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

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

#281

Post by bduerst » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:18 PM UTC

GCA10 wrote: post #204

bduerst wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 typicall…

Let's not forget that Gawker monied up ahead of the trial, too. In a January 2016 staff memo, Gawker CEO Nick Denton described an investment by Columbus Nova (controlled by Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselburg) as a way to make sure his company had the resources for a full-stakes court battle. The judge in the case had recommended mediation, but both sides really wanted a big trial. So they got one.

Was Nova involved in the court case, or have a personal vendetta against Hogan?

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

#282

Post by emblem21 » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:19 PM UTC

lotso wrote: post #245

emblem21 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only privileged white people think Jezebel represents feminism. Let me know when they give full-time coverage of the challenges of poverty that routinely face WoC instead of hyperventilating about how sexist a handful of pixels are. Or are feminists only those who have minable consumer behavior? Looks like the Overton window shifting worked on you.

Definitely agree that Jezebel and many other publications in general don't give provide enough perspective of feminism and LGBT issues from PoC (for what its worth, I'm a PoC), but I disagree with the fact that Gawker does not provide some legitimate journalism. Does Gawker have an issue here? Yes. Does Gawker produce a bunch of drivel around issues that are probably trivial in the grand scheme of things? Yes, but I…

I'll meet you halfway and agree on the importance on taking on the powerful. But I can't lionize Gawker for doing that. I can only criticize them for lowering the bar on what taking on the powerful means.

Revealing a VC is gay isn't taking on the powerful. Revealing the low-commitment racism of a wrestling has-been isn't taking on the powerful. This is pandering to low information and low attention audiences to secure a buck with TMZ-style gossip... and then dressing it up like you're doing God's work because, somehow, everyone involved believes they are on the right side of history™.

If you want to see an example of journalists taking on power, ask yourself this: When is the last time a central bank called out Gawker?

If you want to see an example of data-driven journalism (ignore the election year antics) that actually takes on the powerful, give Zerohedge a try. At least they make the effort to back up their occasionally ridiculous speculation with hard data.

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

#283

Post by bduerst » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:21 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.

The problem is "integrity" is subjective.

Nobody cares about the beautiful stories that are published, just the ugly stories. Those ugly stories are still an important part of journalism, especially when they're ugly to people in power.

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

#284

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

xenadu02 wrote: post #275

leereeves wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit is far from the center of power and social control. In this, he's merely a petitioner, hoping the true center of power and social control (the courts and lawmakers) will act in his favor.

Again, that's depressingly naive. If journalists call out Billionaire X for some bad behavior... Just buy the paper and fire those people. Or fund an endless stream of lawsuits to silence them. That's the bigger picture here: Theil is trying to put a news outlet he doesn't like out of business. Even if he's totally justified the next 10 cases may not be but you can bet people will get the picture: don't piss off the…

You know that calling a different opinion naive isn't actually an argument, right?

The mere possibility of a slippery slope doesn't show that Peter Thiel did anything wrong here.

I hope other websites should learn not to publish something they don't have the legal right to publish.

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

#285

Post by SilasX » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

hellbanner wrote: post #236

internaut wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media sees Silicon Valley as a competitor. A natural enemy. The Valley after all deals with distribution of information on a massive scale. Traditionally this was a position held by either the Government or the Media. The state is still in the game for the usual reason of having access to unparalleled force on demand. The media on the other side has been much diminished by the Net, which is not what you'd expect…

Hi, have you read http://degree180.com/8686-2/ ? Founder of a business for identifying cyber-bullies threatened by one "Zoe Quinn" that continuation of their campaign would result in harassment.. According to the author, no complaints were received prior to this threat. After this threat, user complaints resulted in killing their kickstarter.

Yuck. Got a tl;dr? I'm tired of every other paragraph being a diversion into discussion of what she was wearing or other irrelevancy.

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

#286

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #238

grellas wrote: post #219

Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that they come in all shapes and sizes. Here, one very wealthy individual used his money to fund someone else's lawsuit. He did so secretly. He did so against an organization that had harmed him and against which he presumably wanted payback but that also had done a gratuitously damaging and sleazy act as part of a pattern of sleazy acts upon which i…

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive. It takes time for people who have been suddenly vaulted into the position of being the ruling class to realize that they are regarded as such. Silicon Valley as a culture still sees itself as a scrappy underdog. They see startups as small underfunded rebels trying to disrupt rich and powerful corporate interests. They see themselves as unstylish a…

So who punched who in the face?

The way I see it, Gawker punched Hogan very hard. Gawker was clearly far stronger, and Hogan could not afford legal redress.

Thiel helped the victim, not by punching Gawker, but by asking the legal system to provide redress.

This is the civilized way to solve a conflict, by not taking personal revenge, but by asking an impartial court to adjudicate the conflict.

In the end, after hearing the evidence, the State of Florida agreed to punch Gawker in the face.

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

#287

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

zem wrote: post #269

leereeves wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit is far from the center of power and social control. In this, he's merely a petitioner, hoping the true center of power and social control (the courts and lawmakers) will act in his favor.

except that having effectively unlimited amounts of money to keep throwing at a lawsuit is a depressingly good predictor of success.

And publishing sex tapes is an encouragingly good predictor of failure.

The system isn't perfect but I think it worked this time.

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

#288

Post by rhizome » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #219

Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that they come in all shapes and sizes. Here, one very wealthy individual used his money to fund someone else's lawsuit. He did so secretly. He did so against an organization that had harmed him and against which he presumably wanted payback but that also had done a gratuitously damaging and sleazy act as part of a pattern of sleazy acts upon which i…

He may be fully justified in taking this action (it is a perfectly legal thing to do) or he may be displaying traits deserving our opprobrium.

Why the "or?" He can be both.

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

#289

Post by venomsnake » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #262

venomsnake wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I am free speech absolutist which means defending speech that I don't like. There were other ways to nail gawker - copyright infringement comes to mind.

So you believe that publishing private citizen's sex tapes falls under free speech? That outing others as gay falls under free speech?

Yes. Despicable but still free.

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

#290

Post by chillacy » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

further_tech wrote: post #256

st3v3r wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not the one that gets to decide if that was offensive. If he was not comfortable enough to be out at the time that was written, then yes, that could be completely offensive to him.

I'm not deciding for him. I'm being commonsensical by saying his "punishment" was not justifiable because of this article. For 99.9% of human beings, such article would never make someone spend enough money to put this newspaper out of business.

> For 99.9% of human beings, such article would never make someone spend enough money to put this newspaper out of business.

> I'm not deciding for him

You kind of are... by pointing out what you think is expected behavior and judging his against that benchmark.