Live data from Hacker News

No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

medium.com

71–80 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#71
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not specifically a big fan of Uncle Jeff but gotta admit it takes some guts to publish such a thing. Sneaky edit : I'm sure one could not ignore his massive balls on any of the selfies AMI allegedly got their hands on ;)

Yeah, and he makes a great point - if he can't fight back against this sort of thing, then who the heck ever could?

Exactly - I'm trying to imagine being in his place and being open about all of this...and it's HARD. It's easy for me to want HIM to do it, but as much as I think being disgustingly wealthy would be great...I'm sure I'd still be really nervous about pressing that button.

And it's easy for us to say "Well I wouldn't be in that place to begin with", but as I much as I not be in this EXACT place, most of us have made mistakes that we deeply regret and fear getting out, or at least have the capability to. I don't have to assume I'd do this particular set of bad acts to be vulnerable. And once socially vulnerable, would money make it go away? No, not entirely, not enough. So how hard must it be for people who AREN'T disgustingly wealthy? Or even wealthy? Or even well-off?

Heck, with the quality of "deepfakes" or whatever now-a-days, all you need to do is find someone vulnerable to BEING vulnerable, and they don't even have to have done wrong. One marriage that has had no infidelity but is struggling, one person with a child/spouse who is suffering from serious depression/anxiety/suicidal/related issues. "hey, I have these pictures, and if you do X they don't have to see the light of day. You can deny them being real all you want...do you think that will really help?"

Or take the gross spectacle of releasing celebrity sex pics, or even just non-celebrity revenge pics. The only answer is for (1) we as a society to reject attempts to abuse this info and (2) to be less puritanical and judgmental about the victims here. To the Bezos example, one person can do wrong and we can oppose another using it to do wrong against them without condoning any of the original wrong.

Bezos has a hard time doing this, and it's far, far easier for him than for anyone else. I didn't care about his personal life before (note: Not the same as saying it doesn't matter) and I still don't, but even if I did I can find the blackmail efforts repugnant without letting adulterers off the hook.

...but that's hard too. Just not nearly as hard.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#72
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting strong vibes of Thiel and Gawker here. Attempting to intimidate a billionaire is generally a poor decision.

This is worse than Gawker outing Thiel as gay. In this case they're attempting blackmail ahead of time, which may be a crime.

It’s generally not blackmail to threaten someone with some action that, by itself, is legal. See, for example, the many civil settlements where rich people stop the people they raped from going to the police. And I’m unsure what the status is on publishing salacious private photos. Sure, there is a copyright issue. But that’s a civil matter, not criminal.

If it were a crime, it really wouldn’t be much of a threat because they’d be unlikely to follow through, would they?

Edit: there is one federal law where threatening embarrassment is enough, but that requires a demand for money or property, which this is explicitly not.

And because the downvotes are already rolling in: Note that I find this just as abhorrent as you do, and that sexploitation should absolutely be a crime. But the legal situation unfortunately is not at all as clear as the moral one. And the replies below are mostly embarrassing in that nobody even seems to have a clue on the difference between civil and criminal law. Carry on then...

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#73
> I prefer to stand up, roll this log over, and see what crawls out.

It's going to be fascinating to see what he uncovers. David Pecker has been playing this extortion game for decades (frequently on behalf of his buddy Don Trump). Now Bezos has given a blank check to drain the swamp.

> To lead my investigation, I retained Gavin de Becker. I’ve known Mr. de Becker for twenty years, his expertise in this arena is excellent, and he’s one of the smartest and most capable leaders I know. I asked him to prioritize protecting my time since I have other things I prefer to work on and to proceed with whatever budget he needed to pursue the facts in this matter.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#75
post #3

Important note: This is written by Jeff Bezos himself . Normally, the Bezos affair story would be gossipy, but this alleges extortion , extraordinarily. (Also, why is Jeff Bezos using Medium? He owns a newspaper.)

He probably doesn’t want to give people more reasons to suspect that he might use WaPo as his personal propaganda platform.

He really hasn’t given them any, has he? I mean, besides buying it. The Post has even been quite critical of Amazon, regarding HQ 2, for example.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#79
post #66

> If we do not agree to affirmatively publicize that specific lie, they say they’ll publish the photos, and quickly. And there’s an associated threat: They’ll keep the photos on hand and publish them in the future if we ever deviate from that lie. They never explicitly say that, do they? I'm not enough of a lawyer to know if what they did still counts as extortion/blackmail, but as far as I can see they simply descri…

Yes, they do explicitly say exactly that. Term 3 in Jon Fine's email is "AMI agrees not to publish" and that directly follows term 2, which is Bezos backing off his assertion that AMI is politically motivated in their coverage. And term 6 means they get to keep the blackmail materials.
Post reply on HN