101–110 of 783 posts
Do a Playgirl spread, for charity. Spreadeagle.
Defang them.
--------
Edit:
defang them (pun intended... get it? "fang") by doing Playgirl now, and publishing those sext images alongside. And do it for some great charity.
Everybody will have a huge laugh over it, Jeff will be a hero, and National Enquirer will have nothing to publish.
Slightly off topic, but does anyone know why this is so low on HN? It has more votes and is more recent than anything except the "How I didn't make a billion dollar company" post, but is at rank 11. https://imgur.com/a/bifDABu
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Well, that got my attention. But not in the way they likely hoped. Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here. If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can? Can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a prominent person post the details of a personal extortion attempt out of defiance for all to see.
I think another interesting thing about these times, compared to when such things may have happened 20+ years ago, is that the photos they've described would cause rather little outrage or attract much beyond a few giggles from the public. Especially if released after their existence is already known about. I think the iCloud leaks of 2014 severely tempered society's salacious demand for more pictures of this nature.
Granted, this strategy is very high risk unless you're one of the richest people in the world.
But what person without means is going to be the target of tabloid blackmailing?
Granted, this strategy is very high risk unless you're one of the richest people in the world.
The problem I have with most super rich people is that they consider genuine risk far less important than potential embarrassment. E.g. they won't dare taking a stand politically because of the chance that someone will go public with some scandalous nonsense. Bezos on the other hand seems willing to calculate differently. I have to say, this has changed my opinion of him a lot in his favour. On the very remote chance…
One thought did occur to me is that he is basically daring AMI to release the pictures. What if he knows the providence of these pictures, knows how they got into AMI hands, and knows that if AMI publish them he can sue them, Gawker (not Buzzfeed) style, into the ground?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true at all. > Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging information about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless money is paid to purchase silence. It is a form of extortion. Because the information is usually substantially true, it is not revealing the information that is criminal, but demanding money to withhold it. https://definitions.usl…
So I'm curious - is this considered blackmail if the object isn't money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are threatening to post photos of him sexting. Calling that "just details" is a stunning lack of empathy. Even if you'd personally be unperturbed by a similar situation, the vast majority of humans would find it humiliating and invasive in the extreme.
> They are threatening to post photos of him sexting. Is a photo published in a disreputable magazine significantly worse than the information already out so far which already got people thinking about him sexting anyway combined with losing custody of ~70 billion dollars in the coming divorce? I'm not so sure. Their privacy was already thoroughly invaded before this latest development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true at all. > Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging information about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless money is paid to purchase silence. It is a form of extortion. Because the information is usually substantially true, it is not revealing the information that is criminal, but demanding money to withhold it. https://definitions.usl…
So I'm curious - is this considered blackmail if the object isn't money?
Blackmail for Theft: Conspiracy to commit Theft.
Blackmail for Fraud: Conspiracy to commit Fraud.
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.)