Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

divided on this one.

 

On the one hand, glad gawker is gone, it was a rag.

 

On the other hand, not a fan that a billionaire can just force a publication out of business because he didn't like what it said.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
On the other hand, not a fan that a billionaire can just force a publication out of business because he didn't like what it said.

If that was all there was to it then it would be a worry. The fact is that it is the courts who didn't like what it said. Theil does of course enjoy an advantage in not having to worry that costs will exceed his ability to pay.

 

It could be said that Gawker would publish things they knew to be breaches of privacy and did so in the expectation of being able to settle any claim out of court for less than the story was worth to them in terms of it's ability to generate traffic. To me, that is cynical bullying behaviour; so at worst IMO, Gawker just came up against another kind of bully and one with deeper pockets.

Posted
This wasn't one billionaire using his wealth to shut down a newsutainment site, this was everyone who were ever screwed by Gawker giving them an almighty kicking.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...