“How dare you not remove a board-member whom we disapprove of because he funded a lawsuit against us after we ousted him for being gay directly against his wishes because we don’t feel like he deserves the right to keep such information from the wealthy middle-eastern people he works with?!

When I was a young artist, I was always afraid I’d run out of ideas. Finally, I realized my ideas come from observing the world, and most importantly, the people around me. And, as long as we didn’t destroy that world, I’d never run out of ideas. I’ve never been worried since. And, when I have a lapse of creativity,…

There is a difference between keeping incognito history with regular browser history and keeping a special session history for incognito mode. Incognito mode exists to keep browsing history out of the browser’s history; keeping a session history that is lost when the session is closed does not negate this feature.

If you’re browsing in incognito mode and accidentally close a tab, or right after closing it you realize that you want to go back to it.

Then why do I see THIS on Gizmodo, IO9, and Kotaku? The science, nerd, and game sites?

The tone of their articles isn’t making them sympathetic though. It is making them less likeable. They aren’t high minded freedom of speech articles in most cases. They are the same shitty tactics that got them in trouble in the first place.

Gawker would prefer the lawsuit be tried in the court of public opinion. The heck with the constitution.

Seriously. I love that Gawker tries to take credit for breaking stories that they absolutely did NOT break.

The court isn’t suing Gawker. The court is the legal method through which individuals settle legal disputes.

Let’s be honest here. Gawker did some things that were questionably moral...the Conde Nast outing in particular had me furious (especially when it kept dominating the left bar). The whole idea that somebody can have their life disrupted tremendously ‘just because their famous’ is something that a lot of us firmly…

Shhhh! We are supposed to all be outraged that a billionaire thinks Gawker is a pile of shit. Don't try and ruin that narrative.

How dare he be entitled to his own opinions, right?

I feel like the title of this article is pretty misleading.

Trying to drag Facebook into it now? Gawker, while I’m mostly indifferent to the court ruling with Hogan, this shit is getting out of hand. We get it, you are getting burned by someone who doesn’t like you because of a personal vendetta. Responding by trying to smear Thiel and everyone associated with him makes you…

Free speech is freedom from government intervention, not freedom from a rich dude funding a legitimate lawsuit against you. When Peter Thiel becomes President, this is a legitimate gripe.

They aren’t standing with him. They’re saying that what Directors do (legally), on their time and on their dime, is none of FB’s concern. That’s not a terribly novel position to take.

Really don’t need your political opinion on guns bud. Guns are never going to be banned. Gun education and awareness is a better idea.

As she was not saved, the Queen entered as a late sub and scored in the 88th minute.

Hillary is accused of being complicit in the personal destruction of the women who have accused bill of sexual assault and rape, including their reputations and credibility.

Not available in my country....is it worth getting a flight for?