Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 206 posts

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#91

Post by incogitomode »

shklnrj wrote: post #38

I am actually in favour of Peter Thiel. What Gawker did was illegal and hence it is facing this backlash by the LAW. Many people committed suicides because of the way Gawker brought their private life in public. http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8992155/gawker-outing-gay-peopl... As far as he being the investor in Facebook which uses your data to advertise to you - You actually agree to Facebook's terms when you sign up f…

Except that the incident was found to be newsworthy and not illegal in two previous cases, once in federal court and another attempt in Florida state court [1].

Shopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality."

[1] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v...

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#92

Post by pessimizer »

nikcheerla wrote: post #89
pessimizer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're intensely equivocating here. The moral calculus of renouncing your massive profit-making association with a company that you serve on the board of if it chooses to do things that you find morally unacceptable is trivial, and entirely different than when you're a citizen of a country that you serve in the legislature of that decides to do things that you find morally unacceptable. If you're on the losing factio…

Yes, but there are varying levels of 'moral acceptability', and online privacy violations are on the low end of that. I find it hard to believe that most people would act differently from Thiel in that situation.

According to Peter Thiel, Peter Thiel believes that online privacy violations are really, really important.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#93

Post by nikcheerla »

swang wrote: post #45

if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no. so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech. not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot o…

I suspect you are confused about the facts of the case – specifically, this has nothing to do with Peter Thiel's outing and everything to do with the fact that Gawker released Hulk Hogan's sex tape to the public and a court found that to be an unethical violation of privacy.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#94

Post by wildmusings »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #86
wildmusings wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone. You shouldn't just dismiss the most important argument with a snarky comment. The federal government's powers are enumerated and very clearly do not include marriage. If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in sta…

If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? The child-rea…

>Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right?

I am not implying that. Did you even read the rest of my comment? Do you really think that this "gotcha! you're a bigot" game is a good way to have a frank conversation? It's really one of the most toxic elements of American politics.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#95

Post by swang »

wildmusings wrote: post #84
swang wrote: post #45

if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no. so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech. not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot o…

> very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges Here's something to consider: a lot of that is sensationalized yellow journalism as well. They take surveys that include behavior that is usually handled at the social level (e.g. guy goes in for a kiss and girl doesn't want it) and count it as part of the headline "Sexual Assault" figure. In the most technical and pedantic…

from your comment i know you've never read anything on deadspin.

> Here's something to consider: a lot of that is sensationalized yellow journalism as well. They take surveys that include behavior that is usually handled at the social level (e.g. guy goes in for a kiss and girl doesn't want it) and count it as part of the headline "Sexual Assault" figure. In the most technical and pedantic sense they are correct, but no victim would ever file that complaint, no prosecutor would ever bring that charge, and no jury would ever convict on it. i.e. Most of the sexual assaults that count in those statistics wouldn't even be considered as such by the alleged victim.

i mean if you're going to say this at least have something that backs this up.

but regardless, feel free to read the articles themselves and decide for yourself their merit:

Florida Hired Football Booster To Oversee Hearing For Player Accused Of Sexual Assault: http://deadspin.com/florida-hired-football-booster-to-overse...

Or better yet, just read the entire saga about Baylor: http://deadspin.com/tag/baylor-bears

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#96

Post by swang »

nikcheerla wrote: post #93
swang wrote: post #45

if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no. so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech. not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot o…

I suspect you are confused about the facts of the case – specifically, this has nothing to do with Peter Thiel's outing and everything to do with the fact that Gawker released Hulk Hogan's sex tape to the public and a court found that to be an unethical violation of privacy.

i'm not confused. i am discussing the hypocrisy of thiel saying he's about protecting free speech when the thing he was originally angry about (his being outed) was free speech. he doesn't give a shit about hulk hogan or his privacy being violated. all he wanted was a legally winnable case to get at gawker.

so to say he still supports free speech is laughable when the origin of his "fight" was something that was legally free speech.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#97

Post by aaronbrethorst »

wildmusings wrote: post #94
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that the primary role of legal marriage in a society is to encourage child-rearing in stable homes, then it's a totally logical position to believe that there is no Equal Protection violation that would warrant the intrusion of the federal courts into a state matter. Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? The child-rea…

> Just to make sure I'm clear, you're not implying that gay couples are incapable of rearing children in stable homes, right? I am not implying that. Did you even read the rest of my comment? Do you really think that this "gotcha! you're a bigot" game is a good way to have a frank conversation? It's really one of the most toxic elements of American politics.

I'm not trying to play a gotcha game. I was asking a very genuine question because I know there are in fact lots of people in this country (and world) who believe just that. I was also trying to be charitable, assuming I had misunderstood you, and was seeking clarification before saying anything else.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#98

Post by nikcheerla »

shanusmagnus wrote: post #42

Implying that objections to Trump's narcissism and probable sociopathy amount to "culture war" is a staggering re-framing of reality. That combined with the gay-conservative-Christian thing suggest that the amount of cognitive dissonance Thiel can endure must truly be Olympic calibre.

Accusations of cognitive dissonance are fruitless – there's a sizable block of 'gay conservative Christians' who probably think that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and that their beliefs make sens given their worldview.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#99

Post by serge2k »

swang wrote: post #29
serge2k wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

revenge for wrongdoing on his part. Far as I know they outed him as a homosexual. That's not wrongdoing on his part.

okay thats just kinda semantics then. he didn't get revenge because he did something wrong. he got revenge because he felt someone else did something wrong. so this is still all about revenge for thiel at the cost of chilling free speech. thiel saying he is defending free speech is disingenuous when the supreme court has given the press considerable latitude to write about someone's sexual orientation. he is mad abou…

> now it is a really shitty thing to do to out someone as gay. but let's not pretend this wasn't thiel's payback.

It's absolutely payback, I'm saying I don't have a problem wiht it. I think gawker is getting exactly what they deserve.

Thiel/Hogan had to go and prove their argument in court. Do you not trust the court system to preserve free speech?

Does this argument apply to everyone, or just billionaires who actually have the resources to fight against trash like Gawker?

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#100

Post by serge2k »

microtherion wrote: post #27
serge2k wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gawker pissed off Thiel by doing their standard trashy tabloid garbage and invading his personal life. He took the opportunity to get even when they went too far with someone else. Good for him. He's not taking part to cover up anything, or for revenge because they exposed some wrongdoing on his part. He's doing it because Gawker is a trashy worthless site.

Yes, don't worry! Thiel merely wants to shut down worthless, trashy publications like Gawker, and the presidential candidate he supports merely wants to shut down worthless, trashy publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Valuable, classy publications who adopt the proper fellatory posture toward their betters have nothing to fear whatsoever.

> presidential candidate he supports

So if Thiel was a democrat then none of this would be a problem?

Post reply on HN