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

61–70 of 335 posts

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

#61

Post by owenversteeg »

I absolutely despise Gawker. The stories they run and the stuff they do would normally mean that I would love for them to be run into the ground.

At the same time, they are the only independent online media outlet left in the world. Every other company that once prided itself on being "independent" from the large media network owned by ancient billionaires has now received at least hundreds of millions of dollars in investment from them.

Say what you will about the publishing of the tape (and I for one think it was a despicable action) it certainly showed Gawker's true editorial strength. They could do whatever the hell they wanted, publishing for the editorial integrity rather than to get pageviews.

The idea of every single large online media outlet being at least partially owned by a small group of media companies owned by billionaires is horrifying. BuzzFeed has a great and fascinating new editorial unit, but they have 200 million reasons not to publish anything that goes against the mainstream media.

Gawker is a horrible company, but I'm going to miss them.

[edit] Wow, this is really being run into the ground with downvotes. If you disagree, please don't hesitate to let me know why, as I'm genuinely curious. My email's in my profile if you'd prefer to contact me there. Cheers!

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

#62

Post by zardgiv »

eudox wrote: post #53
zardgiv wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Certainly, but a characteristic of SLAPP is the plaintiff hasn't got a solid case, their purpose is to drag legal procedures long enough to bankrupt their target. Hulk Hogan won this lawsuit fair and square.

Of course, I was merely addressing the claim that it's always OK to fund lawsuits.

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

#63

Post by cft »

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…

The problem with this argument that this is asymmetric. Most ordinary people will not have problems like Peter Thiel had, since outing them has no entertainment value. This is sort of a rich-only problem. Most ordinary people have problems like being screwed by their health insurance (denied claims), bank, some other big company, etc. I had for example a case when my business accounts got suddenly frozen by Wells Fargo for "unauthorized access". They would not tell me who accessed them, what IP, any specifics. I had to renumber all 10 of my personal and business accounts (huge problem for a business with receivables and ETFs), and in the process they lost all transaction history which created a huge accounting burden. When I expressed concerns, they addressed me to their "legal department", that employs a couple of hundred lawyers full time. Would Peter Thiel fund this?

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

#64

Post by gph »

darawk wrote: post #28
zorpner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.

I don't think Thiel is being unethical and I think the decision in this case was valid.

That said I do in general have a problem with all this. I mean what does it say about our justice system when a millionaire needs a billionaire to help seek justice for himself. Is that how it's going to be in the future? If you find yourself wronged by some massively wealthy or powerful entity you now have to find an equally massively wealthy or powerful entity to back you in seeking justice?

We've all known money has far too much power in the legal system. But this just lays it out plain as day. How can anyone look at this and think, "Yea that's a good way of handling things".

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

#66

Post by argonaut »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #49
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…

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, D…

But what's the solution to this problem? Ban wealthy people from financing lawsuits? That's never going to happen. What about ban people with malicious intent from financing the lawsuits? You'll rarely be able to prove the intent.

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

#67

Post by GrumpyYoungMan »

zardgiv wrote: post #56
GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because they published things that have been good journalism allows them carte blanche to publish things that break the law and are morally reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.

I was directly replying to the comment that "They have no moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose." Actually reading the context would make the logic much less baffling.

Okay, your argument then seems to be "They do have a moral high ground, noble principles, or higher purpose some of the time but the rest of the time they break the law". That's not much improvement, I would think.

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

#68

Post by RockyMcNuts »

eudox wrote: post #36
madeofpalk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the wealthy should be able to stop the free press from publishing things they don't like?

"The free press" is rather a grandiose title for a rag like Gawker. If Gawker counts as part of "the free press" -- the people Americans trust with the privilege of mediating their access to much information -- then yes, "the press" deserves whatever it gets.

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

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

#69

Post by nikcub »

GrumpyYoungMan wrote: post #51
zardgiv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, wh…

Just because they published things that have been good journalism allows them carte blanche to publish things that break the law and are morally reprehensible? I find this logic baffling.

I find the logic that freedom of speech only applies to journalism you agree with baffling.

It's straight out of the 21st century authoritarians playbook - nobody is dumb enough to admit that their actions are against the principles of freedom, but people are dumb enough to agree with those same actions when you simply redefine who those principles apply to.

It's the new-newspeak, see how Putin has as much power as any Soviet leader but with the veneer of democracy, popular support and individual freedom.

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

gleenn wrote: post #26
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…

Just because you are rich or influential doesn't mean you don't get a right to privacy. If people want to know his stance on being gay, ask him. At what dollar figure do you lose these rights exactly? Why should your sexual orientation matter more than your words or actions?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN