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

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

#281

Post by soundwave106 » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

internaut wrote: post #205

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…

Although Thiel was involved, I'm not sure it's clear just how much his financing mattered.

I do agree with you that there's too much "money=justice" in the United States though.

Part of the problem with this case I think is less politics, it is the people involved. I do not have high opinions of Hulk Hogan, and there's a certain irony that this case also round-about involves Bubba the Love Sponge, a radio shock jock that from my viewpoint is about as scummy and ethic-less as Gawker in his career.

What Gawker did was scummy though, and I have no problems with the outcome.

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

#282

Post by brianmcconnell » Thu, May 26, 2016, 3:59 PM UTC

partiallypro wrote: post #100

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…

Probably because Theil wants Gawker dead after they were the outlet that outed him as homosexual. I wouldn't necessarily blame him. Just tying the publication up in court and legal fees could sink it.

Gawker didn't out Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel outed Peter Thiel. It was the worst kept secret in San Francisco, and he had a public Friendster profile that made it pretty clear he was GAY GAY GAY.

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

#283

Post by rsync » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:02 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…

"[edit] Wow, this is really being run into the ground with downvotes."

Don't discuss your own (down)votes. Don't interrupt the actual discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system.

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

#284

Post by dogma1138 » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:08 PM UTC

inflagranti wrote: post #230

__Joker wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really doubt whether any just society exists in today. Rich and powerful will always bend the rules. These days the rule ~breaking~ bending is more subtle than the previous. To quote Thucydides[1] "... right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." The challenge still exists for us to find a way to build more just and ega…

There are airways always degrees. I cannot speak for other European countries, but in Switzerland, much less of the cost of the judicial system is on the individual. Also for minor the there are dedicated judges appointed to quickly resolve disputes without huge processes. And finally, there's insurance you can get that will pay a lawyer for you if you really get into some nasty situation ever, something I haven't fo…

The US also has a small claims court, every country does. The problems is that people have very skewed view of the US legal system mainly because of big cases that are sensationalized by them media. Most law suits in the US don't end up as multi-million dollar cases.

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

#285

Post by detaro » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

brianmcconnell wrote: post #280

michaelwww wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> #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!)

The "friend" settled out of court. As far as I know the matter how the tape got to Gawker then wasn't resolved in the case.

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

#286

Post by MisterBastahrd » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:16 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #265

cjbprime wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge That would be unethical if the case were frivolous, or designed to bankrupt Gawker through "court fees" defending themselves against unreasonable complaints, or so on. Gawker's going bankrupt, if they do, because they lost the case , for what I think were correct reasons. It can not be unethical to help someone get justice they were owed. If…

Would Gawker go bankrupt if the damages were set at $10 million? What about $20 million? $100 million? Why not $1 billion. Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair? Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would yo…

Wealthy people tend to have a lot of income. He lost a lot of income due to Gawker. Yes, it's just and fair. Bollea was making millions and millions a year in roles and endorsements, and that dried up after Gawker went after him. Gawker makes millions too. What Gawker did in the Bollea case has nothing to do with journalism. They wanted to create a sensationalist tabloid story with stolen footage of a private and embarrassing encounter to make money. Like any business endeavor, there's the possibility that you lose money. When you're a non-essential business that costs someone millions, be expected to pay millions.

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

#287

Post by tsycho » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

I am conflicted about this, and see merits on both sides of the argument on Thiel's actions. So I tried to draw an analogy:

Let's say that there is some patent troll that only extorts money from small startups, who don't have the resources to fight back. Some billionaire of today, who in his past career was harassed by this patent troll, decides (both for revenge and for the greater good in his opinion) that the patent troll should die and secretly starts backing startup lawsuits against the troll.

1/ Is this a fair analogy?

2/ Is the press "special" and hence we cannot use analogies from other industries?

3/ People who disagree with Thiel's actions, would you feel similarly against the billionaire above?

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

#288

Post by whatok » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #266

whatok wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of these were things Gawker originally sourced and how many of them were things that they quoted a few paragraphs and added a snarky/self-righteous sentence or two to?

Quick check: is there an answer to this question that would change your mind? If so, what is it?

Change my mind on what?

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

#289

Post by ryanlol » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #263

ryanlol wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think you understand what freedom of speech is. Peter Thiel isn't a government entity, but an individual. He by definition cannot do anything to restrict gawkers freedom of speech.

Two ways in which you're wrong here: First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech. Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intervention, but freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside the U.S. Constitution. I hope this clarifies things and helps you better understand the situation.

>First, Peter Thiel used the court system, an arm of the government, to pursue a personal vendetta and suppress their speech.

No, he merely helped others do so. Whether or not he had a personal vendetta does not affect the validity of the cases. And again, Peter Thiel has every right to do so. As he himself isn't an arm of the government.

>Second, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government intervention, but freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside the U.S. Constitution.

I just can't find a definition that agrees with you here, it seems to me that it's commonly accepted that freedom of speech is specifically about the right to communicate without fear of government interference.

It'd be rather ridiculous if wasn't, would any retaliation from a private person in response to speech be violating ones freedom of speech? Wouldn't that mean that if you insulted me and I responded in kind I'd effectively be suppressing your speech?

In any case, I'd appreciate it if you could find a source that supports your position. I'd be very interested to read it.

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

#290

Post by imgabe » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

andkon wrote: post #272

imgabe wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stri…

Another way to look at it is this: It happened. For the most part, everyone is better off because it did. If that weren't the case, we would have done something to stop it.

"Moral obligations" are made-up. Obligated by whom? What happens if someone doesn't fulfill their moral obligation? Nothing, right? Maybe someone writes a comment on the Internet saying they should be ashamed, but that's pretty much it.

Feel free to pontificate all you like about the morality of it. That won't change the fact that it did happen and will happen again unless a force powerful enough to stop it chooses to do so.

Ultimately, the whole point of having a justice system is to sort out these questions. Anybody can sue anyone else for any reason. We depend on the courts to sort out the ones that are valid from the ones that are invalid. In this case, the courts deemed this a valid lawsuit. If you disagree with the validity of it or feel the methods by which the courts make these judgments is flawed, then that's one thing, but the rules of the system allow any lawsuit to be brought for any reason.