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

301–310 of 383 posts

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

#301

Post by hellbanner »

SilasX wrote: post #285
hellbanner wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See my above comment. Gamergate "victims" actually are responsible for cyber-bullying, not the other way around.

Author thinks there's big $ in anonymous bullying.

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

#302

Post by oxryly1 »

sangnoir wrote: post #211
oxryly1 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Note that the only entities complaining about this are themselves journalists. They're just closing ranks It would have been hilarious if someone had similarly casually dismissed the uproar software engineers were making over Oracle v Google: Note that the only entities complaining about API copyrights are themselves developers. They're just closing ranks

It just means when the party in question catastrophizes the new development, realize they might be coming from a place of self-preservation.

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

#303

Post by leereeves »

bduerst wrote: post #294
leereeves wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The argument behind why it's a naive perspective was made in the parent comment.

Am I alone in thinking insults like naive don't belong in discussions on Hacker News?

No one's denying that wealthy people are powerful, but that's so well known that it's hardly worth discussing.

Not all power is equal. Thiel is powerful; Gawker was powerful; neither comes close to the power of the government, or the established media, or the old money that quietly dominates most everything outside SV.

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

#304

Post by csallen »

CPLX wrote: post #274
csallen wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're advocating a flawed legal system. You're basically saying: The legal system can be abused by any rich person with a vendetta, therefore shame on Thiel for abusing it. However, it's not feasible (or desirable) to put an end to rich people or vendettas. Thus, isn't the best option here to fix the legal system itself?

There is no system on this planet that cannot be at least somewhat abused by a person with a billion dollars in resources and no ethical constraints.

I agree. You're totally right. But does the fact that we're not perfect mean that we shouldn't strive to be? Is there any evidence that our court system doesn't have room for improvement?

What worries me is that when people see a case like this, they take it for granted that our court system is abusable and denigrate the abuser. But any system that incentives abuse is itself a corrupt and flawed system that will give rise to more abusers.

Imagine, for example, a country with no laws against murder.

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

#305

Post by cookiecaper »

CPLX wrote: post #216
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…

Precisely. The legal system has certain informal but crucial checks and balances in it. One of them is that the cost and uncertainty of litigation make it in everyone's interest to settle, and in addition insurance creates incentives to settle. A third party purposely removing those incentives distorts the process. Also to this general point, another check and balance for civil litigation are the reputational and dis…

I agree that weaponization of the courts as a tool for bullying, carrying out vendettas, and/or shutting down innovation from small companies is a huge problem (Donald Trump's penchant for this is one of the reasons I have a hard time closing the gap on supporting him).

I think a good way to keep this system fairly stable but approximately prevent its weaponization is to require that each side has equivalently-priced representation. The Court should require the wealthier party to disclose their legal costs and pay 1x that much money into a trust managed by the Court, which would then be forwarded to the other party's attorneys. This way, both sides are evenly matched and it's a fair fight; if Thiel wants to pump $10m into the other party's legal offense fund, that's fine, but he'll have to pump an equivalent amount into the legal defense fund.

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

#306

Post by csallen »

bduerst wrote: post #276
csallen wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Thiel was out for blood, but so what? There's nothing inherently wrong or illegal about feeling vengeful. It's a natural human emotion experienced and indulged by pretty much everyone at some point in time. It's not like we can eradicate it or make it illegal, so complaining about Thiel's goals or feelings seems like a waste of time to me. The issue, as usual, should be with the system itself. Is what happened h…

What you're outlining is what people are worried about here - that uninvolved third parties with means can influence civil court cases they are biased against. You could argue that this has always been the case, where the U.S. justice system has always been biased in favor of those with the wealth or the means, but does that really justify not pushing back against it? Keep in mind that I'm not defending Gawker or sex…

There's nothing inherently wrong with third parties helping each other out. I can't understand why anyone would be worried about that. In fact, a lawyer is an uninvolved third party.

What is wrong is the degree to which wealth influences the outcome of a case. That's the real problem. In an ideal world, a person's case could be presented with equal strength regardless of the money spent for or against them. Obviously we don't live in this ideal world, but imo we should be laser focused on moving in that direction.

