Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
1–10 of 335 posts
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#2This is commendable. Gawker is scum.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#3This is commendable. Gawker is scum.
His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect.
The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#4>He added: “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.”
An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending. They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose. They're scum, and it's pure karma that they're being destroyed by someone they outed.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#5This is commendable. Gawker is scum.
His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect. The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.
Gawker posted revenge porn, not leaked memos proving the CIA created crack. I don't see this as a particularly slippery slope.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#6In case anyone from the NY Times online is reading this, they have a bug in their super fancy navigation UI:
Left or right click drag opens a new story. This would be fine, except if you want to select text it de-facto opens a new story.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#7This is commendable. Gawker is scum.
His stated goal, "deterrence," is the exact thing people talk about when they worry about a chilling effect. The fact that people are applauding because it's someone they disagree with whose ox is getting gored is really disappointing for a community that espouses such strong freedom of speech principles.
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom of consequences from speech.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#8>He added: “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.” An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending. They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose. They're scum…
An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending.
This is a lousy strawman. It's possible to both find Gawker abhorrent and think that Thiel's conduct is deeply unethical.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#9Bad policy. If you don't like what they are doing based on moral grounds, then use your money and influence to educate people on why what they are doing is bad. That has a better chance of stomping out this problem for good.
Taking a vendetta like this by trying to sue them out of business is just playing whack a mole. Another company will rise out of their ashes.
Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker
#10>He added: “It’s not for me to decide what happens to Gawker. If America rallies around Gawker and decides we want more people to be outed and more sex tapes to be posted without consent, then they will find a way to save Gawker, and I can’t stop it.” An important reminder of exactly what conduct, on Gawker's part, people are defending. They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose. They're scum…
As long as we're quoting someone with an obvious vested interest, how do you feel about what Gawker points to:
"Hillary Clinton’s secret email account, Bill Cosby’s history with women, the mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker, Tom Cruise’s role within Scientology, the N.F.L. cover-up of domestic abuse by players and just this month the hidden power of Facebook to determine the news you see.”
It's not so cut and dry, which is why people are rightfully worried about a billionaire's personal vendetta to destroy a press organization?