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

201–210 of 335 posts

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

#201

Post by thesimpsons1022 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #107
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.

I wonder whether Hogan/Bollea was advised by "his" counsel about the ramifications of dropping one of the pieces of litigation - a piece that would have increased the ability for Bollea to collect that damage award. As it happens the particular tort that was dropped was the only one that would allow Gawker to use their insurance to cover the liability of the verdict awarded. Thiel's goal is to destroy Gawker. A Gawke…

Great post. However, most of the people I've seen come out against Thiel have not taken this argument. They've painted it as a billionaire shutting down a news outlet and silencing free speech. Which is very far from the truth.

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

#202

Post by thesimpsons1022 »

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…

What is the alternative? If you can't afford to sue a company rightfully you don't get to? What is wrong with paying someone's legal fees, regardless of your motives? Are you going to make transfers of money illegal? He could've lost the case in the court of law and lost his money.

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

#203

Post by nemothekid »

mikeyouse wrote: post #159
flashman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good; there SHOULD be a chilling effect on publishing private material of the sort being litigated. There's a difference between 'what the public is interested in' and 'the public interest'.

So if it were a Donald Trump sex tape rather than a hulk Hogan one, should airing under a minute of it cost the NYTimes $150M?

Only if NYT was issued a legitimate takedown, and then NYT told Trump to fuck off.

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

#204

Post by discordance »

abiox wrote: post #137
djrobstep wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> A libertarian using the power of government despite the somewhat narrow notion of what "libertarian" encompasses in US politics, even there they aren't equivalent to zero-government anarchists. > to crush free speech i'm increasingly believing that the notion of "free speech" has asymptotically zero meaning in general discourse. that said, an interesting counterpoint is in the article: "Mr. Thiel has donated money…

Free speech does not mean speech without repercussion.

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

#205

Post by internaut »

The only thing that should be upsetting about this outcome is that it wouldn't have happened without clandestine backing by a billionaire. The execution of justice is not in a healthy state. Arguably Gawker would have not necessitated an intervention had the justice system been less broken.

The honest reason why some people are bellyaching about this is because they don't see Thiel/Hogan/Trump as members of their own political tribe. The rationales they come up with are retroactive justifications because they feel that they've taken a hit. Part of their political tribe - Gawker, lost out. Political tribe affiliation wins out over pragmaticism and logic. We all know very well that Gawker was a nest of Social Justice political advocates.

They ought to ask themselves if Thiel wasn't a Trump Delegate, was not wealthy but managed to accomplish the same thing, would they still have a problem with this. I am certain the answer is no. The only change I would have made personally is that I would have stayed clandestine but then again I'm not as familiar with SV's political context.

I am much much more disturbed by the funding activities of George Soros than Peter Thiel. Abuse of power by the rich can be a genuine problem, but this wasn't an example of that.

It is time to play The Warrior Song!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo3fwddONA

Kill with a heart like Arctic Ice!

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

#206

Post by vidarh »

djrobstep wrote: post #156
leroy_masochist wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to use the courts to sue for defamation is pretty widely accepted as legit by most if not all strains of libertarianism. It's actually a clear example of a valid case in which governmental authority is necessary.

Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."

That's right-wing libertarianism. Libertarianism was first formulated by a French anarcho-communist named Joseph Déjacque in the late 1800's, who lambasted Proudhon (of "property is theft" fame) for not being sufficiently focused on liberty.

Right-libertarianism on the other hand was basically an attempt at reformulating the theories of Ayn Rand and von Mises to something that would allow a common from on many issues with liberal groups on the left.

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

#207

Post by uola »

int_19h wrote: post #33
zardgiv wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate privacy of others. I don't have any problem with deterrence - or "chilling effect", if you prefer to word it that way - on the latter. It's unfortunate that it requires a millionaire to fund the court case to get us there; but the only cause for concern here is that someone else might see their privacy similarly violated, and not have a rich spons…

"There's a difference between freedom of speech, and freedom to violate privacy of others."

I think that is a very dangerous way to look at thing. The right to privacy is a limitation to freedom of speech. You might think that it's a reasonable limitation in this case, but it's still a limitation and not something different.

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

#208

Post by lazaroclapp »

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #202
lazaroclapp wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is the alternative? If you can't afford to sue a company rightfully you don't get to? What is wrong with paying someone's legal fees, regardless of your motives? Are you going to make transfers of money illegal? He could've lost the case in the court of law and lost his money.

Perhaps not phrased well enough in my post, but as I said, my personal take is that - so long as the quality of access to justice can't be fully separated from wealth - third-party funding of lawsuits should be allowed, just not in secret. For an immediate fix: have parties disclose any third-parties funding their suits and any conflicts of interests they might have with the opposing side. Make the judge and jury aware of this and document it in the public proceedings of the suit.

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

#209

Post by internaut »

nikcub wrote: post #76

Thiel is also apparently financing Shiva Ayyadurai's lawsuit against Gawker. He is the guy who claims to have invented email as a 14 year old. Both Techdirt[1] and Gawker[2] wrote about his nonsense claims, but Shiva and Thiel are suing Gawker. The sex tape is a little more black and white as a moral argument, but i'd love to hear justifications for defending a man who is clearly so full of shit in a case that with T…

A - I'm not sure anybody is wealthy enough to get Ayyadurai a win. Wealth puts more ammunition in your weapon but you know the gun has to be operable. Thiel was a lawyer, he'll know a loser case when he sees it.

B - Spreading rumours is what Gawker does best. They are fighting for their life here so we'll need to make doubly sure of sources. Spreading shit to distract is a time honored custom. Government, businesses and media do it all the time.

C - Nick Denton & Co remain cockmongling thundercunts.

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

#210

Post by agd »

I think the thing to be clear about it that this is not some high and mighty ethical challenge to Gawker or in defence of privacy (cough cough Palentir). This is petty revenge writ large by a billionaire.

If it was about principle why was he hiding his actions? This interview is a pure PR exercise because his involvement was revealed.

The whole story is a sorry mess.

Post reply on HN