What frustrates me is the utter lack of focus on that task. Almost nobody seems to care about the broken legal system itself. All of the attention is being diverted to Thiel, billionaires, etc, and it's maddening. How do we expect to fix problems that we are willfully ignoring?

The media is acting in its own self-interest by framing this as a free speech issue. The "99%ers" are acting in their own self-interest by framing this as a billionaires-vs-the-rest-of-us issue. Where are the "good and just" people who should be acting in their own self-interest by demanding improvements in justice? Shouldn't that be all of us?

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

#307

Post by Teeboo »

ada1981 wrote: post #278
abandonliberty wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like we're entirely way off base here thanks to a piece that seems like a well written piece of propaganda by a media consultant. The NYT version has many more facts and significantly less unsubstantiated extrapolation. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th... One better topic is: In our society you need a wealthy patron to help protect you if someone posts defamation or something ille…

>> What happens to society when laws can only be enforced by the wealthy? Years ago I was assaulted by former pro football player Ron Dayne in a bar in Madison, WI. He was pissed at the bouncer for making him wait in line like everyone else and took his anger out on me who happened to be in the front of the line by jabbing my eye three times, tearing my eyeball and covering me in blood. There were about a dozen witne…

That's actually a really depressing story. Genuinely made me sad to be honest.

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

#308

Post by will_brown »

wpietri wrote: post #198
will_brown wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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. What's your evidence for this? Plenty of people pay for litigation that doesn't result in actual damages. That's why over the last few decades we have needed to invent anti-SLAPP statues. Which, by the way, we only have in 28 states, so reduction of First Amendme…

>What's your evidence for this? Plenty of people pay for litigation that doesn't result in actual damages.

For starters they took this case to verdict and won thats good evidence for the types of case Thiel backs. But assuming Thiel was financing another case that ultimately lost. If Thiel's goal is to hurt Gawker you don't finance bad law suits or you will have the unintentional goal of actually rewarding Gawker who can win its legal fees and sanctions (plus additional proof of bad-faith litigation in the future). Damages are a standard in the pleading and if no damages are plead, like you suggest, then the suit will be dismissed on Motion for failing to state a cause of action in which relief can be granted. Don't get me wrong there are bizarre cases like Donald Trump suing NFL on behalf of AFL on anti-trust, the Court finding the NFL does engage in unconstitutional anti-competitive behavior but awarded him damages of only $1.

>Do you have evidence for this?

The law firm knows far better than Bollea or Thiel what the the likelihood of winning a case at trial are and its potential worth (damages is a issue separate and apart from liability). Bollea is not going to make a deal unilaterally with Thiel without the advice of his counsel, and they won't give him advice against his own interests(or they can be liable for malpractice and disbarred) and trust me I have had plenty of cases where my Client refused to accept settlement agreements that were more than fair and I usually withdraw as attorney of record (fire the client).

>What's your evidence that they didn't?

The case went to trial in Florida, here in Florida we have a Rule: proposal for settlement. Its like a bet. Basically, if you are the defendant at some point when it is clear (depends on the case, sometime before but sometimes after discovery) your lawyer tells you what the case is worth, and suggests you make an offer to settle to avoid additional cost of litigation. Now if the other party rejects your settlement and goes to trial, if the award is less than proposed settlement then the winning party still has to pay the fees of both sides. Obviously Thiel or Bollea aren't paying Gawker's lawyer fees or thats what we would be reading about and the Court Order would be everywhere, because that would be actual proof (not good proof) of vexatious/harassing/bad-faith litigation.

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

#309

Post by bduerst »

leereeves wrote: post #303
bduerst wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument behind why it's a naive perspective was made in the parent comment.

Am I alone in thinking insults like naive don't belong in discussions on Hacker News? No one's denying that wealthy people are powerful, but that's so well known that it's hardly worth discussing. Not all power is equal. Thiel is powerful; Gawker was powerful; neither comes close to the power of the government, or the established media, or the old money that quietly dominates most everything outside SV.

Ad hom attacks aren't fallacious when relating to the credibility of statements and when they are backed up by reasoning.

Blatant name calling isn't welcome, but saying something is naive and then taking the time to explain why and without malice shouldn't be censored.

Post reply on HN