• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Oh look, another Peter Thiel vs. Gawker situation. Except Disney has much better lawyers than Gawker did.

    Let’s see who blinks first. I’m guessing it won’t be Disney.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      9 months ago

      And also that the Hulkster actually had a case. Gawker repeatedly refused to comply with court orders to take Hulk’s tuna can video down.

      This is just a wanna-be martyr who got fired because she couldn’t keep her goddamn mouth shut about her stupid conspiracy theories and ride the Mouse’s cash train. But hey, watching Muskie burn even more money is always entertaining, so fucking let it rip.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I get that Hulk had a case, but he couldn’t have afforded to bring it himself. So Peter Thiel, who has endless money and an axe to grind with Gawker for outing him, funded it.

        Which is sort of similar here, except that Musk’s axe to grind is because Disney stopped giving Twitter money and is “woke,” so it’s even more petty.

        It was more about who is funding the case than whether the case has merit.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is not the same at all. Disney did not out anything private about her or Musk. They also did not publish revenge porn of her. She is a public transphobe and a Holocaust denier.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Also there’s the fact that gawker did publish revenge porn. This is an actress being fired for saying something extremely insensitive