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

Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 202 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#111

Post by everdev »

Novashi wrote: post #66
JimmyAustin wrote: post #19

Peter Thiel (worth 2.5b) destroyed Gawker with a contribution of 10m to Hulk Hogan's legal fund. If Bezos contributed a similar proportion of his fortune (112b), he would be contributing 448m. Not only is the National Enquirer about to be in the shitfight of its life, but every single other lawsuit it's going to be facing will be armed to the teeth with amazing legal talent. Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

Here's the cherry on top: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1093654471157170177 AMI probably just broke their non-prosecution agreement with the SDNY

Reminds me of the Fyre documentary on Netflix and how he went back to scamming while he was on trial.

If you build a livelihood through morally corrupt means it's apparently hard to stop even after you get caught.

Not surprised to see Rodger Stone mixed up in this either while he's awaiting trial. Apparently, he knows Jeff Bezos' mistress' brother who is the prime suspect in obtaining the photos:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-t...

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#113

Post by CalChris »

lr4444lr wrote: post #80
ahoy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win

Gawker's insurance was going to bat for them, and would have likely reached settlement. What Thiel's team did was help Hogan's lawyers deliberately construct their suit in such a way, even scale it back if I understand correctly, that if found liable, would not have fall within Gawker's insurance policy.[0] Faced with the prospect of a huge uncovered loss, Gawker crumpled like a cheap suit. Paid to win? I doubt it. H…

Bezos is Bezos. What principle did Thiel who is not Hogan stick to?

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#114

Post by kentm »

cwkoss wrote: post #67
kentm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Gawker did to Hulk Hogan was illegal and unethical. And when they were told to take the video down by a judge they refused to do so. Gawker lost because they were in the wrong and were destroyed because they refused to just take the L

Its OK the celebrate the ends while also criticizing the morality of the means

My remark was more about how often this case is trotted out as setting a concerning precedent. Gawker basically acted like jackasses and blew their own leg off, and Thiel was just there to make sure they didn't miss. It's hard for me to see that as setting a morally troubling precedent, and it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative of "Billionaire uses money to destroy enemies" unless you omit most of the relevant details. Presumably they could have avoided the entire situation by not being shady and breaking the law. And the rich having better access to legal representation is not something that was changed in any way with regards to this case.

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#115

Post by untog »

lr4444lr wrote: post #80
ahoy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cool legal system we have where you can literally pay to win

Gawker's insurance was going to bat for them, and would have likely reached settlement. What Thiel's team did was help Hogan's lawyers deliberately construct their suit in such a way, even scale it back if I understand correctly, that if found liable, would not have fall within Gawker's insurance policy.[0] Faced with the prospect of a huge uncovered loss, Gawker crumpled like a cheap suit. Paid to win? I doubt it. H…

That still feels off to me. Thiel didn't go to court to argue for Gawker to be shut down, he argued something different knowing that the financial implications (that they'd specifically targeted) meant it would be shut down. Still feels like an incredible exercise of rich guy power.

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#116

Post by debt »

JimmyAustin wrote: post #19

Peter Thiel (worth 2.5b) destroyed Gawker with a contribution of 10m to Hulk Hogan's legal fund. If Bezos contributed a similar proportion of his fortune (112b), he would be contributing 448m. Not only is the National Enquirer about to be in the shitfight of its life, but every single other lawsuit it's going to be facing will be armed to the teeth with amazing legal talent. Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

[flagged]

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#117

Post by nyolfen »

sytelus wrote: post #96
aerovistae wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing I was thinking. That said, I hate the National Enquirer and I am praying this leads to their destruction. On a tangentially related note I also believe there ought to be laws restricting paparazzi from harassing people. I think it's awful every time I see someone trying to walk down the street or out of a hospital or courthouse and swarmed by cameras that won't leave them alone even in moments of grief. Th…

You are missing the point. Entities like National Enquirer are not like Gawker that was bankrupted by Thiel with his wealth might. These entities are funded by politics aka American GDP aka your tax dollars. As Bezos clearly outlined in this letter, Trump administration helped these people have very lucrative deals with Saudies to get their financing, very likely, US government doing some favors to Saudies in return.…

the justice department certainly can in fact kill it

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#118

Post by ggm »

lxmorj wrote: post #103
ggm wrote: post #90

I can relate to a plague on both their houses but it is important to worry a bit about 'law of unintended consequences' effects. Bezos is going to get something ordinary mortals cannot, (redress) because of his money. So he isn't a champion for fundamental rights against press abuse, he's a champion for millionaires rights. A real win here is for a global press industry to adopt redress measures ordinary people can u…

I don't buy that "buying your shit at huge markup from a local shop" is some great boone to a community. It's effectively a tax on everyone in town, subsidizing the one family that owns the shop. There are plenty of businesses that are more local-friendly, but household necessities aren't one of them.

That tax keeps people in jobs. That tax kept social capital i the town heart.

The bigstore on the edge of town, and mail-order destroys social capital.

I absolutely get the prices were higher. I have lived this experience in different times, and short of cash I resented paying that markup in the corner store. But now, older and I think a little wiser I realize that what I did, was suck energy out of the local community. I miss the corner store, and I miss fresh bread from a local baker, and I miss the small indie bookshop and record store.

If the price of these things for a small town is a "tax" then can we be grown up and discuss the tax? I mean sure, you can drive the utility truck down the road to the costco, but what kind of a local are you, if the store-owner is on their hunkers because you stopped shopping? Are you a local at all?

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#119

Post by jawnv6 »

JimmyAustin wrote: post #59
throwaway2048 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.

"Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice. In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.

wasn't it generally agreed that the Gawker-destroying opinion probably would have been reversed if they could've kept it afloat for an appeal? the bar for "messed up" isn't where you'd think

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#120

Post by untog »

JimmyAustin wrote: post #59
throwaway2048 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.

"Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice. In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.

It's all but inevitable that a news publisher will get a story wrong at some point, that's why corrections get issued. So it's still a lot of power to put in the hands of the already powerful.
Post reply on HN