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

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

#181

Post by dpark » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

ctulek wrote: post #127

vintermann wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, I agree with that. But it's not the argument other people are making. People are saying this is an attack on journalism, and complaining that Thiel could have bankrupted Gawker just by attrition. Yeah, he could. But that was not in fact what he did. Gawker didn't lose by attrition, they lost a particular case they damn well deserved to lose. On the other hand, Thiel says Gawker's former victims have been forced…

If Thiel didn't have a history with Gawker, I would believe to this nobel cause. However, it is obvious that he is using his power for personal revenge. The short article just tries to show that the new billionaires are not different than old billionaires. They won't hesitate to use their power for personal gain in any area. Well, you may say, of course, they will use their power for their personal gain. Well, yes, t…

> If Thiel didn't have a history with Gawker, I would believe to this nobel cause.

Thiel's history with Gawker is irrelevant to whether the cause is noble. If the cause is noble, it's noble regardless of who is funding it and why. If funding cancer research is noble, it is still noble even if you became interested because you had cancer.

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

#182

Post by CPLX » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:00 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #168

CPLX wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I was explicitly talking at the US legal system, so the proper link is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_law#Cases_in_t... Read that over. They did not have a lot of things go their way.

Perhaps.

As far as I can tell though they successfully kept the news that they were running a financially fraudulent cult completely out of the mainstream media for decades, until the invention of the internet made that goal increasingly impossible.

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

#183

Post by soundwave106 » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:02 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #147

soundwave106 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I agree. I guess the question is just how much Thiel's money actually affected the outcome.

Money="justice" is a problem, I think you'll agree. This is the red flag that I think many people are raising, not because of this particular case, but because of the potential of abuse of justice that such a scenario would allow.

On the other hand, the outcome of this case could've been exactly the same even without Thiel's money. So maybe people are being too overly concerned about this angle.

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

#184

Post by bduerst » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:17 PM UTC

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…

The subject of the case is a red herring.

Typically in these situations, a settlement is reached or insurance covers the damages.

That didn't happen. Thiel had an axe to grind against Gawker, invested $10m in the litigation, and pushed the case past settlement offers - even removing a claim that allowed insurance to cover damages. It focused on maximizing the damage to Gawker, which isn't what civil court is typically supposed to do.

Thiel was out for blood, and he used his money in someone else's case to get it.

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

#185

Post by JoblessWonder » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:20 PM UTC

Teeboo wrote: post #58

This is why I find myself firmly on Team Thiel. Gawker are using the historical precedent of freedom of the press in order to exploit the private lives of people, illegally, for profit. It is this corrupted pursuit of salacious gossip which led to the hacking of thousands and thousands of voicemails in the United Kingdom by News International. Not just celebrities but political figures and most chillingly, victims of…

> until the press learn to wield their authority with respect and deference.

I think the last thing I would want is for the press to act with "respect and deference" at all times. That sounds like a recipe for burying your head in the sand and assuming everything is just fine. There can indeed be a fine line between "muckraking" and "investigative reporting" but I think it is important for someone/something to be toeing that line, even if it isn't something I personally care for.

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

#186

Post by oxryly1 » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

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…

Note that the only entities complaining about this are themselves journalists. They're just closing ranks.

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

#187

Post by srj » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

Money alone doesn't win a lawsuit. The reporter who wrote this probably doesn't agree with the court's decision, but that decision wasn't written by Thiel or Silicon Valley. Also, people have crowd-funded legal fees previously. That isn't new. That Thiel chose to fund a lawsuit against a publication that outed him as gay doesn't seem very surprising or devious. They still had to convince the court they had a claim in this case.

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

#188

Post by klagermkii » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #165

klagermkii wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You underestimate the power of being able to turn the Eye of Justice selectively upon individuals or groups of enemies. It's one of the reasons people get so upset with racial or class-based profiling. We may all agree that enforcing speeding laws is a good thing, and someone who gets a ticket for it deserves the fine. But if I could fund the police department to have a car permanently follow just you around and nail…

In your example, you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government. You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity. There has always been yellow journalism. Gawker isn't new. What is new is that this is the first time an establi…

> you're conflating the actions of a government and the actions of a private individual. Peter Thiel isn't the government

I don't think if it's government or individual it changes the inherent unfairness of having someone decide to watch you, and just you, for any sign of a slip up and then getting you punished based on it. Heck, I think most siblings understand this kind of unfairness with uneven parental justice.

> You are also muddying up scale. In your example, the government is much more powerful than the individual. In the Gawker case, all the parties are pretty much at parity.

There's an order of magnitude difference between the net worth of Thiel and Gawker as a whole. And that's on a good day for Gawker.

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

#189

Post by camperman » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

mukmuk wrote: post #45

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.

Can you point me to some examples where an individual financed litigation against a media outlet or journalist? I don't doubt they exist, but I can't think of any specifically.

When quite a few individuals took News International to court between 2009 and 2011 for illegally eavesdropping on their mobile phones in the UK, a number of them had their legal costs underwritten by Max Mosely. This is just the same thing: a wealthy individual making sure that legal costs do not preclude action against Gawker.

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

#190

Post by martin_bech » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

atonse wrote: post #76

vintermann wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, I agree with that. But it's not the argument other people are making. People are saying this is an attack on journalism, and complaining that Thiel could have bankrupted Gawker just by attrition. Yeah, he could. But that was not in fact what he did. Gawker didn't lose by attrition, they lost a particular case they damn well deserved to lose. On the other hand, Thiel says Gawker's former victims have been forced…

Yes, Gawker deserved to lose that case. However, the Thiel involvement produced a vindictive and revenge-based strategy to try the case in such a way that Gawker couldn't use their insurance to pay the damages. So I don't think anybody's arguing that Gawker shouldn't have lost that case. But it's clear the motive here wasn't just punishment, it was to put Gawker out of business. And I used to hate Gawker because of a…

I used to hate OJ Simpson because of the murders, but he was funny in the naked gun movies..