind cases need to E decided based on who you find more palatable. Those kangaroo courts are sure great! Let's just talk about unicorns. Any other projects, like ubeam, that go against the laws of physics, started by college dropouts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:One of the most important free speech cases ever heard by the Supreme Court, rejected by Something Awful poster MC Nietzsche. I bet you're the kind of shill who would have defended Plessy V. Ferguson or Dred Scott v. Sandford after all if the Supreme Court decided it they must be right!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:I bet you're the kind of shill who would have defended Plessy V. Ferguson or Dred Scott v. Sandford after all if the Supreme Court decided it they must be right! I believe that the constitution is clear when it comes to freedom of speech. The government has no right to decide which views cannot be expressed, even if the rest of the people find them abhorrent. In fact, it is precisely when we deal with abhorrent views that we must be even more determined in our defense of free speech. Or, you know, call me a shill. I'd also use that approach if I was a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Didn't thiel get a law degree from Stanford?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Didn't thiel get a law degree from Stanford? and clerked for the court for awhile too it looks like
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Didn't thiel get a law degree from Stanford?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
YikYak is dying, how will I spread vicious rumours about my sorority sisters now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:YikYak is dying, how will I spread vicious rumours about my sorority sisters now? Anything interesting or just another in the line of social media apps where no-one had any idea how to monetize it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:YikYak is dying, how will I spread vicious rumours about my sorority sisters now? Have you tried this revolutionary platform called "The Facebook"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Anything interesting or just another in the line of social media apps where no-one had any idea how to monetize it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Now i'm reminded of my all time favourite gawker article. http://gawker.com/5994974/the-most-deranged-sorority-girl-email-you-will-ever-read
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Now i'm reminded of my all time favourite gawker article. And people said Gawker provided no worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:YikYak is dying, how will I spread vicious rumours about my sorority sisters now? Whisper
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/08/silicon-valley-is-hostile-to-diversity-says-slack-engineering-director-leslie-miley/ Check out the comments here if you are a connoisseur of internet people explaining how the tech industry actually isn't racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Time to sell everything and invest in block chains, it's the future! How it will be employed is not clear but future!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
WhatsApp prepares for monetization.quote:Mobile messaging service WhatsApp will give its parent company Facebook personal information including users’ phone numbers, as part of plans to allow businesses to send messages to users.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:12
|
|
