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

Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump

#11

Post by ch4s3 »

ryandvm wrote: post #7
ch4s3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result. He's funded maybe over a dozen other suits, secretly, some of which were pretty dubious. His stated goal is to destroy a news agency because they reported on his personal life. I hate that kind of journalism, but I don'…

I'm curious at whether or not Gawker would have any legal standing for a retaliatory lawsuit against Thiel for damages. It seems like a stretch, but then again, if someone has dragged you through the courts at considerable legal cost and publicly stated that it was to drain you of money, how exactly is that not a perfectly legitimate damages complaint. Or at the very least contempt of court. Oh, and as though it's no…

The US legal system doesn't really let you do that. If he was bankrolling a bunch of cases that got thrown out, they might be able to counter sue, but that's not the way it shook out.

Re: Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump

#13

Post by internaut »

ch4s3 wrote: post #5
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

What I find interesting is that the author of this piece attacks Peter Thiel as some opponent of press freedom because he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit that a jury found in favor of Terry Bolea. The same author in 2012 wrote an article wrote an article defending Venezuela's Chavez in his treatment of the press [0]. In 2012, Reporters without borders, gave Venezuala a 117/177 in terms of press freedom[1]. 0. http:/…

wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result. He's funded maybe over a dozen other suits, secretly, some of which were pretty dubious. His stated goal is to destroy a news agency because they reported on his personal life. I hate that kind of journalism, but I don'…

> wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result.

Probably part of it is because the judge agreed with Thiel's motivation. It was also appealed and thrown out of court. The fine was surely intended to bankrupt the company. Something judges do have the power to do.

To be honest I don't think even Thiel thought Gawker would fuck up its own defense this badly. They were pressing all the wrong buttons. I'm sure you've heard how the trial went.

> I don't think billionaires should be able to use money and the courts to shut down speech they don't like.

In this specific court case the speech was outright illegal even before they defied a court order.

In the general case that is up for a far ranging debate. My two cents are that it is extremely likely Gawker was/is working for a covert political organization (like how Salon* is also), as such it is a PR firm masquerading as journalism. The only question I have in my mind is whether Denton is aware of being co-opted. He must surely have realized something was up recently. I won't spell it out here but if you do some google searches you shall see some interesting things.

If you are a popular media organization with a poor or non-existent profit stream but readily available capital from nowhere for many years then you might find yourself in a spot of political trouble.

* From their wiki: Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history. Since 2007, the company has been dependent on ongoing cash injections from board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht.

Re: Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump

#15

Post by ch4s3 »

internaut wrote: post #13
ch4s3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result. He's funded maybe over a dozen other suits, secretly, some of which were pretty dubious. His stated goal is to destroy a news agency because they reported on his personal life. I hate that kind of journalism, but I don'…

> wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result. Probably part of it is because the judge agreed with Thiel's motivation. It was also appealed and thrown out of court. The fine was surely intended to bankrupt the company. Something judges do have the power to do. To…

>In the general case that is up for a far ranging debate

That's my point basically. Even if Gawker isn't a "real" news organization, and they probably aren't, I still think this sets bad a precedent.

What's to stop him from targeting a real news organization next?

Re: Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump

#16

Post by internaut »

ch4s3 wrote: post #15
internaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result. Probably part of it is because the judge agreed with Thiel's motivation. It was also appealed and thrown out of court. The fine was surely intended to bankrupt the company. Something judges do have the power to do. To…

>In the general case that is up for a far ranging debate That's my point basically. Even if Gawker isn't a "real" news organization, and they probably aren't, I still think this sets bad a precedent. What's to stop him from targeting a real news organization next?

If you mean him in particular, probably that he has strong moral convictions about right and wrong. I don't know the man personally but I've been examining his ideas with their percolations (e.g. mimesis, exits) and their interesting offshoots for several years now and although some people may suppose him contradictory this would be a very superficial reading. Being idiosyncratic is not the same thing as being a hypocrite. He is not about to stomp on people's freedom of speech merely because he disagrees with those people and/or their politics. That would be in fact an antipathy to him. That he considers aiding the takedown of Gawker as a philanthropic move is unsurprising to me and not a form of sarcasm as some suppose.

As for billionaires subverting the media generally, let's just say that if we assume Thiel did subvert the media for nefarious purposes he would be but a minnow in an ocean packed to the gills with sharks already eating each other. Eons before, you know, that minnow was hatched or whatever. I mean there are people literally killing each other out there over nothing. Perspective!

Re: Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump

#17

Post by BryantD »

internaut wrote: post #8
BryantD wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that Thiel's lawyers dropped claims that would have gotten Bollea more money in order to cause more pain to Gawker. And refused various settlement offers. And that Thiel is also funding the anti-Gawker lawsuit by the guy who claims he invented email.

>` And that Thiel is also funding the anti-Gawker lawsuit by the guy who claims he invented email. Your information is incorrect. By all means find a legitimate source for that claim but I recall the man saying he wasn't backed by Thiel.

He sort of said that, sure.

"Ayyadurai says his case has no financial connection to Thiel. 'To be absolutely clear,' Ayyadurai said, 'my relationship with [Harder] is direct. There is no third party involved.'"

And:

"'To the best of my knowledge, I’m not seeing any money in my account coming from Peter Thiel,' he says."

This is, however, inconclusive. Forbes reported that Harder didn't know Thiel was behind the Hogan lawsuit until May. I believe that Ayyadurai isn't seeing any money from Thiel, but that's not the same thing as Harder not seeing money from Thiel. And "to the best of my knowledge" leaves plenty of wiggle room for Harder to be the cut-out man.

But, you know, maybe it's just a coincidence and only one of Harder's many cases against Gawker is backed by Thiel. Can I say for sure? Absolutely not!

I do, however, think it's a bit more likely than, say, "My two cents are that it is extremely likely Gawker was/is working for a covert political organization." I mean, if you're gonna demand that I provide cites (which is fair) you probably ought to steer away from that kind of random accusation.

Re: Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump

#18

Post by internaut »

BryantD wrote: post #17
internaut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>` And that Thiel is also funding the anti-Gawker lawsuit by the guy who claims he invented email. Your information is incorrect. By all means find a legitimate source for that claim but I recall the man saying he wasn't backed by Thiel.

He sort of said that, sure. "Ayyadurai says his case has no financial connection to Thiel. 'To be absolutely clear,' Ayyadurai said, 'my relationship with [Harder] is direct. There is no third party involved.'" And: "'To the best of my knowledge, I’m not seeing any money in my account coming from Peter Thiel,' he says." This is, however, inconclusive. Forbes reported that Harder didn't know Thiel was behind the Hogan…

Privately it has been talked about by my friends for years. It's also a bit dangerous to talk about in the public realm for a number of reasons which is why some discretion is a good idea. Look up Gawkers sources of funding, really look properly.

Of course I could be wrong, but that would require a chain of coincidences worthy of Lemony Snicket. Who also lives in the Bay Area!

There is a list of people who want to sue Gawker a mile long so there's no reason to suspect Ayyadurai is/was indirectly funded by Thiel. As ch4s3 pointed out, this would actually make the objective less likely because of laws against frivolous lawsuits. Regardless of how valid Ayyadurai's lawsuit is, Thiel would have been selective, using his training as a lawyer to choose the case(s) he thinks are certain to win.

Post reply on HN