Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by internaut » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:10 PM UTC

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…

Guilty of speed-reading.?

1. As you say, Gawker can report on Hogan's private sex tape. Tacky but newsworthy for tabloids.

2. Gawker cannot distribute Hogan's private sex tape. That would equivalent to Playboy distributing Jennifer Lawrence nudes from The Fappening.

3. Gawker certainly can't ignore requests from judges telling them to take down the private sex tape.

You've conflated the first with the second and third.

Gawker is mostly getting rapped for the third point to make an example of them. That's the judge's prerogative.

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

#272

Post by andkon » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:21 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #256

andkon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rich person acted out his retributive fantasies by paying a law team for years to trawl through everything Gawker put out in search of litigable offenses. That's unethical on the part of the lawyers, probably, and on the part of Thiel, certainly. He never had a chance to win any personal verdict, so he went nuclear. There's no way that won't have a chilling effect on other media companies who consider whether or no…

If Gawker hadn't published anything litigable, they wouldn't have had any problems. If there is a litigable claim, there should be at least the possibility that the person who is being litigated against has done something wrong. Who cares about the motives of the person exposing the wrongdoing as long as it's accurate?

There are a few ways this argument can play out:

1. You have a moral obligation to litigate moral wrongs, whether or not they happened to you. Since rich people have more money and hence more things are litigable to them, they have a moral obligation to litigate more things. In this view, Thiel obviously did the wrong thing: he avoided litigating moral wrongs for years while waiting for the right case to come up strictly about Gawker. He failed to act ethically, under this model.

2. It is morally permissible to litigate moral or even legal wrongs that were not committed to you. It being permissible means it's a supererogatory feature of your moral life, in that you don't have to do it. It goes beyond the call of duty to sue Gawker for what they did to Hogan. But without a moral obligation to do so, you can't say that it could ever override your other obligations to behave ethically. Retribution, which this clearly was, is not an obviously ethical motive that would mean we should wholesale excuse what Thiel did—even though it may have been a good act to punish Gawker for Hogan, it was morally wrong to use the legal system strictly for retribution.

3. It is your moral obligation to litigate all litigable acts. This is absurd, prima facie: all our money and time should go towards litigation? Nah.

In other words, yeah, the motives matter. Thiel went above and beyond the call of duty and acted unethically, in an especially egregious and self-serving way available only to billionaires, along the way.

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

#273

Post by andkon » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

bogomipz wrote: post #165

andkon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rich person acted out his retributive fantasies by paying a law team for years to trawl through everything Gawker put out in search of litigable offenses. That's unethical on the part of the lawyers, probably, and on the part of Thiel, certainly. He never had a chance to win any personal verdict, so he went nuclear. There's no way that won't have a chilling effect on other media companies who consider whether or no…

Trade "rich person" for "powerful media outlet" and Gawker is the bully. And it's been cheap for Gawker over the years with their 40 million in revenue to throw any hapless victims to the wolves if they thought that it would sell advertising. And guess what it was cheap for them. How many people didn't have the money or resources to take Gawker on?

The question was about whether or not it was ethical for Thiel to do what he did. Saying that Gawker did something bad to other people does not mean Thiel has an obligation to do anything, nor does it say that he acted ethically to do what he did.

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

#274

Post by lukehorvat » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

owenversteeg wrote: post #61

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…

The only independent online media outlet left in the world? What an absurd statement.

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

#275

Post by brianmcconnell » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

Two important points here.

#1 Gawker did not out Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel outed Peter Thiel. Back when Friendster was a thing he had a public profile which featured him shirtless on a boat which clearly advertised his interest in handsome men. So on the scale from Closet Queen to Totes Obvious, he was more on the side of totes obvi. It was also the worst kept secret in San Francisco, particularly if you had any latin friends. So Owen Thomas was right in concluding that Thiel was already out when he ran his "Peter Thiel is totally gay" piece because it wasn't news to anybody.

#2 if Hulk Hogan is claiming injury and embarrassment from a sex tape, why did he make a sex tape? Yes, Gawker is muck raking trash (I just read it for the comments!), but they trade in such material. Unless I am missing something, Gawker didn't trick him into making a sex tape. Common sense would tell you that if you don't want your sex tape on the Internets, don't make a sex tape in the first place.

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

#276

Post by michaelwww » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

brianmcconnell wrote: post #275

Two important points here. #1 Gawker did not out Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel outed Peter Thiel. Back when Friendster was a thing he had a public profile which featured him shirtless on a boat which clearly advertised his interest in handsome men. So on the scale from Closet Queen to Totes Obvious, he was more on the side of totes obvi. It was also the worst kept secret in San Francisco, particularly if you had any latin…

> #2 if Hulk Hogan is claiming injury and embarrassment from a sex tape, why did he make a sex tape?

Hulk Hogan said he did not know the tape was being made so could not consent to it. He was not consulted about it's release and would not have authorized it. The jury agreed with him.

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

#277

Post by coryfklein » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

lukehorvat wrote: post #274

owenversteeg wrote: post #61

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…

The only independent online media outlet left in the world? What an absurd statement.

> they are the only independent online media outlet left in the world. [citation needed]

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

#278

Post by internaut » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #10

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…

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…

I thought I'd look those up to see who got the scoop.

Hillary Clinton’s secret email account: New York Times Bill Cosby’s history with women: National Enquirer The mayor of Toronto as a crack smoker: Gawker Tom Cruise’s role within Scientology: Gawker N.F.L. cover-up of domestic abuse: ESPN Hidden power of Facebook to determine the news: Gawker

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

#279

Post by TheCoelacanth » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #111

eudox wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, my dude, Thiel just paid for part of Hogan's legal fees. That money's not gonna conjure up evidence from the luminiferous aether.

People with more resources win more lawsuits. Do you believe that this is because they are more frequently wronged?

Gawker is a company with $45 million in revenue. They have plenty of money to defend themselves from a single lawsuit. If anything, Thiel just leveled the playing field.

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

#280

Post by brianmcconnell » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

michaelwww wrote: post #276

brianmcconnell wrote: post #275

Two important points here. #1 Gawker did not out Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel outed Peter Thiel. Back when Friendster was a thing he had a public profile which featured him shirtless on a boat which clearly advertised his interest in handsome men. So on the scale from Closet Queen to Totes Obvious, he was more on the side of totes obvi. It was also the worst kept secret in San Francisco, particularly if you had any latin…

> #2 if Hulk Hogan is claiming injury and embarrassment from a sex tape, why did he make a sex tape? Hulk Hogan said he did not know the tape was being made so could not consent to it. He was not consulted about it's release and would not have authorized it. The jury agreed with him.

Then why isn't he suing his "friend" who made the sex tape without his consent? That's the original sin then. I am answering my own question here (Gawker has more money than his friend!)