Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

«‹›1517 »

How many quarters after Q1 2016 till Marissa Mayer is unemployed?
	1 or fewer
	2
	4
	Her job is guaranteed; what are you even talking about?

Barudak: May 7, 2007

hobbesmaster posted:

This presupposes that Hogan didn't simply want Gawker dead as well.

Also that as a resident of Florida he would have any reason to file somewhere else.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 16:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 03:41

e_angst: Sep 20, 2001; by exmarx

Tars Tarkas posted:

It doesn't matter if you think it is the wrong takeway. It is the takeaway media companies will take from this. The next time someone writes about the Koch brothers, Thiel, Sheldon Adelson, Mark Zuckerberg, Joe Ricketts, Frank VanderSloot, or any other rich person with a lot of lawyers with free time, punches are going to be pulled and the world will be worse off for it.

If the punches they are going to pull are about posting revenge porn, then those are probably punches worth being pulled. If Gawker wasn't so specifically and egregiously unethical, they would still be around, angry billionaire or no.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 17:03

H.P. Hovercraft: Jan 12, 2004; one thing a computer can do that most humans can't is be sealed up in a cardboard box and sit in a warehouse; Slippery Tilde

i'm glad that gawker is dead and that florida man teamed up w/ the libertarian vampire to do it

# ? Aug 23, 2016 17:44

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

The question isn't "why was a billionaire able to get a judgment against a media outlet that acted unethically and illegally?", but "why can't everyone else?"

# ? Aug 23, 2016 17:54

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Subjunctive posted:

The question isn't "why was a billionaire able to get a judgment against a media outlet that acted unethically and illegally?", but "why can't everyone else?"

Because we aren't important enough for media outlets to make money leaking our sex tapes. A media anything that gets their hands on a sex tape involving anybody prominent can get a ton of attention from it which is absurdly unethical. They should be ruined for that alone.

Really, "don't loving leak sex tapes" is a good precedent to set.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 18:36

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Because we aren't important enough for media outlets to make money leaking our sex tapes. A media anything that gets their hands on a sex tape involving anybody prominent can get a ton of attention from it which is absurdly unethical. They should be ruined for that alone.

Really, "don't loving leak sex tapes" is a good precedent to set.

It's commentary on the imbalance of power between those who have a bunch of money and those who don't you loving dingus.

Gawker didn't get ruined because they leaked a sex tape, they got ruined because one billionare's lawyers were more expensive and powerful than Gawker's.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 18:44

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

A sex tape had a little to do with it.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 18:53

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

ocrumsprug posted:

A sex tape had a little to do with it.

Not really. Companies do illegal and/or unethical poo poo all the time and rarely collapse because of it.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 18:56

duz: Jul 11, 2005; Come on Ilhan, lets go bag us a shitpost

ocrumsprug posted:

A sex tape had a little to do with it.

They weren't the only ones to show it.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 18:57

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

duz posted:

They weren't the only ones to show it.

They were the only ones to show it in its entirety. The racist part is possibly newsworthy, everything else, not so much.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 19:00

Armani: Jun 22, 2008; Now it's been 17 summers since I've seen my mother

But every night I see her smile inside my dreams

Lead out in cuffs posted:

Has anyone actually figured out what Dahir Insaat is, besides an exercise in lovely design fiction?

I checked out their website, but their only product seemed to be concrete panels, and they didn't have any actual photographs. All they had were a bunch of 3D renderings of pocket neighbourhoods built to discredited 1920s urban planning standards. And, um, references to certain other highly questionable 1920s ideologies...

They also don't seem to explain how you transport heavy pre-cast concrete panels from their (presumably fictitious) factory to an actual construction site without breaking them all.

That looks like a loving Final Fantasy town map

# ? Aug 23, 2016 19:03

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

e_angst posted:

If the punches they are going to pull are about posting revenge porn, then those are probably punches worth being pulled. If Gawker wasn't so specifically and egregiously unethical, they would still be around, angry billionaire or no.

You're missing the point. Peter Thiel didn't go after Gawker because of the Hogan sex tape. He went after Gawker because they outed him as gay.

Gawker opened themselves up to a million different defamation suits over the years. Theil found traction with the Hogan thing and went for the jugular. Gawker was trashy, but much less overtly libelous than say TMZ or Drudge or the Daily Mail or Fox News. They just happened to piss off the wrong billionaire, and didn't have the resources to defend themselves.

I don't necessarily buy the "chilling effect" argument, and I agree with your basic point: the case was won on its merits in a court of law, regardless of who was financing what lawyer. Most media outlets are smart enough not to publish sex tapes that were made without the consent of the parties involved, because they would fairly expect to get sued, because it's obviously illegal. Moreover, Nick Denton already pulled his parachute even before the sale to Univision, so I'm sure he'll go on to make some other lovely website.

But the narrative of this situation actually doesn't really have anything to do with Hulk Hogan. It's about Peter Theil being gay, rich, and thin-skinned, and Gawker swimming in shark-infested waters.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 19:22

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Lady Naga posted:

Not really. Companies do illegal and/or unethical poo poo all the time and rarely collapse because of it.

