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

371–380 of 383 posts

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

#371

Post by dpark »

wpietri wrote: post #370
dpark wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are a bunch of ways he could do this. What I don't agree is that any of those other ways are inherently more moral. The morality of an action is independent of the legal structure erected around that action. You might prefer a non-profit or some other structure that doesn't make it easy for Thiel to hide his involvement, but the reality is that none of that matters morally (or legally, really). Bad…

You seem to be very excited to argue about a variety of points I'm not actually making. Your secret-Nazi fantasies notwithstanding, I see this aa pretty simple reverse engineering. If his goal is to change how journalists behave, there are effective, well-known ways to do that. I believe his approach is inconsistent with that, but perfectly consistent with a personal vendetta. If your carefully considered analysis of…

I argued specifically to points you made. It's intellectually dishonest for you to make intentionally vague claims and then assert that I am arguing against points you didn't make when I respond to your vague claims.

You've proposed nothing concrete but a non-profit and provided no reason why that changes the morality of the action. Beyond that you've just made hand-wavey claims full of weasel phrases. If there are "well known ways" to change how journalists behave, then please enumerate these and clarify why they are better than what Thiel did. If there are "a bunch of ways" Thiel could help individuals harmed by bad journalism, then please elucidate, because right now it seems like you don't have anything real to say.

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

#372

Post by wpietri »

dpark wrote: post #371
wpietri wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be very excited to argue about a variety of points I'm not actually making. Your secret-Nazi fantasies notwithstanding, I see this aa pretty simple reverse engineering. If his goal is to change how journalists behave, there are effective, well-known ways to do that. I believe his approach is inconsistent with that, but perfectly consistent with a personal vendetta. If your carefully considered analysis of…

I argued specifically to points you made. It's intellectually dishonest for you to make intentionally vague claims and then assert that I am arguing against points you didn't make when I respond to your vague claims. You've proposed nothing concrete but a non-profit and provided no reason why that changes the morality of the action. Beyond that you've just made hand-wavey claims full of weasel phrases. If there are "…

I think I said it pretty well. Others have had no trouble understanding me. If one demanding anonymous person doesn't understand my point, I can live with that.

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

#373

Post by EdHominem »

bduerst wrote: post #184
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 typicall…

> even removing a claim that allowed insurance to cover damages.

Yeah, ensuring that the guilty party had to pay out of their own pocket.

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

#374

Post by EdHominem »

iamdave wrote: post #145
emodendroket wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's also financing multiple cases, isn't he?

I honestly don't know, I'm learning more just reading other comments and their accompanying links. To wit, I'm slowly having my understanding of this whole thing shaped and evolved as I read more from others on this-but the impression I picked up from a piece on TheAtlantic was that Thiel was using his buying power essentially to win this case by attrition-which is the aspect of this (if provably true) that I (person…

Thiel's not bankrupting them, their own actions are.

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

#375

Post by EdHominem »

SilasX wrote: post #228
GVIrish wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do they? Even if Gawker was in the wrong here, is publishing someone's private sex tape $140 million worth of wrong? What about all the other tabloids that have done something similar? It's exactly this kind of "jackpot justice" that illustrates how bad the system is, that everyone is one sympathetic jury away from being shut down. I can't upvote csallen's comment enough: the cost of being wrong is far too capricious…

The amount in proportion to the money they make from doing this, and to what is needed for them to feel the burn.

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

#376

Post by EdHominem »

klagermkii wrote: post #188
maratd wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. >…

There's usually an order of magnitude difference between them and their victims. This time it went the other way.

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

#378

Post by abandonliberty »

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…

Because of noprocrast I'm rarely logged in (ha!)

>I tried unsuccessfully to find a law firm to represent me in a civil case and what I learned was that Mr. Dayne had every major law firm in town on retainer so that it was a conflict of interest for them to take the case.

Oddly enough, you don't even have to have them on retainer - a free consult will do (in my jurisdiction anyway). My father did that to my mother and I when he decided to stop paying child support.

I hope your eye is better now.

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

#379

Post by devishard »

st3v3r wrote: post #255
devishard wrote: post #46

The fundamental issue here is that rich people can buy the law. It's not as simple as bribery, but it's nearly as effective. The only defense we have against that is when voters and jurors are educated and deeply suspicious of laws and litigation that are bought. Of course what Gawker did was reprehensible, but I don't need a million-dollar lawyer to tell me that. And when suddenly there is a million-dollar lawyer te…

He didn't buy the law, though. Gawker completely and totally did the things they were accused of. Would the world be better off if Hogan did not have the resources to fight back against what they did?

No. But the world would be better off it litigation were not buyable by either Thiel or Gawker.

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

#380

Post by devishard »

Teeboo wrote: post #65
devishard wrote: post #46

The fundamental issue here is that rich people can buy the law. It's not as simple as bribery, but it's nearly as effective. The only defense we have against that is when voters and jurors are educated and deeply suspicious of laws and litigation that are bought. Of course what Gawker did was reprehensible, but I don't need a million-dollar lawyer to tell me that. And when suddenly there is a million-dollar lawyer te…

...if your premise is true then it is a damning indictment of Gawker. Not Thiel. This issue has been covered in detail. Hogan did not have the financial resources to combat the Gawker legal machine, funded from the company coffers. It took Thiel and his larger coffers to come along and upset their apple cart. So, if a rich person did buy the legal precedent, it was only until a richer person came along and restored s…

In this case, yes, that's how I see it. But I don't trust Thiel just because he did the right thing this time.

The underlying problem is that anyone, Thiel or Gawker, can buy the law.

Post reply on HN