It's a little disingenuous to call what Gawker does "dissent". It's also disingenuous to pretend Gawker has some new and clever business model - it's just tabloid journalism without the sort of brakes a good lawyer and basic human decency would normally provide.
Also it's odd the way the author shoehorns Donald Trump in at every opportunity. I get the impression the article would never have been written if Thiel didn't have a connection to someone the author despises.
Is it really shoehorning when Thiel's lawyer is threatening Gawker with a lawsuit about an article they wrote about Donald Trump?[1] Seems like that's very relevant.
But that has nothing to do with the "next" Gawker. I assumed the article was going to say that the Gawker owners were going to set up an unsuable company structure. Perhaps just extract all the profit out of the company every month and rely on a line of credit for expenses. Would that be workable? People could still sue you, but they wouldn't get much.
8 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 32.5 ms ] threadIt doesn't even consider systemic problems like exorbitant legal expenses and deforms US law making to some kind of corporate contract killer.
Also it's odd the way the author shoehorns Donald Trump in at every opportunity. I get the impression the article would never have been written if Thiel didn't have a connection to someone the author despises.
[1] From the article, http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-wants-to-silence-r...