jk ofc

weird/funny to see ppl like glenn greenwald trolling for gawker now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247018)

unless they really think that thiel bought off the judge and jury?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247032)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247158)

*shows a girl raped in a bar*

*plays a leaked cuckold sex tape*

*outs a private gay dude with a family to the world - twice*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247219)

"We believed that broader access to confidential information, to the real story, would constrain the powerful and liberate the oppressed."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247250)

Gawker and Thiel both suck and have slimy, self-serving ethics. Thiel just sucks worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247748)

No one, including myself, thinks a Hulk Hogan sex tape adds value to society. That is totally and ridiculously beside the point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247836)

Other than that, whatever words you're trying to put in my mouth don't warrant a defense from me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247947)

There is a first amendment that protects press freedom. There are limits. One of those limits is privacy, because it's widely considered to be an indignity to show someone in vulnerable and intimate moments without their consent, like when they are taking a shit, getting their dick sucked, or getting fucked in the ass in a pile of piss on a bathroom floor.

Gawker decided that it was going to ignore those limits anyway and laughed at a court when it told it to stop. And your problem is not with the bully humiliating others for ad revenue, it's with a guy who paid one of his victims legal bills.

It would be different if you took issue with Thiel because he had financed a bunch of frivolous litigation to tie up gawkers legal department and silence it from reporting news that is protected by the first amendment. But what he did was made it possible for someone who had viable claims to bring them in court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31248037)

"And your problem is not with the bully humiliating others for ad revenue, it's with a guy who paid one of his victims legal bills."

I have no idea where you got the idea that I think cyberbullying is ok., See what I mean about putting words in my mouth? (PROTIP: That is actually a sign that you don't have an argument).

In any event, why did Thiel pay Hogan's legal bills? Are they old Stanford drinking buddies? Cousins? Was Thiel taking a courageous moral stand for decency? No. He was getting back at gawker in a petty and cowardly vendetta which was totally personal and devoid of any larger principles. The fact that what Gawker said about him was true, and widely known, makes this 1000x worse.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31248084)

In Thiel's case, he was not only out to anyone who cared to know, but he had billions of dollars worth of fuck you money that would protect him from the consequences (if any) that a normal gay guy would experience being involuntarily outted. Was it shitty of Gawker to out him? Yes. Did Thiel turn around and react in a way that exposed him as being even shittier? Unfortunately, yes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247741)

Thiel didn't force Gawker to act atrociously, in instance after instance. He didn't force them to thumb their noses at the court, after receiving a court order to take down the Hogan sex tape. They had a massive amount of hubris and brought all their problems on themselves. Thiel simply provided the means to finance justice.

Funny how the ACLU routinely does what Thiel did (fund causes they believe in), yet I doubt you feel the same towards them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247781)

Hmmmm....and who asked Thiel to do that?

Did you really just compare Thiel to the ACLU?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247800)

Yes I did, and the comparison is apt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247816)

Maybe when you grow up you'll realize how he is a lot closer to the ACLU than you'd like to admit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31247862)

they became what they hated, they deserve this fate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31248100)

when they started to become media gatekeepers of the elite--they were not fighting for the "little guy" anymore--they were basically a clique in a large MFH media orgy and reveled in gossip and drama, the kind of way Politico sometimes acts in DC

they were at some point pioneers, they were also very publicly interest focused at a time, but like everything, it crumbled under the weight of their own self-righteousness and self-interest

this doesn't even get to the histrionics they exhibited whenever challenged for legitimate ethical lapses; they put themselves as teh moral arbiters of truth and justice in the universe which is a bunch of horse shit

also fuck Jezebel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3329881&forum_id=2#31252180)