hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

outing someone's sexuality, when they don't want it public, is bad

Would you have made an exception for Roy Cohn?

it comes down to the "people should be allowed to say whatever they want, as often as they want, even if it's abusive because that's still speech" position that twitter finally stepped away from by rolling out abuse mitigation tools to everyone (but not until yesterday!) https://blog.twitter.com/2016/new-ways-to-control-your-experience-on-twitter

then you have the "we can't out anyone, anywhere, ever, because that violates the social norms weapply to everyone" side

I think there's a line and it's somewhere in the middle and the conde nast dude article crossed my personal line

Morbs I sure as hell would

on the other hand, I could probably be convinced that since it's not my community, it's not my business

I've seen the argument that Roy Cohn, Peter Thiel and others who have pursued actions that could harm gay people who aren't well-to-do, closeted conservative types were presenting (or not presenting) their sexuality in a way that should be the standard. The same people tend to have ideas about proper roles for women and people of color.

my take on outing is that it's hard to base judgment on "what actually happens" or "who the person is" since those things are really hard to generalize about or know. in general i think it's bad because of the presumption that you're going to make that choice for someone.

Morbs's point of Roy Cohn is relevant because that guy was making the choice for other people all the damn time!

Cohn and McCarthy targeted many government officials and cultural figures not only for suspected Communist sympathies, but also for alleged homosexuality. McCarthy and Cohn were responsible for the firing of scores of gay men from government employment, and strong-armed many opponents into silence using rumors of their homosexuality

Thiel funneling cash to anti-gay marriage initiatives, maybe not on the same scale? I don't know

i'm sure this is wildly off-base but thiel reminds me a bit of closet types i've known who seem to like hiding in plain sight because it allows them to fulfill more of their ambitions and there is definitely an understandable urge to bring them down to earth and back to the realities of sexual politics because of it. for one because they are very much lacking in empathy for anyone who looks different than the ideal they've built around themselves.

I believe the catchphrase for that mindset is "got mine, fuck you"

http://gawker.com/the-only-thing-that-would-make-us-feel-better-is-if-you-1785515822

parting shots fired

haha damn

max's article doesn't finger the real culprit that killed gawker which obv was ilx.

the thing is, it really was just thiel who killed gawker. like all these other things made everything harder and worse and pushed people out of its corner. but it wasn't the other stuff that made them lose the case, and the case was the binary option on which everything hinged.

Yup

do we know if gawker dot com was itself profitable (or was it the vanity project bankrolled by gizmodo & co by the end), modulo hogan? I feel like the answer is yes and univision just don't want the present value of all future lawsuits

my sense, based on absolutely nothing, is that it was profitable but in a *really* small peanuts way within the current media landscape

Sounds about right

pretty sure daulerio killed gawker?

good-ass kinja failed to save gawker

need a gawkeresque investigation into why denton so loved the name 'kinja'

wondered if it meant 'golden future' in some obscure language but it seems it might actually mean 'feces' in malay

what seems to be missing from most of this stuff is why terry bollea's -- let alone hulk hogan's -- violated privacy is worth $140m when (i'm told) wrongful death payouts average like $3.5m. florida courts, i guess?

juries, man

uh those people weren't famous wrestlers and they didn't have to live with any indignity. only die with it, obv

i wonder if kinja was named kinja because it was a five-letter domain name that was available for relatively cheap in 2004. sites have been given names for stupider reasons.

i think it was named kinja as a reference to the popular slang "good-ass kinja"

it's an anagram of jknia, short for jkniajkflejjdsnsmsjjick, which is an expressionistic way to convey frustration by mashing a bunch ok keys

given the chance gawker will always report on married c-suite executives of major media companies fucking around on their wives

— max read (@max_read) July 17, 2015

RIP

ugh yes i thought max's obit was decent but for fuck's sake stop saying 'c-suite'

http://www.csuiteinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/csuite-status-featured.png

at least gawker stuck around just long enough to get another ilxor's legal name mentioned on st***f***t

Starfleet?

max's continual usage of the phrase "c-suite" gives me ptsd

do we know if gawker dot com was itself profitable (or was it the vanity project bankrolled by gizmodo & co by the end), modulo hogan? I feel like the answer is yes and univision just don't want the present value of all future lawsuits

― flopson, Friday, August 19, 2016 7:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

my sense, based on absolutely nothing, is that it was profitable but in a *really* small peanuts way within the current media landscape

― mookieproof, Friday, August 19, 2016 7:39 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

gawker dot com was profitable yes. i'm not sure if it was "really small peanuts" or just "small peanuts" but it's also always been a pretty small site on its own. there was only a small period where even 20 people worked there. so from what i've heard the raw revenue/profit number would not make your eyes bulge by any means but the profit margin was pretty good bcuz of pretty low overhead.

so i guess you're saying it was....... nothing to gawk at?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand they're not done yet

http://gawker.com/report-trumps-real-estate-holdings-are-at-least-650-m-1785539977

http://gawker.com/hillary-is-asleep-thats-where-1785540817

http://gawker.com/judge-recommends-criminal-charges-be-brought-against-ar-1785542871

Direct links and excerpts from investigative journalism in the NYT and Trump's twitter account constitute evidence of an active bullpen?

http://gawker.com/fuck-it-1785571359

Nevermind.

Still waiting for a proper send off from Dog.

http://gawker.com/how-things-work-1785604699

Ugh

this is excellent: http://gawker.com/gawker-was-murdered-by-gaslight-1785456581

i'm really not gonna know what to read instead of working anymore :-/.

xp TL;DR - straining sinew and muscle, even more punchable than you can imagine an article called "How things work" by Nick Denton could possibly be. Their only flaw is that if anything, they were too awesome.

So close to an anagram of dick on net

good god Nick Denton still doesn't get it

Also, this:

http://washingtonbabylon.com/a-gawker-post-mortem-the-inside-story-of-the-trial-its-dirty-pr-campaign-and-the-russian-oligarch-who-sponsored-nick-dentons-legal-case/

Lol @ Nick Denton claiming "Gawker made douche cross over as a word." dude has never seen E.T. fuckin idiot.

rip ppl writing dumb things on the internet ~never forget~

i'm really not gonna know what to read instead of working anymore :-/

jezebel, gizmodo, lifehacker, deadspin, kotaku etc etc etc

have you guys checked out fusion, pretty cool little site

@Gladwell
If @Gawker is so important to democracy why don't they start it up again? It's not like they have to spend 300 million on printing presses.

*blinks*

I mean, its a dumb thing to say but it's literally what the Ringer did