Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 383 posts

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#131

Post by maratd »

wrsh07 wrote: post #114
bko wrote: post #17

> Litigation finance is typically a business venture. It doesn’t become charity because a wealthy person uses it as a template for a personal crusade and then insists he’s doing everyone else a favor. Why? Many cases brought by individuals or groups on moral grounds have led the way to better governance. A lot of good work has been done by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Why should individuals or g…

Neither side here looks great. It's reasonable for someone to sue Gawker because of what they publish. It's a bit scary to have someone attempt to take down a publishing company just because of a long-held grudge. That's a template for private censorship by the rich.

> That's a template for private censorship by the rich.

No. Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong. The courts frown on attempts to do that.

For you to do something wrong, you had to cause clearly defined harm. If you're causing harm, why shouldn't you be sued out of existence?

The injustice here isn't that the rich can eliminate bad actors ... it's that the rest of us can't!

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#132

Post by OldSchoolJohnny »

koolba wrote: post #41
Kristine1975 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These articles attacking Thiel framed as billionaire versus journalists doesn't even mention this fact. This one does though: >As for Gawker, it disseminated a sex tape of a retired pro wrestler. Let’s not pretend that the website did it as part of a great journalistic mission. Gawker did it to lure eyes to its website while smugly saying the First Amendment sheltered it. The author's beef isn't with Thiel using his…

> The author's beef isn't with Thiel using his money to help sue Gawker, but with him considering this to be philanthropic: >> The problem isn’t the way Thiel used his money. It’s his pretensions about it. But it is philanthropic, it just doesn't align with the author's idea of philanthropy.

What?! You have a seriously messed up idea of the definition of the word philanthropic.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#133

Post by saint_fiasco »

sdca wrote: post #24
plehoux wrote: post #14

This is totally BS. Litigation finance has been around for years, and has been done by all kind of people and organizations for all kind of purposes. Thiel is rich, he does things, there is no causality with 'tech' here. > Maybe it’s time for Silicon Valley to tone things down. To admit that, no, the Valley can’t solve all human problems -- not even close -- and never will. W T F.

Maybe Thiel paid Hulk Hogan's lawyers through PayPal. (sarcasm level: infinity)

Isn't Omidyar on Gawker's side, though?

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#134

Post by GVIrish »

wrsh07 wrote: post #114
bko wrote: post #17

> Litigation finance is typically a business venture. It doesn’t become charity because a wealthy person uses it as a template for a personal crusade and then insists he’s doing everyone else a favor. Why? Many cases brought by individuals or groups on moral grounds have led the way to better governance. A lot of good work has been done by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Why should individuals or g…

Neither side here looks great. It's reasonable for someone to sue Gawker because of what they publish. It's a bit scary to have someone attempt to take down a publishing company just because of a long-held grudge. That's a template for private censorship by the rich.

To me it would only be scary if a media company was taken down by a rich entity simply litigating them until they couldn't afford to fight the lawsuits anymore. In this case, Gawker lost because they were in the wrong.

A media company operating with integrity has nothing to fear here.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#135

Post by bakhy »

perhaps this is off-topic, but what personally bugs me most, as a gay man, is that Mr Thiel can hold such a huge grudge for so long about being outed. is it so humiliating for you that other people know you're gay, Mr Thiel?

i must add a disclaimer, of course: i am strongly against outing people like that (barring some exceptions, like anti-gay politicians). it is wrong, and Gawker should be punished for it. but i would expect that Mr Thiel feels at least some relief that the secret is out. and that this would enable some degree of letting go, and that the whole thing would die down. but, no. instead, 10 years of litigation...

alternatively, Mr Thiel could just be prone to extreme grudges, and just generally can't let anything go (?)

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#136

Post by iamdave »

GVIrish wrote: post #134
wrsh07 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither side here looks great. It's reasonable for someone to sue Gawker because of what they publish. It's a bit scary to have someone attempt to take down a publishing company just because of a long-held grudge. That's a template for private censorship by the rich.

To me it would only be scary if a media company was taken down by a rich entity simply litigating them until they couldn't afford to fight the lawsuits anymore. In this case, Gawker lost because they were in the wrong. A media company operating with integrity has nothing to fear here.

To me it would only be scary if a media company was taken down by a rich entity simply litigating them until they couldn't afford to fight the lawsuits anymore. In this case, Gawker lost because they were in the wrong.

I've read exactly two articles re: Thiel vs. Gawker, but....isn't that exactly what's happening? I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant to the fact that Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds (edit: tens) of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away.

I absolutely loathe Gawker Media, I loathe this even more.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#137

Post by jbandela1 »

supergirl wrote: post #11

I wonder what's the connection, if any, between the author of the article and Gawker. If he's the same guy I found on Linkedin, he seems to be working for some kind of PR company for hire; also confirmed by the article footnote. I hope nobody takes this article only for what it is but also questions why it is.

What I find more disturbing and ethically questionable is the that many of the news outlets blasting Thiel have major conflicts of interest that are rarely being disclosed.

For an example of how media is connected to Gawker, take a look at the disclosure for this Slate article http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/05/...

" Disclosure: One Slate editor is married to a Gawker editor. One is married to a lawyer who represented Gawker in the Hulk Hogan trial. One is a former Gawker Media executive editor. None of these Slate staffers worked on this story.

"

That is three editors who actually have a direct financial impact from the Gawker case. Even if they did not personally work on the story, the fact that a co-worker and likely friend's spouse is going to lose their job would be likely to color your objectivity.

Kudos to Slate for at least some disclosure. Note that by not stating who these people actually are, they leave open that although the person may not have worked on the story, one of those editors might be the boss of one or more people working on the story.

My guess is that if you looked at a lot of the coverage that has been blasting Peter Thiel, you will find a lot of conflicts of interest that are not being disclosed.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#138

Post by nickpinkston »

FYI - this was written by a PR person, not a journalist, and is designed to make Thiel look bad. Perhaps from someone hired by Gawker?

The author, Keith Emmer, is "the founder and managing partner of this strategic communications consultancy helping our clients... manage reputations... through editorial media"

https://www.linkedin.com/in/keithemmer

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#139

Post by soundwave106 »

maxerickson wrote: post #62
yummyfajitas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan Nations? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... If not, why not?

I bet it would be way less controversial if it came out that Thiel was openly funding an independent group that was focused on ethics in web journalism.

The problem is more the reverse scenario.

EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt / silence the media outlet.

The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble.

This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to quell any little bit of criticism.

Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#140

Post by qaq »

adamlett wrote: post #107
bko wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course money matters in justice, as it matters with everything else. I can't imagine a system in which it doesn't matter. Perhaps if the Bar Association cartel was broken, lawyers would be less expensive, but there needs to be a kind of mechanism to allocate the judicial resources of the state.

You really can't imagine? What if for example the losing party in a law suit was automatically forced to pay the legal expenses of the winning party? That is actually how it works many places outside of the US. It's quite effective at discouraging frivolous lawsuits, and it means that a rich person can't bankrupt a someone by waging a legal attrition war.

So you sue Walmart for 20K on some legitimate grounds but loose to their AAA legal team. Now you are on the hook for 700K of their legal expenses. It's already the case that a large players ability to outspend the small challenger serves as huge deterrent for smaller players to take on the big guys you want to make that deterrent X10 more powerful.
Post reply on HN