This is not how English and causality works. "How was this person killed?" "They were shot by a gun." "Nah, people shoot guns all the time and rarely kill someone because of it" plainly doesn't work. But for leaking the tape, gawker would still be around. If they wanted to attempt to bury gawker under an expensive frivolous lawsuit, they could have done that at any time.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 19:23

Lady Naga: Apr 25, 2008; Voyons Donc!

twodot posted:

This is not how English and causality works. "How was this person killed?" "They were shot by a gun." "Nah, people shoot guns without killing people all the time" plainly doesn't work. But for leaking the tape, gawker would still be around. If they wanted to attempt to bury gawker under an expensive frivolous lawsuit, they could have done that at any time.

I can't tell if you're actually dense or just being wiffully obtuse.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 19:24

Boot and Rally: Apr 21, 2006; 8===D; Nap Ghost

Why does anyone think this is the first time a powerful organization has intimidated a less powerful one? How does this change anything?

# ? Aug 23, 2016 20:11

sarehu: Apr 20, 2007; (call/cc call/cc)

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Most media outlets are smart enough not to publish sex tapes that were made without the consent of the parties involved, because they would fairly expect to get sued, because it's obviously illegal.

Not really. What if it were an Obama/Paul Ryan sextape?

# ? Aug 23, 2016 20:14

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

don't stop, i'm getting close.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 20:19

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

sarehu posted:

Not really. What if it were an Obama/Paul Ryan sextape?

Already been done, kinda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z-Y7dcgJ1c

# ? Aug 23, 2016 20:46

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

sarehu posted:

Not really. What if it were an Obama/Paul Ryan sextape?

Depends on where it happens. I'm not sure what the rules are on the White House in regards to privacy expectations.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 21:11

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Who's nailin Palin is a fundamental pillar of American culture.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 21:20

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

I think all of us, in a way, are nailin Palin.

# ? Aug 23, 2016 21:23

sarehu: Apr 20, 2007; (call/cc call/cc)

Zachack posted:

Depends on where it happens. I'm not sure what the rules are on the White House in regards to privacy expectations.

Not really, you're throwing nukes at the 1st amendment at this point.

What if it's Reagan/Gorbachev in the cabin?

# ? Aug 23, 2016 21:56

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

i'm glad that gawker is dead and that florida man teamed up w/ the libertarian vampire to do it

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/23/first-thiel-now-the-trumps-how-billionaires-threaten-free-speech

quote:

Less than 24 hours after Gawker.com was killed by billionaire Peter Thiel�s legal crusade against it, another billionaire couple � Donald and Melania Trump � is already using the same law firm Thiel did to threaten more media organizations into silence. And this time, it could have a direct effect on the presidential election.

The Guardian reported late on Monday night that Melania Trump�s lawyers have sent threatening letters and are considering filing lawsuits against a variety of media organizations � including the Daily Mail, Politico and the Week � for reporting on rumors of Melania Trump�s past, including her alleged immigration status when she came to the United States.

We were sometimes bullies at Gawker � but we held the powerful to account
Joshua David Stein
Read more
This is the quintessential example of the disturbing precedent Peter Thiel has just set by creating a blueprint for billionaires to destroy news organizations they do not like. He has shown that all they need is a little persistence. And in a media landscape that is increasingly dominated by the rich and powerful, that should give even Gawker�s most ardent critics pause.

We know Donald Trump and others have gone down this path before. Trump has openly bragged about the fact that he sued a former New York Times reporter in the early aughts for the purpose of trying to hit the reporter involved financially. Trump did lose that lawsuit, but not until after litigation that undoubtedly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for the winning party.

And if you think the Trumps are litigious now, just wait until after November. Peter Scheer, director of the First Amendment coalition, explained the consequences of the Gawker case succinctly:

Say five years from now, if Trump loses and people are writing critical postmortems, will they have to worry that Trump will turn around and sue them? Because of the Gawker trial, I fear that many journalists will wonder, �Could that happen to me, even in writing about Trump?� They will be censoring themselves. That is the worst outcome here, and it�s quite likely.

But Trump is not the only culprit. In yet another ominous example, Mother Jones, the liberal nonprofit magazine known for its investigative journalism, spent millions of dollars in legal fees when another billionaire, Frank VanderSloot, sued the company and its reporters over a critical story and some tweets from its editors. Mother Jones won the case last year, relatively early in the process, but still faced an existential financial crisis because of the enormous legal costs associated with the lawsuit. VanderSloot then announced a million-dollar fund to be used for suing Mother Jones and additional members of the �liberal press� in other cases.

Even in the Hulk Hogan case, though many people rightly found the story and sex tape offensive and argued it shouldn�t have been published to begin with, a federal judge and an appeals court panel both ruled Gawker was protected by the first amendment before the trial, and they were prevented from having an appeals court rule on the judgment before they filed for bankruptcy.

But we shouldn�t forget that Gawker was not just getting sued over the Hulk Hogan sex tape case. They were the recipient of a half-dozen other lawsuits or legal threats involving many stories of an investigative or critical nature that virtually any first-year law student could tell you are clearly protected by the first amendment.

In the end, even if you think Gawker deserved punishment, media organizations should not face the financial death penalty for a mistake, even a deplorable and egregious one. After all, there is probably one billionaire or another who hates pretty much every news organization in the world worth their salt. If they all decide to go down the path Thiel took, how many publications will be left when they�re done?

# ? Aug 23, 2016 21:59

Slanderer: May 6, 2007