Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by jamesrcole » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

devishard wrote: post #53

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #37

Wait a minute. Gawker is no righteous hero here. Let's see if I understand correctly. Gawker outs Thiel (which is nobody's business, yet Gawker decided to make it people's business). Gawker at some point later posts an illegal SEX tape (again, nobody's business). Now, we're supposed to feel sorry for Gawker because Thiel wants to help out another person who was WRONGED by Gawker? Wow. Just wow.

I don't feel bad for Gawker at all. I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. He's using that power for good in this case, but I doubt he always will.

> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability.

What's wrong with backing some reasonable legal action?

Surely you're not against that?

I suspect the actual issue people have, which doesn't have anything to do with Thiel, is that a lot of people don't have the money to effectively back reasonable legal actions.

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

#142

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:09 PM UTC

iamdave wrote: post #136

GVIrish wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

He's also financing multiple cases, isn't he?

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

#143

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #131

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.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by CPLX » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #131

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.

> 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…

> Contrary to popular opinion, you can't sue somebody out of existence if they've done nothing wrong.

That's absolutely incorrect. There is ample precedent of people using the civil legal system to suppress the media.

Perhaps you heard of these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law

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

#145

Post by iamdave » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #142

iamdave wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

He's also financing multiple cases, isn't he?

I honestly don't know, I'm learning more just reading other comments and their accompanying links. To wit, I'm slowly having my understanding of this whole thing shaped and evolved as I read more from others on this-but the impression I picked up from a piece on TheAtlantic was that Thiel was using his buying power essentially to win this case by attrition-which is the aspect of this (if provably true) that I (personally) have icky with.

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

#146

Post by jonknee » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

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.

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

Until they do? Gawker is very likely to win on appeal, but who is going to want to invest in Gawker knowing that a litigious billionaire has a grudge against them?

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

#147

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:19 PM UTC

soundwave106 wrote: post #139

maxerickson wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if you win.)

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

#148

Post by mgiannopoulos » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

iamdave wrote: post #136

GVIrish wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

"Hundreds of millions"

The quoted number is 10 million http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter...

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

#149

Post by will_brown » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

iamdave wrote: post #136

GVIrish wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

>I don't see Gawker's "wrongness" as entirely relevant to the fact that Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation...

It is directly related...If Gawker was not guilty of committing a tort that resulted in actual damages, then Thiel or anyone else would not be financing litigation against Gawker.

>Thiel is ostensibly subsidizing litigation in the hundreds of millions of dollars-just to see Gawker go away.

Who gives a shit and why? Is it just because Thiel has a personal issue with Gawker? If Bollea couldn't afford the litigation legally he could use credit, take a bank loan, have family loan him money...legally, he is allowed to sell portions of any potential damages he may/may not be awarded to finance the litigation. What is a better alternative? Certainly we don't want to limit litigants financing to what they can afford out of pocket.

And its not like Thiel or any other financier is allowed to have any influence on the independence of the client's lawyer, so its not like Thiel can prevent Bollea from settling if the amount is agreeable to the client.

Finally, there are mechanisms that Gawker had at its disposal it didn't use that they could have to stop the bleeding. They could have offered Bollea a settlement and avoided litigation, and even if Thiel unduly influenced Bollea to keep the litigation to bleed Gawker, they could have file a Proposal for Settlement above the actual damages and when the judgment comes back under the proposed settlement amount, then Bollea would actually be responsible for Gawkers lawyer's fees (i.e. they would be net + on the litigation even though they lost).

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

#150

Post by emodendroket » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:23 PM UTC

iamdave wrote: post #145

emodendroket wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's also financing multiple cases, isn't he?

I honestly don't know, I'm learning more just reading other comments and their accompanying links. To wit, I'm slowly having my understanding of this whole thing shaped and evolved as I read more from others on this-but the impression I picked up from a piece on TheAtlantic was that Thiel was using his buying power essentially to win this case by attrition-which is the aspect of this (if provably true) that I (person…

Well, yes, that's right, but I think it also spans multiple cases, not just the Hogan case.