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

311–320 of 335 posts

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

#311

Post by chipotle_coyote »

tsycho wrote: post #287

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 pate…

1) Not precisely. Suppose the "patent troll" in your example was a company that had some absurd, dubious patents and made a sizable chunk of their revenue from them, but was not a non-practicing entity, and actually produced other products that people generally liked. Beyond that, that they could prove that they licensed a lot of their patents--both valid and dubious--pretty reasonably. (In other words, assume things are more complex than "Everything Gawker Media produces is clearly indefensible.")

2) You can always use analogies from other industries, but you can also make a case that in the United States the press is something of a special case. It's the only private industry specifically given constitutional protection in the Bill of Rights. It's certainly worth asking--and potentially litigating--whether Gawker violated both Thiel's and Hogan's right to privacy, but we give the press more latitude than we do other industries for a reason.

3) In the example as you outlined it, where a "patent troll only extorts money from small startups," I wouldn't feel the same despite disagreeing with Thiel's actions in this case.

The difference, beyond what I've suggested above in (1) and (2), is one of precedence. People are focusing, understandably, on the specifics of this particular case. But we don't know wat other cases Thiel is funding against Gawker; we don't know what the merits are. And that's the whole thing: a billionaire unhappy with the way a media outlet has covered him doesn't need to find winnable libel and defamation suits against that outlet; he just needs to find ones good enough to get to trial and cost tens of millions of dollars to defend. If Thiel funded a half-dozen losing cases against Gawker, he might still bankrupt them.

And, again: precedent. What if instead of Peter Thiel this was Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton? George Soros? David Koch? What if the ultimate reason for the vendetta was because they brought out embarrassing secrets that were in the public interest?

While I understand why everyone is focusing on the "Gawker? Couldn't happen to a more deserving company, ha ha ha" aspect of all this, free speech cases don't always revolve around noble defenders with noble goals. As wary as I am of slippery slope arguments (use one once and you'll use them everywhere), "hey, this couldn't possibly happen to someone who's less of a jerk than Nick Denton" seems uncomfortably close to magic thinking.

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

#312

Post by internaut »

FireBeyond wrote: post #295
internaut wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are reasonable questions but there is no evidence that Terry Bollea was an unwilling participant. Obviously Thiel wasn't in it for the money but (higher potential) compensation was not necessarily the main motivation for Bollea either. He's already a wealthy man by most standards and probably more concerned about his (Terry) honor and causing his character (Hulk) to lose face because if that hurts the macho pub…

No, and that's a fair point, these are only the questions that come to my mind when reading this, certainly not "something that happened". By all intents, though, Bollea is (at least to his own words) "near bankruptcy", due to divorce. So it seems odd that he'd also - after being awarded a large sum - which is all he'd sought before - _then_ decide to drop the claim which offered him his only real chance at seeing an…

Using your metaphor.

So the judge could use discretion such that all the damages related to the fallout be paid. Otherwise it's a bit like being somebody in debtor's prison to pay their debts. This means the side affect of killing Gawker should be taken into account by the judge.

There are at least three confounding issues though. The first is that this guy who crashed into your house has repeatedly done the same thing to other people's houses. He's a habitual drunk who shouts mean things while shaking his fist at other cars as he drives. Public menace. Maybe having him off the road entirely isn't such a bad solution. He can catch the bus or get a new line of work and pay off his debts gradually.

The second is that this guy has other coworkers that could lend him money to pay the damages. He's not homeless just yet. The question is whether his support network exists for doing so. (i.e. Gawker could just about scrape by, it's not dead yet)

The third is that the man could just declare bankruptcy. Then all his assets are gone but he won't owe the remainder for covering the problem he caused. A new start is underrated. (i.e. Gawker cannot pay what it does not possess, I assume here Gawker is a LLC of some type) A harsh punishment by the judge but we have to send a message to these drunks driving crazily on our roads.

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

#313

Post by wpietri »

anamoulous wrote: post #223
wpietri wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not meritorious. That's not true at all. One jury verdict (before appeals have been heard) plus a bunch of nascent suits is no proof of eventual merit. It could be that every single one of those cases eventually ends up getting dismissed, or being awarded negligible verdicts. But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well…

Have you watched any of the depositions or testimony in this trial? I feel like the lawyers and Denton were the only people from Gawker who were taking this case seriously. Time and time again the hostility and outright contempt coming from the Gawker side only served to undermine their case. AJ Daulerio specifically, but even his subordinates and Gawker management were trying to out draw the lawyers every time they…

Personally, I am definitely not interested in defending most of Gawker's behavior here. I think Denton is a heel, a reprobate, and frequently a fool.

What I do care about is that people recognize that using money to silence reporting, however lowbrow and however nettlesome, is a step on the road to oligarchy. The 1st Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. Thiel here isn't trying to litigate an issue of concern to him. His only goal is to destroy a publisher, regardless of the merits of plaintiffs' complaints.

Now there are plenty here who are fine with a little oligarchy, and some who would like quite a lot. If they want to openly argue for that, great. And plenty of people, me included, have contempt for Denton, and who will enjoy his eventual comeuppance. But as much as I'd like to see that, I don't want to see it come with a major chilling effect on our already-mostly-toothless tech press.

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

#314

Post by wpietri »

Natsu wrote: post #185
wpietri wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He could not have done anything at all to them if the cases were not meritorious. That's not true at all. One jury verdict (before appeals have been heard) plus a bunch of nascent suits is no proof of eventual merit. It could be that every single one of those cases eventually ends up getting dismissed, or being awarded negligible verdicts. But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well…

> But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well be out of business. They had lawyers. They had their defense. They can appeal, but they have no one but themselves to blame for going to court and asserting the right to publish stolen sex tapes of anyone over 4... and for violating a court order. Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit…

> Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit specifically.

