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

201–206 of 206 posts

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

#201

Post by remarkEon »

FireBeyond wrote: post #152
remarkEon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me if I missed it, but has Gawker been "critical" of Thiel in the traditional sense? I'm tracking that they outed him - not that they've been publishing anti-Thiel business editorials - and that they published a sex tape without the permission of those who made it. It appears that we're starting to conflate protected free speech with invasions of privacy. It's not immediately clear that shouting "Faggot! Fagg…

"without the permission of those who made it." Well, no, the person who made the tape (not the "star"(s)) absolutely gave "permission". He sent the tape to Gawker himself. Guess what? He was sued, and Hogan settled with him. For $5,000.

When I used the word "made" I assumed it would be taken as those performing the act.

It's not relevant that the "director", if you will, sent the tape to Gawker.

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

#202

Post by remarkEon »

blintz wrote: post #149
remarkEon wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me if I missed it, but has Gawker been "critical" of Thiel in the traditional sense? I'm tracking that they outed him - not that they've been publishing anti-Thiel business editorials - and that they published a sex tape without the permission of those who made it. It appears that we're starting to conflate protected free speech with invasions of privacy. It's not immediately clear that shouting "Faggot! Fagg…

If being homosexual is not societally acceptable, or carries a stigma (as it did at the time, as evidenced by Thiel's own criticism of it as an unhealthy "lifestyle"), then isn't yelling "Faggot!" at someone rather privacy-invading? As Thiel would himself know from Gawker's outing of him?

I suppose it would depend on the perception of the audience, would it not?

It's certainly possible that someone hearing someone yell "Faggot!" could construe that to mean a foul pejorative. That's wholly different Gawker's type of privacy invasion(s) that explicitly seek to convey, without doubt, someone's private sexual orientation.

I don't see the equivalence.

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

#203

Post by MeghdeepRay »

ittekimasu wrote: post #167
Analemma_ wrote: post #17

The balls on this guy. The sheer cynical audacity of trying to market yourself as a "defender of privacy" when you serve on the board of a company so antithetical to privacy that they're under federal supervision for twenty years [1] is breathtaking. Please tell me no one on Hacker News is dumb enough to fall for this. My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned s…

Peter Thiel is also on the steering committee of the shadowy Bildeberg group.

Source please ?

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

#204

Post by LA_Banker »

Natsu wrote: post #131
LA_Banker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending Gawker; I'm saying there's a better way to have this debate. We don’t have to accept or excuse Gawker’s worst stories to protest Thiel’s dangerous playbook for attacks on institutions of civil society.

You're free to propose that we outlaw the funding of lawsuits by non-parties, as was done historically (google 'maintenance' and 'champerty' if you want more history on that) but you're going to shut down the ACLU and company when you do so. So it's a matter of which is more important to you, really.

Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.

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

#205

Post by LA_Banker »

vanattab wrote: post #127
LA_Banker wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system. The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate. Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep…

>I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system? Why is funding a case related to a cause you support a perversion of the justice system? Every time an article about the EFF funding another lawsuit pops up do you cringe in horror?

I mentioned this to someone else who made the same point (albeit with the ACLU instead of the EFF): Hm, that's an interesting point that I'll have to noodle over. Thanks for pointing it out.

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

#206

Post by FireBeyond »

remarkEon wrote: post #201
FireBeyond wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"without the permission of those who made it." Well, no, the person who made the tape (not the "star"(s)) absolutely gave "permission". He sent the tape to Gawker himself. Guess what? He was sued, and Hogan settled with him. For $5,000.

When I used the word "made" I assumed it would be taken as those performing the act. It's not relevant that the "director", if you will, sent the tape to Gawker.

It's true. I noted your point, as well.

I also think it's noteworthy that the fact that the person who actually breached Hogan's -trust- was "punished" so lightly (granted, he settled, but I wonder how much Hogan would have settled with Gawker for, with and without Thiel's involvement).

Post reply on HN