[mudil]

That's just such an intellectually dishonest response, Dang. Your links are just a smoke screen. The article does not discuss Gawker vs Thiel details, but rather talks about the future of journalism. Furthermore, I challenge you to produce a link that talks about investigate journalism being forced into WikiLeaks/dark net mode. What happened with gawker will have repercussions. And just like in 1920s, when rubber barons were hiding from people behind tall walls of their Long Island estates, today's net elite is hiding behind digital walls and these lawsuits.

[dang]

Pretty sure we've had a number of big discussions about the implications for journalism (didn't Jay Rosen or somebody like that write about this?) and you're welcome to use HN Search to find them.

The community reaction to this post is unremarkable; it isn't a very good submission for HN, primarily because the site has been Gawker-Thieled thoroughly already, but also because it's sensationally written and doesn't go very deep. The community norms on this kind of thing are well-established. Perhaps there are other communities that would enjoy debating this piece, but there's no surprise in HN not being one.

[codybrown]

I just did a search and nearly every piece, with even a minor tinge of support for Gawker's side, has been 'flagged'.

You say this doesn't go very deep but where has there been a good, substantive discussion on Hacker News about the implications of Thiel's lawsuit? the darker precedent it sets? This issue is important to the tech world, it cuts to the heart of many aspects of this industry and some of the most foundational aspects of our law.

You're right that other communities get value from discussing this argument. There are smart people here, and this piece has been submitted 9 times. It's a shame that a small group can shut down this discussion from happening. As much as I hoped it wouldn't, it makes the point of the piece.

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=you%20won%27t%20be%20able%20to...