Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#2Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#3"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.”
The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”"
This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have. (Although he later said he was being flippant, that's even worse in exposing his infantile psychology).
OTOH, Thiel's ruthless use of the suing machine also leaves a bitter taste. This is a case where it's hard to totally root for either side.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#4>Gawker is a fast-moving site; it can’t (and doesn’t) carefully lawyer every single thing it publishes.
Maybe it should move slower then. And report, you know, responsibly.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#5From the article: "Historically, news publications have treated certain subjects very carefully: if you’re rich and [...] litigious, then [...] organizations will have lawyers do a careful review of anything they write about you [...]"
Well, if they would now have to "do a careful review" of everything they write for the fear of vengeful billionaire going after them, nobody would shed a tear.
But obviously that wont be a solution.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#6I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them.
But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn't have the right to post this content and didn't care that the courts found against them.
And when you consider that millionaires and billionaires often own media outlets as well, that can be worrying as well. What about a Murdoch esque figure trying to push their own views on society (and discredit opponents) through their newspapers and publications?
What Thiel did here is potentially worrying, but so are the other possibilities from the media site.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#7>Gawker is a fast-moving site; it can’t (and doesn’t) carefully lawyer every single thing it publishes. Maybe it should move slower then. And report, you know, responsibly.
This is a great point. If media outlets stopped being so obsessed with publishing anything and everything for clicks (without checking if it was newsworthy, legal or moral to do so), then cases like this would be much fewer and far between.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#8Such as a terrible article. Trying to paint Gawker as David. Gawker needs to be shut down, I hope Thiel never stops funding.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#9I have to admit, I've always been conflicted about this. On the one hand, yes it is a dangerous precedent to let the rich destroy publications they don't like by funding any possible lawsuit against them. But on the other hand, there seems to be an assumption that journalists and the media should be immune to punishment for when they do stuff that potentially destroys people lives, careers and reputation. Gawker didn…
I don't care, most publications today post whatever their "advertisers" want. Ventriloquism are the correct words, if you ask me.
There's no such thing as press today.
Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy
#10"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.” The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”" This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have. (Although he…
Yeah ,There are no good guys here.
Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next