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

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

#341

Post by kelukelugames » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 3:11 AM UTC

627467 wrote: post #79

DeusExMachina wrote: post #7

For the record, Scott Adams also believes in the philanthropic nature of Thiel's actions: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145205211401/billionaire-brandi...

Another Gawker victim issues a Good vs Evil argument to justify disproportional attack on unwanted (by the victims) speech. Not surprising. To me, part of the problem with some of these new Gilded billionaires is this (apparent) principle of the "Good vs Evil" argument. Google used it as company mission. It sounds... immature. It sounds irrational. It sounds like something out of comic books. Maybe Thiel thinks he's…

I don't think Dilbert is a Gawker victim. He has admitted multiple times that he tries to get them to react and enjoys it.

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

#342

Post by moultano » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 3:59 AM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #336

moultano wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that this judgement alone is sufficient to cause Gawker's financial problems, and that there aren't others that are material. Correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here. >Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have…

What do you mean "there aren't others that are material?" Thiel himself has said that he's funding other suits against Gawker. The impending threat of a billionaire with a personal vendetta is a significant part of their financial problems. Had Gawker won the case in federal court, as it was expected to and likely would have, or if they win on appeal, suddenly Thiel's actions become unethical? This hardly sounds like…

I trust the courts mostly (especially in well trod areas of law), so I assume that if they find for one party and reward large damages that the suit was legitimate. Before the ruling, or if the ruling was reversed, I don't know whether the suit is legitimate or not. The ruling doesn't change its ethical status, it changes my knowledge of its ethical status.

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

#343

Post by zardgiv » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 4:18 AM UTC

moultano wrote: post #342

zardgiv wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean "there aren't others that are material?" Thiel himself has said that he's funding other suits against Gawker. The impending threat of a billionaire with a personal vendetta is a significant part of their financial problems. Had Gawker won the case in federal court, as it was expected to and likely would have, or if they win on appeal, suddenly Thiel's actions become unethical? This hardly sounds like…

I trust the courts mostly (especially in well trod areas of law), so I assume that if they find for one party and reward large damages that the suit was legitimate. Before the ruling, or if the ruling was reversed, I don't know whether the suit is legitimate or not. The ruling doesn't change its ethical status, it changes my knowledge of its ethical status.

You completely ignored the first part of my comment.

It's convenient, too, that a ruling against the people you disagree with is considered just, but you'll withhold judgment if it's overturned.

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

#344

Post by dang » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 4:25 AM UTC

further_tech wrote: post #279

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I would LOVE to hear how you believe the 1st answers the questions I posed. 2) So, when someone is outed, if they're offended, they have an ego problem? What planet are you from?

Honestly, you are either not intelligent or actively trying to distort my answers. 1) The 1st simply gives you freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if it is a gossip about someone. 2) I clearly was referring to the article exposing Thiel as gay ( his motivation for this). Because it clearly did not openly humiliated him, his overstated battle clearly shows an inflated ego. Honestly, your answer and all the others sad…

> you are either not intelligent or actively trying to distort

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

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

#345

Post by moultano » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 4:38 AM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #343

moultano wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust the courts mostly (especially in well trod areas of law), so I assume that if they find for one party and reward large damages that the suit was legitimate. Before the ruling, or if the ruling was reversed, I don't know whether the suit is legitimate or not. The ruling doesn't change its ethical status, it changes my knowledge of its ethical status.

You completely ignored the first part of my comment. It's convenient, too, that a ruling against the people you disagree with is considered just, but you'll withhold judgment if it's overturned.

I don't think I've given any indication of who I disagree with.

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

#346

Post by zardgiv » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 4:42 AM UTC

moultano wrote: post #345

zardgiv wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely ignored the first part of my comment. It's convenient, too, that a ruling against the people you disagree with is considered just, but you'll withhold judgment if it's overturned.

I don't think I've given any indication of who I disagree with.

Ignored it again, and don't be coy, come out and state your opinion.

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

#347

Post by vintermann » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 6:05 AM 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…

Do you think it should be possible to insure yourself out of liability for gross invasions of privacy?

It's not the insurance company that has wronged him. It's perfectly reasonable for Bollea to seek deterrence rather than settlement money/damages. Anyone would prefer that, unless they were forced to settle for something else for money reasons. Usually the plaintiff would settle/go for damages because they have to prefer money, because going to court is damn expensive.

So saying this was unfair and vindictive is presuming that the status quo, where money decides court cases, is just and reasonable. That Bollea should have been forced to go for the money because he's not really rich, he just has a rich backer. But I disagree with that. As long as money matters in court, the more people get access to multimillionaire justice the better.

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

#348

Post by internaut » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 6:32 AM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #113

threatofrain wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the problem is the fact that Peter Thiel tossed money in the direction of a lawsuit. The issue is that money matters in justice, and that Peter Thiel coincidentally put his money somewhere did not make this so. People are focusing shame on Peter Thiel today but that's the wrong place. There will always be rich people.

I had a thought in jest. But then I started thinking about it, and now I don't know whether it's a good idea or not: We need a single-payer legal system.

Isn't that how Pyscho-Pass got a Sybil System? ;-)

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

#349

Post by internaut » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 6:35 AM UTC

tetrep wrote: post #207

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…

I don't want to directly comment on Thiel's actions, but one of the most annoying things in court cases that I care about is when it reaches a settlement, preventing precedent from being set, and allowing other actors to do the same thing as the defendants, knowing that somebody else is going to need to bring them to court in order for them to be held accountable. Settlement in cases can be a greedy/short term out th…

I thought this was the common complaint about settlements, which is why it confuses me that people are complaining in this case that the purpose of a civil court lawsuit is to extract the largest settlement.

Example:

"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." - CPLX

P.S. No witchhunt being started CPLX, just confused by your position.

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

#350

Post by internaut » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 6:40 AM 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.

Interesting. Can you provide sources and also what do you think the end game is? Did Nick Denton know he was going to lose and go ahead anyway? Or was he just unable to conceive of losing?