To me that's like saying, "Inasmuch as there are problems with this massive data breach, they're with computer security in general, not the thief in specific."

Sure, there's a broader problem. But that doesn't mean that people willing to take advantage of a problem aren't also a problem. When many factors contribute to a bad outcome, it's worth looking at every factor when trying to fix the problem.

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

#315

Post by internaut »

qrendel wrote: post #125
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.

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 c…

I know how it seems at first but you should probably hear out his explanation.

First I take it you accept the necessity of gathering intelligence and analyzing it i.e. You don't believe the world is a John Lennon song.

He says that Palantir is a very targeted approach to surveillance. It was founded at a time when dragnet surveillance proposals were being thrown up. The 'greater good' in this sense is preventing a more Orwellian world by the method of being effective and flexible in a way that sprawling govcomplexes tend not to be.

When Snowden came out Thiel was alongside Binney in criticizing the NSA for being overwhelmed in irrelevant data. The basic point they both make is that an effective government isn't a cruel one or has the potential to be less likely to cudgel large numbers of innocent people. No need to send the village to the gulag if one of them is the culprit.

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

#316

Post by Natsu »

wpietri wrote: post #314
Natsu wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But because Gawker may not be able to afford a full defense, they could well be out of business. They had lawyers. They had their defense. They can appeal, but they have no one but themselves to blame for going to court and asserting the right to publish stolen sex tapes of anyone over 4... and for violating a court order. Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit…

> Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit specifically. To me that's like saying, "Inasmuch as there are problems with this massive data breach, they're with computer security in general, not the thief in specific." Sure, there's a broader problem. But that doesn't mean that people willing to take advantage of a problem aren't also a problem. When many factors cont…

If that's the case, then everyone who presents a legitimate claim in court is part of the problem. It's not like there's some alternative to the legal system he could've used to address his grievances. Moreover, opting out of using the legal system does nothing to improve matters for others.

This was not some meritless nuisance suit, as should be evident by the fact that he won.

The broader problem is when people do things like spam settlement offers for less than the cost of defense, or the fact that the legal system is so expensive to operate to begin with. But none of these can rightfully be blamed on Bolea, so your analogy is simply faulty. There's no "abuse" here to begin with: he had a valid legal claim and won on the merits in court.

It is telling that as much as you wax poetic about abusing the court system, you failed to acknowledge that Gawker is the one who violated a court order here. I mean, if winning a meritorious case is what you count as "abuse" of the legal system, exactly how do you rate that?

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

#317

Post by owenversteeg »

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.

I should've clarified, I was referring to large media organizations. An independent media organization that has no viewers is not terribly useful. If you know of any independent online media organizations approaching the scale of Gawker, let me know, I'd love to hear about them.

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

#318

Post by vithlani »

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.

You don't see what is un-ethical here? If he is so concerned about Gawker and it's misbehavior, why not sue them directly -- as they have written plenty about him and his friends? Why use this as a stalking horse?

If some other media outlet (say NY Times group) was being sued into the ground by some billionaire, there would be a huge uproar.

But because this is Gawker (a universally media-hated media outfit which regularly and cheerfully exposes the corruption, decadence and double standards of regular media), nobody cares.

Like it or not, they have played an important part in exposing and shining a light on Silicon Valley shenanigans, incompetence and plain criminal mis-management.

My problem with this is: a handful of people like Thiel and his friends have gotten rich by feasting off other people's private information and basically un-checked surveillance (not just FB, also Palantir and Paypal). Yet when the same is applied to them (and hardly to the same degree), they ruthlessly want to exact revenge.

I sincerely hope Gawker win this case, especially as it is being used purely as a front to attack them for basically doing their job.

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

#319

Post by wpietri »

Natsu wrote: post #316
wpietri wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inasmuch as there are problems here, they're with the legal system in general, not this suit specifically. To me that's like saying, "Inasmuch as there are problems with this massive data breach, they're with computer security in general, not the thief in specific." Sure, there's a broader problem. But that doesn't mean that people willing to take advantage of a problem aren't also a problem. When many factors cont…

If that's the case, then everyone who presents a legitimate claim in court is part of the problem. It's not like there's some alternative to the legal system he could've used to address his grievances. Moreover, opting out of using the legal system does nothing to improve matters for others. This was not some meritless nuisance suit, as should be evident by the fact that he won. The broader problem is when people do…

I don't have an issue with Bollea. I have an issue with Thiel.

Thiel did not have a legitimate claim in court, but he is still using his billions to destroy a news organization he does not like.

I should say again that I am not interested in defending Gawker here; I think Denton's an ass. I think Nazis are terrible too, but I think it's worth defending both their and Gawker's First Amendment rights.

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

#320

Post by Natsu »

wfo wrote: post #309
darawk wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way would that knowledge aid the jury in coming to an impartial verdict? Peter Thiel had and has nothing to do with the case itself. The facts and merits of the actual case are unchanged by his involvement and as such this information is immaterial.

Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them, not to get paid for being an instrument in the revenge fantasy of a billionaire. I think the jury certainly has a vested interest in knowing if the case is of the first type or the second. Society most definitely does. In this case it's the first. What those of us who are looking at this case with more long-term conseq…

> Usually people bring civil suits in order to get justice for some wrong that has been done to them

The jury can decide whether some wrong has been done based on the facts of the case itself. If some wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill. If no wrong has been done, that's true regardless of who footed the bill.

Judging cases based on who we do and do not like is something our justice system has been set up to avoid.

Post reply on HN