I remember as far back as 2012 seeing Gawker articles and truly feeling ashamed for humanity. You had these pompous writers completely mocking and attempting to knock down elon musk as some insane fool for his recent release of the hyperloop plans, etc.

So here's a guy actually moving our society forward in transportation and the environment, and these smug writers try to cast him as a clown.

Does anyone actually defend on substance any of the activities Gawker was engaging in? These people pushed wrong narratives and destroyed lives over reasons that were most often proven false and always self serving to the interests of gawker.

I think peter is a smart guy, but I really feel a sense of gratitude to him for ridding the world of that awful organization.

Everyone sensationalistically shouts he's an evil billionaire damaging free speech and journalism, but gawker was engaged in voyeurism and bullying. And a court of law agreed with it. We make exceptions to pure free speech all the time, such as not being allowed to shout fire in a movie theater, etc.

I don't care to comment about his support of trump, but I also find it curious most of his vocal critics are themselves journalists, and are in my opinion resentful of the fact he set a precedent that the power "journalists" have is also something that can be held accountable.