Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 335 posts

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#41

Post by aeb0 »

shard972 wrote: post #25
madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…

Man John is just a little dramatic sometimes. Financing a lawsuit which so far seems to be legitimate under US law is equated with destroying publications? The fact that gawker is online after losing the trial pretty much illustrates the point.

Because they are appealing the award. The 147M or whatever it is is thought to be enough to wipe them out, which would be no great loss.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#42

Post by [deleted] »

cissou wrote: post #22
nefitty wrote: post #14

Thiel claims to despise "massive privacy violations" on the part of groups like Gawker, yet he was one of the co-founders of Palantir. These people are just narcissists who want revenge for someone splashing mud on their boots. They're not fighting for our privacy, or for the common good. Sorry buddy, you are worth more than 99.999% of us. That makes you a significant figure and thus newsworthy. Your sexual orientati…

I might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

[deleted]

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#43

Post by c3534l »

cissou wrote: post #22
nefitty wrote: post #14

Thiel claims to despise "massive privacy violations" on the part of groups like Gawker, yet he was one of the co-founders of Palantir. These people are just narcissists who want revenge for someone splashing mud on their boots. They're not fighting for our privacy, or for the common good. Sorry buddy, you are worth more than 99.999% of us. That makes you a significant figure and thus newsworthy. Your sexual orientati…

I might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

Doing a little googling, it looks like Palantir is a somewhat suspicious cyber-spying company implicated in a number of dragnet espionage programs. For instance, China's espionage program used, in part, for political oppression in Tibet. It also looks like he distanced himself from an effort to use his software to try to take down Wikileaks. I'm not entirely sure what sorts of things Palantir really does and if I'd consider them ethical or anti-privacy, but it does seem like a point of concern and probably what the person above you was referencing.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#44

Post by Artistry121 »

cwisecarver wrote: post #34

This is what I sent to my wife about this story earlier today. I think it's true for the public too. "I guess people can do whatever they want with their money. For me the bottom line is that Hogan is a public figure and the definition of “newsworthy” isn’t up to anyone other than media to decide on. Sure, it’s tacky as fuck to report on him fucking his best friends wife and it isn’t any of anyone’s business but the…

Money in law is a major issue - but I don't see how this is a problem as much.

I think it's a good thing that those who have earned money can use it to attempt to change the world - and Gawker did a jerk thing.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#45

Post by zardgiv »

darawk wrote: post #37
dopamean wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it also happened to align with the public interest. That is debatable and also the problem. What if it didn't align with the public interest? Is it ok then?

Yes. It is always ok to finance a lawsuit. The premise of our legal system is that optimal adversaries debating in front of an impartial judge produce the best possible outcome. If Hogan wasn't able to finance the lawsuit on his own, that would be the perversion of justice. But if our court system operates as it should, and there is no indication to my knowledge that it has not in this case, then billionaires funding…

It's not to say that this is what happened here, but our legal system disagrees that it's always OK to finance a lawsuit (see SLAPP).

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#46

Post by hackaflocka »

madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…

Gawker proudly published Hulk Hogan's sex tape (while shaming him for it), while also shaming websites for publishing J.Law's nudes. I can't see anything redeeming about such an inconsistency: http://imgur.com/gallery/CQ5qgvu

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#47

Post by sergiotapia »

madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…

Gawker wasn't some bastion of journalism - it was a libelous rag, good riddance.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#48

Post by newjersey »

threatofrain wrote: post #27
madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…

Peter Thiel is not directly damaging Gawker with his money. He's doing so via the intermediary of the justice system, where for whatever reason money has relevance. Peter Thiel is just incidentally throwing his money in this direction, but that money has a matter in justice is not the doing of Peter Thiel.

> Peter Thiel is not directly damaging Gawker with his money. He's doing so via the intermediary of the justice system, where for whatever reason money has relevance. It is there that we should find danger, not that Peter Thiel circumstantially decided to send his wrath in the direction of Gawker.

I felt the same way reading this thread. I also thought about an h3h3 video I saw earlier today https://youtu.be/fEGVOysbC8w where they talk about fair use and how a lawsuit can cost you $100k in legal fees if you prevail.

The question to ask should be: should our legal system be a game of chicken? or a sick twisted game of poker where you can't call "show" but just keep raising stakes?

I hope we have not forgotten that the attorneys responsible for Aaron Schwartz's case are still in charge of things.

I am by no means endorsing what Mr Thiel is doing. I think it is in extremely poor taste (even though I hate gawker). I simply agree that our attention should be more focused towards fixing our broken "justice" system.

edit: no, the winner getting reimbursed for legal cost by the loser is not a fix

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#49

Post by lazaroclapp »

darawk wrote: post #24
madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…

This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…

I don't know enough about the case at hand to comment specifically, but arguing that it is always fair to use "augmenting the resources of someone with a legitimate legal claim" as a tactic is not uncontroversial in the general case. Keep in mind that selectively punishing common legal violations is a common censorship tactic in many places. Consider this case in Mexico:

"On 12 March 2015, two journalists from MVS, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, were fired after they used the station's brand name without permission in a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Aristegui#Second_firing...

The legal case, of course, focused on "used the station's brand name without permission". But the actual reason for their dismissal was "a newly-created website known as MexicoLeaks, which leaked reports on government corruption".

Now, I am not saying the Gawker case is or isn't appropriate, but the intent of the parties matters, if not legally, then morally. When you are using a lawsuit, not to redress a wrong, but to attack a rival, the fact that the letter of the law is on your side doesn't make your actions ethical. This is specially true for governments, but there is no reason why it might not true for individuals as well (wealthy or not).

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#50

Post by c3534l »

capkutay wrote: post #32
darawk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…

Basically any influence by 'extremely wealthy' is automatically viewed as an attack on 'freedom'. It's a straw-man political argument.

I think the influence that money has on our judicial system is a big concern. The threat of frivolous legal action has a very real chilling effect on freedom of speech. The legal system in the US disproportionately favors the wealthy and this is a legitimate concern. I think that in this case Thiel is warranted here, but no I don't like that wealthy people get to sue people to get their way. The costs of litigation should be minimal and the outcome unbiased by money. However, that's not the case and it's a travesty. I don't think this is simply a case of hatred for the "extremely wealthy."
Post reply on HN