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

321–330 of 335 posts

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

#321

Post by Natsu »

wpietri wrote: post #319
Natsu wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but you'd have to rule against Bolea, who was wronged, to get to Thiel. All Thiel did was help Bolea. So if Bolea did nothing wrong, then you have nothing left to accuse Thiel of. You may not like his motives, but he didn't actually do anything but help someone wronged seek justice.

Inasmuch as this creates a chilling effect to keep people from publishing stolen sex tapes... oh well.

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

#322

Post by wpietri »

Natsu wrote: post #321
wpietri wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but you'd have to rule against Bolea, who was wronged, to get to Thiel. All Thiel did was help Bolea. So if Bolea did nothing wrong, then you have nothing left to accuse Thiel of. You may not like his motives, but he didn't actually do anything but help someone wronged seek justice. Inasmuch as this creates a chilling effect to keep people from publishing stolen sex tapes... oh well.

Thiel is willing to fund an effectively infinite number of lawsuits, and he is willing to lose large sums of money doing so. To destroy Gawker, none of the lawsuits have to win in the long term. The particular merits of Bollea's case are a red herring.

Also, this is clearly wrong: "All Thiel did was help Bolea." [sic] Thiel clearly imposed conditions. The suit was specifically structured to exclude the insurance company, reducing Bollea's risk-adjusted odds of a payout.

Bollea also turned down settlement offers, presumably at Thiel's behest. That clearly suits Thiel, whose goal is not helping anybody, but destroying Gawker. It's not clear it was really in Bollea's best interests; there are reasons most of these cases get settled. Far more of us now know about Bollea's adultery than if this had been quietly settled, which increases the reputational harm that's supposedly part of Bollea's reason for suing. And Bollea has had to actually go through a trial, which increases the emotional suffering that again was a putative problem.

Thiel doesn't care here about helping people. Or even helping people who have been harmed by tabloid journalism. If he did, he would have structured it as something like the ACLU: transparent donations to a group of independent lawyers with a stated purpose, who then get to pick their own cases on the merits. What he cares about is destroying Gawker. Which is why he spent a decade secretly plotting and executing a series of lawsuits aimed to driving the company out of business.

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

#323

Post by Natsu »

wpietri wrote: post #322
Natsu wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but you'd have to rule against Bolea, who was wronged, to get to Thiel. All Thiel did was help Bolea. So if Bolea did nothing wrong, then you have nothing left to accuse Thiel of. You may not like his motives, but he didn't actually do anything but help someone wronged seek justice. Inasmuch as this creates a chilling effect to keep people from publishing stolen sex tapes... oh well.

Thiel is willing to fund an effectively infinite number of lawsuits, and he is willing to lose large sums of money doing so. To destroy Gawker, none of the lawsuits have to win in the long term. The particular merits of Bollea's case are a red herring. Also, this is clearly wrong: "All Thiel did was help Bolea." [sic] Thiel clearly imposed conditions. The suit was specifically structured to exclude the insurance comp…

Bolea is the only one who could make all those choices. Those are his rights, and if he chooses to (or not to) screw Gawker over with legal strategy, that's his decision. Neither you nor I can make that for him and unless he complains about it, the entire discussion is pure nonsense.

I have no reason to believe that Bolea couldn't have funded the lawsuit himself. Bolea has no obligation (and no reason) to do things in a way friendly to Gawker. I find it highly believable that he himself asked his lawyers to screw Gawker over even if it got him less cash. More money != more justice. And inasmuch as this puts a chilling effect on publications that spy on people's private sex life, I honestly don't have a problem. There's no news here. Just perverts who want to spy on a celebrity.

You can't just go out and manufacture lawsuits--at least, not without getting yourself in trouble in court when they're found bogus. Someone has to have some kind of case or they get laughed out of court. He might be willing to fund suits, but they won't go anywhere and at least some of the time one can recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees on victory.

So call me when he funds something clearly meritless. The funding has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of what Gawker did, therefore it should not affect the case outcome.

So yes, the merits of the suit are relevant. Funding tons of bogus suits is clearly different from helping Gawker's victims seek justice. And so far, evidence points to the latter.

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

#325

Post by int_19h »

uola wrote: post #207
int_19h wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, it is a limitation on freedom of speech. Copyright is also a limitation to freedom of speech, as are libel and slander laws. In a society where free speech is absolute, if I have more money than you, I can destroy your reputation, and possibly your entire life, by spreading false information about you, and you would have no recourse. Is that a good thing?

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

#326

Post by argonaut »

mikeyouse wrote: post #188
argonaut wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's the solution to this problem? Ban wealthy people from financing lawsuits? That's never going to happen. What about ban people with malicious intent from financing the lawsuits? You'll rarely be able to prove the intent.

