Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

Post by lazaroclapp » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:18 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #104

lazaroclapp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit (which I agree is hard to prove one way or the other in court) and whether or not you do so openly versus secretly. In the case of the EFF and ACLU, their goal is not to swamp government agencies with lawsuits to the point they close down, or to hurt them economically, their goal is usually either: a) to help someone redress a wrong where they actually care ab…

> It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. The motive is something that exists only in his head--people can, and will, invent motives consistent with whatever their opinion of a person is. Insofar as there's an argument that lawsuit funding should be open, well, I submit that perhaps the laws on that should be changed if this is tr…

Post by abiox » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:25 AM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #35

pkinsky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do enjoy watching people quote one of Gawker's favorite lines back at them.

Like I said above, it seems that for a lot of people, the freedom of speech rhetoric just comes down to whose ox is getting gored.

Post by Natsu » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:27 AM UTC

zardgiv wrote: post #23

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, Is there some method of 'destruction' that isn't reported on here, other than Peter Thiel financing Hulk Hogan's lawsuit? I think you are going to be hard-pressed to find people that think Gawker should be able to publish a 'sex tape', ignore a court order to take it down, because it's 'journalism'.

They specifically dropped the part of the case that would allow an insurance payout. Typically, people who don't want to destroy an organization will prefer to get the more assured money from insurance.

Post by Natsu » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:29 AM UTC

lazaroclapp wrote: post #141

Natsu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It depends why you are supporting the third-party lawsuit Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. The motive is something that exists only in his head--people can, and will, invent motives consistent with whatever their opinion of a person is. Insofar as there's an argument that lawsuit funding should be open, well, I submit that perhaps the laws on that should be changed if this is tr…

"Dear members of the jury, please be aware that the accuser is partly supported by third-party X, who has conflicts of interest Y, Z and W with the accused." is all I am asking for. > Right, so the real problem here is simply that people don't like him. For the record, I am far more pro-Thiel than I am pro-Gawker, although I base my judgement only on their public reputations. I am actually more concerned about the ge…

Post by acheron » Thu, May 26, 2016, 4:31 AM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #16

Josh Marshall, from John Gruber: It all comes down to a simple point. You may not like Gawker. They’ve published stories I would have been ashamed to publish. But if the extremely wealthy, under a veil secrecy, can destroy publications they want to silence, that’s a far bigger threat to freedom of the press than most of the things we commonly worry about on that front. If this is the new weapon in the arsenal of the…