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

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

#321

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:15 PM UTC

zem wrote: post #315

leereeves wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And publishing sex tapes is an encouragingly good predictor of failure. The system isn't perfect but I think it worked this time.

the question wasn't whether he used his powers for good this time, but whether it's good that he has those powers at all

What I object to here isn't Peter Thiel funding the lawsuit, but the system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help. In a perfect world, Hogan should have been able to pursue this lawsuit without outside funding.

It's interesting that Reuters is attacking Peter Thiel for this. "Justice" has long been for sale. Is the old guard merely afraid of new players in the game?

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

#322

Post by CPLX » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:18 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #319

CPLX wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote the post you are criticizing as ad hominem . It is not that, because it doesn't have any hominem in it. My post leads with "The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive." The problem with [THE ARGUED POINT] is that [CRITICISM], because of [SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIVE METAPHOR] is the opposite of an ad hom attack. Ad hom attacks say the problem with [PERSON] is [INSULT] or si…

Naive means: > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you implied that grellas lacked experience or wisdom. It could reasonably be taken as ad hom.

I have no idea if the internet commenter I replied to is naive.

I will however stand by my opinion that "extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people" is a hopelessly naive statement.

There is a difference. I do admire and respect the civil tone of discussion on HN very much, and am pretty sure I am contributing to it here.

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

#323

Post by internaut » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:19 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.

All is fair in love and war! It is certainly true that the anti-gamergate people needed no help from the formal media to go on raids. What appalls me is that I don't think most of them know they're raiding.

Still the formal media did recognize them as a natural ally and appeared to universally pan the gamergate community so far as I could see. That is the focus on my attention, because I wonder most about why that would be so.

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

#324

Post by andkon » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:20 PM UTC

csallen wrote: post #206

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…

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…

Again, you're bringing up the red herring: that this is really just a legal issue that was adjudicated in the court case, and that the motivation and cause of this court case being brought is completely irrelevant to the ethics of what Thiel did.

Saying that vengefulness is a part of the experience does not make the actions you perform vengefully suddenly OK, or else a we'd think a lot more highly of most murderers. Further, this isn't a complaint about his emotions. It's a complaint about his wielding his substantial power in order to bankrupt a company he felt annoyed by—it's about his actions, not his feelings.

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

#325

Post by zem » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #321

zem wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question wasn't whether he used his powers for good this time, but whether it's good that he has those powers at all

What I object to here isn't Peter Thiel funding the lawsuit, but the system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help. In a perfect world, Hogan should have been able to pursue this lawsuit without outside funding. It's interesting that Reuters is attacking Peter Thiel for this. "Justice" has long been for sale. Is the old guard merely afraid of new players in the game?

there i definitely agree with you. before thiel intervened it was gawker who had the money and hogan who did not, and as you note, justice was equally for sale.

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

#326

Post by CPLX » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:41 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #321

zem wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the question wasn't whether he used his powers for good this time, but whether it's good that he has those powers at all

What I object to here isn't Peter Thiel funding the lawsuit, but the system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help. In a perfect world, Hogan should have been able to pursue this lawsuit without outside funding. It's interesting that Reuters is attacking Peter Thiel for this. "Justice" has long been for sale. Is the old guard merely afraid of new players in the game?

> system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help

That doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation of what happened. Hogan is a wealthy celebrity, and even if he wasn't the case was an obvious one to qualify for a contingency fee arrangement.

Gawker was insured against a judgement, and they also apparently offered an eight figure settlement amount. Thiel's involvement wasn't needed for the lawsuit to exist, it was used to make the lawsuit into an attempt to bankrupt the company.

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

#327

Post by spacemanmatt » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

Teeboo wrote: post #307

ada1981 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

I don't know whether the DA or the ball player is the most depressing part.

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

#328

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #322

leereeves wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive means: > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you implied that grellas lacked experience or wisdom. It could reasonably be taken as ad hom.

I have no idea if the internet commenter I replied to is naive. I will however stand by my opinion that "extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people" is a hopelessly naive statement. There is a difference. I do admire and respect the civil tone of discussion on HN very much, and am pretty sure I am contributing to it here.

That's only a portion of the statement. The full quote was:

> Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that they come in all shapes and sizes.

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

#329

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 8:54 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #326

leereeves wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I object to here isn't Peter Thiel funding the lawsuit, but the system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help. In a perfect world, Hogan should have been able to pursue this lawsuit without outside funding. It's interesting that Reuters is attacking Peter Thiel for this. "Justice" has long been for sale. Is the old guard merely afraid of new players in the game?

> system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help That doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation of what happened. Hogan is a wealthy celebrity, and even if he wasn't the case was an obvious one to qualify for a contingency fee arrangement. Gawker was insured against a judgement, and they also apparently offered an eight figure settlement amount. Thiel's involvement wasn't needed for the lawsuit to exist, i…

My opinion: in a perfect world, no one would be forced to settle for less than they are legally entitled to simply because they can't afford to pursue the case to its conclusion in court.

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

#330

Post by CPLX » Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #329

CPLX wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help That doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation of what happened. Hogan is a wealthy celebrity, and even if he wasn't the case was an obvious one to qualify for a contingency fee arrangement. Gawker was insured against a judgement, and they also apparently offered an eight figure settlement amount. Thiel's involvement wasn't needed for the lawsuit to exist, i…

My opinion: in a perfect world, no one would be forced to settle for less than they are legally entitled to simply because they can't afford to pursue the case to its conclusion in court.

> forced to settle for less than they are legally entitled to

That's fine for some kinds of cases, but the exercise here was to value the economic consequences of the release of a tape of him having sex with someone. The actual amount of money one is legally entitled to for that is basically the definition of a subjective wild ass guess, let's not add fake precision to the analysis.