We formerly had laws on the books banning this very thing.. Read into champerty: http://qz.com/692312/billionaire-peter-thiels-attack-on-gawk...

Yes, that why I said "Ban wealthy people from financing lawsuits? That's never going to happen."

Reinstitution of maintenance/champerty laws will never politically happen. It means banning donations to the ACLU or EFF or NRA or union legal fund, etc. Good luck with that politically.

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

#327

Post by wpietri »

Natsu wrote: post #323
wpietri wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel is willing to fund an effectively infinite number of lawsuits, and he is willing to lose large sums of money doing so. To destroy Gawker, none of the lawsuits have to win in the long term. The particular merits of Bollea's case are a red herring. Also, this is clearly wrong: "All Thiel did was help Bolea." [sic] Thiel clearly imposed conditions. The suit was specifically structured to exclude the insurance comp…

Bolea is the only one who could make all those choices. Those are his rights, and if he chooses to (or not to) screw Gawker over with legal strategy, that's his decision. Neither you nor I can make that for him and unless he complains about it, the entire discussion is pure nonsense. I have no reason to believe that Bolea couldn't have funded the lawsuit himself. Bolea has no obligation (and no reason) to do things i…

You don't seem to understand that Thiel has funded more than one lawsuit. Of course, you also don't seem to know how to spell Bollea's name, so maybe you haven't been following this all that closely.

But yes, meritless lawsuits pursued because of personal agendas are an actual threat to First Amendment rights. Which is why anti-SLAPP statues have become necessary, and why 28 states have passed them in recent decades. As a NY Supreme Court justice wrote about strategic use of meritless lawsuits: "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined." Thiel has found a new twist, where he can assault public participation without actually being a plaintiff. But he poses a very similar threat.

And yes, of course I can complain. Thiel is creating a systemic distortion around publishing the same way, e.g., tobacco companies funded systemic distortions of science. That the individual scientists have a right to free speech does not mean that I can't complain about how they use it. Or complain vociferously about the tobacco companies' damage to science, no matter how much they mewl about "fairness" and "seeing both sides". As a citizen, it's my job to make sure our democracy keeps working.

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

#328

Post by dredmorbius »

dang wrote: post #97
nefitty wrote: post #14

Thiel claims to despise "massive privacy violations" on the part of groups like Gawker, yet he was one of the co-founders of Palantir. These people are just narcissists who want revenge for someone splashing mud on their boots. They're not fighting for our privacy, or for the common good. Sorry buddy, you are worth more than 99.999% of us. That makes you a significant figure and thus newsworthy. Your sexual orientati…

I think Hacker News users can expect to be held to a higher standard than this comment, which adds no information, calls a lot of names ("these people are just narcissists who want revenge"—you can't possibly know that), and lacks decency (someone's sexual orientation is fair game because they're rich? no, it's not). If you have an argument to make, you're welcome to make it neutrally and respectfully. But you're not…

Palantir's (and Facebook's and numerous other "social", adtech, and other current-wave tech companies) roles in depriving individuals of privacy, particularly in contrast with Thiel's actions, goals, and methods here, absolutely bear airing.

I've no love for Gawker at all, I've blocked most of the related properties as not worth the bits. But Thiel's actions here are deeply troubling. In large part for precisely the hypocrisy your parent post notes.

(It'd be nice if HN showed more than just the immediate parent post in the compose page).

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

#329

Post by XJOKOLAT »

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.

There's a very fine line to be drawn.

I think it boils down to a conflict of interest and hence Thiel shouldn't have been involved in the legal process at all. That's the unethical element about it (to me).

I think it's also about transparency.

Thiel should have been front and centre during the legal process and open about his involvement instead of manipulating from the background.

Now, Thiel has not only undermined his own reputation (would you want to deal with a man who, if you got on the wrong side of him, might use considerable economic might to bring you down?) and the reputation of the legal system (now perceived to be a football game for billionaires).

You can argue day and night whether or not this is ethical or unethical, or how important the original legal cases were. However, Thiels' approach failed the smell test (to me) and has done more overall harm than good in the cold light of day ... just so one man could have a "fuck you" moment in the sunshine.

Disclaimer: if half of the things written about Gawker are true, I'm obviously not in their camp. It's possible to criticize both for different reasons.

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

#330

Post by wfo »

Natsu wrote: post #320
wfo wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sys…

It's not about who we do and do not like. Civil cases have a very, very low standard of proof (not really proof at all - 50% + 1 means you just need to hint suggestively that a thing happened and collect your cash) and can be brought for essentially any reason. They are prone to abuse and often used vindictively, or as harassment, or as a tool for leverage in negotiations, or because a person was found not guilty. If we do as you suggest then the justice system is just acting as yet another mechanism for the wealthy and powerful to enforce their will upon the poor and powerless.
Post reply on HN