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

121–130 of 335 posts

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

#121

Post by FireBeyond »

eudox wrote: post #115
FireBeyond wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that Bollea dropped a part of the lawsuit that would have allowed the award to be paid out by the insurer - that reduces both the likelihood and amount of money that Bollea will receive, on the face of it, acting in a manner contrary to his own best interest, and in Thiel, lawsuit financier's, stated interests.

>acting in a manner contrary to his own best interest Hogan is a famous, well-liked millionaire[0] already. And he almost certainly doesn't like Gawker. So maybe he thought, "I can give up some of these millions and these parasites will not publish another damned lie again". In return, he also gets the eternal gratitude of people who hate Gawker (all decent human beings). Seems like his actions align quite well with…

Yes, I can see the motivations of someone who confessed bankruptcy or near bankruptcy who initially sued Gawker for damages - got a very large award, and only after Thiel got involved decided to drop a part of the lawsuit that might help him actually receive all/some/any of the award - as not being worthy of any question at all.

Your own link says he is no longer a millionaire. He changed from financial motivations to moral superiority after the investment of someone who wants to destroy Gawker (not that Hogan might not also want that)... reducing your ability to receive damages doesn't seem to align to me as well as it does to you.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

Spooky23 wrote: post #75
eudox wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Unpopular and distasteful speech is the entire purpose of press freedom and free speech. Keep in mind that while many people would agree with you that Gawker is scum, various communities take offense and find tasteless all sorts of other things. Freedom is either near absolute or useless.

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by lazaroclapp »

pkinsky wrote: post #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…

Isn't this the same argument that gets thrown around when people point out the long term precedent implications in having Apple write a backdoor for the FBI?

"You are defending a murdering terrorist!"

"No, I am standing for the security of our communications infrastructure and, by extension, our society"

Now:

"You are defending a criminal low-brow rag that cares nothing for violating someone's privacy in the name of profit!"

"No, I am questioning whether we want people secretly funding punitive lawsuits for their own ends, regardless of merit. I also think I personally would be fine with it if you remove 'secretly'."

Sometimes the means matter, even when you agree with the immediate ends. I respect Thiel a hell of a lot more than I respect Gawker, and yet I am not sure this is how we want to do things.

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

#125

Post by qrendel »

djrobstep wrote: post #95
darawk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A libertarian using the power of government to crush free speech is pretty hypocritical if not unethical.

Not sure why you were downvoted for this. One of my bigger criticisms of Thiel would be that he seems to have a very hypocritical sort of "libertarianism" - e.g. founding Palantir, basically another spy agency for the US gov. But hey, I guess if you can make a buck...

That aside, I don't think this is the best example. Litigating through courts is pretty fundamental to anarcho-capitalist ideas, so this seems fairly consistent with that worldview.

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

#126

Post by eudox »

FireBeyond wrote: post #121
eudox wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>acting in a manner contrary to his own best interest Hogan is a famous, well-liked millionaire[0] already. And he almost certainly doesn't like Gawker. So maybe he thought, "I can give up some of these millions and these parasites will not publish another damned lie again". In return, he also gets the eternal gratitude of people who hate Gawker (all decent human beings). Seems like his actions align quite well with…

Yes, I can see the motivations of someone who confessed bankruptcy or near bankruptcy who initially sued Gawker for damages - got a very large award, and only after Thiel got involved decided to drop a part of the lawsuit that might help him actually receive all/some/any of the award - as not being worthy of any question at all. Your own link says he is no longer a millionaire. He changed from financial motivations t…

Eh, it's a difference of a few million, maybe tens of millions. A small price to pay to watch this pustulent sore on humanity's face collapse and burn as a result of your actions.

Me, I'd take that cut.

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

#127

Post by mirimir »

Spooky23 wrote: post #75
eudox wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Unpopular and distasteful speech is the entire purpose of press freedom and free speech. Keep in mind that while many people would agree with you that Gawker is scum, various communities take offense and find tasteless all sorts of other things. Freedom is either near absolute or useless.

Well, "press freedom and free speech" are about what the government can and can't do. Private litigation is rather orthogonal to that, no?

Edit: Actually, "free speech" arguably includes the funding of private litigation.

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

#129

Post by prostoalex »

madeofpalk wrote: post #17
pkinsky wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I see are slippery slope arguments claiming that, next time, Thiel might go after someone who didn't unarguably deserve it.

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

This is an important point. With the court verdict as it stands Hulk Hogan was right and Gawker was wrong. The fact that it took a connection to a billionaire for someone to defend their right to privacy is a sorry state of justice in America.

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

#130

Post by leereeves »

lazaroclapp wrote: post #124
pkinsky wrote: post #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…

Isn't this the same argument that gets thrown around when people point out the long term precedent implications in having Apple write a backdoor for the FBI? "You are defending a murdering terrorist!" "No, I am standing for the security of our communications infrastructure and, by extension, our society" Now: "You are defending a criminal low-brow rag that cares nothing for violating someone's privacy in the name of…

We can defend the press' freedom to express any opinion or fact without allowing them to publish people's private sex tapes.
Post reply on HN