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

Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 335 posts

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#191

Post by Natsu »

sangnoir wrote: post #186
Natsu wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Bollea's rights that would be violated, so he's the one to decide such. I highly doubt he will given the circumstances. That's why I can't take seriously anyone other than him suggesting such.

Other people get to 'decide' at appeal time: I were the judge / on a jury on a case were the complainant was tactically dropping charges with the aim of bankrupting the other party rather than seeking justice, I'd probably decide against them. I find using the justice system in pursuit of revenge at the cost of actual justice rather perverse.

No, the only person with a cause of action here is Bolea himself. Until and unless he asserts that something happened which violated his rights, the entire argument is bogus.

He is the only one who can decide that his lawyer somehow wronged him here. The question is simply not before the court. They decide the arguments presented to them, they can't simply invent one to decide. And Bolea is the only person who can make such an argument here.

Also, it's going to be hard to argue that his lawyers bungled things when he won a huge pile of money.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#192

Post by ryanlol »

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.

I really don't think you understand what freedom of speech is.

Peter Thiel isn't a government entity, but an individual. He by definition cannot do anything to restrict gawkers freedom of speech.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#193

Post by __Joker »

gph wrote: post #64
darawk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what is unethical about his conduct here? I really don't understand what problem anyone has with this.

I don't think Thiel is being unethical and I think the decision in this case was valid. That said I do in general have a problem with all this. I mean what does it say about our justice system when a millionaire needs a billionaire to help seek justice for himself. Is that how it's going to be in the future? If you find yourself wronged by some massively wealthy or powerful entity you now have to find an equally mass…

I really doubt whether any just society exists in today. Rich and powerful will always bend the rules. These days the rule ~breaking~ bending is more subtle than the previous. To quote Thucydides[1] "... right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

The challenge still exists for us to find a way to build more just and egalitarian societies.

[1].http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:19...

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#194

Post by EdiX »

cissou wrote: post #22
nefitty wrote: post #14

Thiel claims to despise "massive privacy violations" on the part of groups like Gawker, yet he was one of the co-founders of Palantir. These people are just narcissists who want revenge for someone splashing mud on their boots. They're not fighting for our privacy, or for the common good. Sorry buddy, you are worth more than 99.999% of us. That makes you a significant figure and thus newsworthy. Your sexual orientati…

I might be interpreting your words, but are you suggesting that being extremely wealthy is reason enough to give up on privacy?

Can't speak for nefitty (because I disagree with the parent comment) however wealth imho does imply a lower expectation of privacy since with wealth more of your private activities become a matter of public interest.

That said, I don't see why Thiel's homosexuality would be newsworthy nor why Hulk Hogan's sex tape is newsworthy (the racist rant was, but they didn't publish that)

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#195

Post by darawk »

djrobstep wrote: post #156
leroy_masochist wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to use the courts to sue for defamation is pretty widely accepted as legit by most if not all strains of libertarianism. It's actually a clear example of a valid case in which governmental authority is necessary.

Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."

Either way, his position is not hypocritical.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#196

Post by darawk »

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…

In what way would that knowledge aid the jury in coming to an impartial verdict? Peter Thiel had and has nothing to do with the case itself. The facts and merits of the actual case are unchanged by his involvement and as such this information is immaterial.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#197

Post by darawk »

sangnoir wrote: post #186
Natsu wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Bollea's rights that would be violated, so he's the one to decide such. I highly doubt he will given the circumstances. That's why I can't take seriously anyone other than him suggesting such.

Other people get to 'decide' at appeal time: I were the judge / on a jury on a case were the complainant was tactically dropping charges with the aim of bankrupting the other party rather than seeking justice, I'd probably decide against them. I find using the justice system in pursuit of revenge at the cost of actual justice rather perverse.

You are misunderstanding the system, I think. If Bollea can win the case, and that judgment would bankrupt Gawker, then under our legal system Bollea has the right to bankrupt them. He also has the right to settle with them if he finds an offer they make advantageous. But that is completely up to him.

Whatever he chooses, for whatever reasons he chooses, is justice. By definition. To be honest, if anything is a perversion of justice, it's a settlement. Because a settlement prevents a verdict from ever being reached and the legal 'truth' of the situation from ever being found.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#198

Post by 99182319 »

dang wrote: post #97
nefitty wrote: post #14

Thiel claims to despise "massive privacy violations" on the part of groups like Gawker, yet he was one of the co-founders of Palantir. These people are just narcissists who want revenge for someone splashing mud on their boots. They're not fighting for our privacy, or for the common good. Sorry buddy, you are worth more than 99.999% of us. That makes you a significant figure and thus newsworthy. Your sexual orientati…

I think Hacker News users can expect to be held to a higher standard than this comment, which adds no information, calls a lot of names ("these people are just narcissists who want revenge"—you can't possibly know that), and lacks decency (someone's sexual orientation is fair game because they're rich? no, it's not). If you have an argument to make, you're welcome to make it neutrally and respectfully. But you're not…

I would say that the Palantir vs. privacy angle adds information. Also, isnt't Thiel the person who wanted to found a utopian libertarian island?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading

So justice on such an island could be bought?

[Note that I despise Gawker for publishing the tape in question.]

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#199

Post by vintermann »

zorpner wrote: post #111
eudox wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, my dude, Thiel just paid for part of Hogan's legal fees. That money's not gonna conjure up evidence from the luminiferous aether.

People with more resources win more lawsuits. Do you believe that this is because they are more frequently wronged?

Well, in terms of resources, Thiel has more than Denton, who in turn has more than Bollea.

I think it's a moot point, since both Thiel and Denton have enough money that throwing more money at lawyers would do practically no good. Yes, people with more resources win more lawsuits, but there are diminishing returns.

Re: Peter Thiel, Tech Billionaire, Reveals Secret War with Gawker

#200

Post by [deleted] »

tardos wrote: post #86
darawk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a poorly thought out argument. He isn't doing anything under-handed or illegal to destroy Gawker. He isn't fabricating evidence against them or paying off cops. He's simply financing a non-spurious lawsuit, which the courts have decided was legitimate. This is exactly what I want the billionaires in our society doing. He may be acting in his own self-interest, but it also happened to align with the public int…

He is very much doing something under-handed to destroy Gawker. Gawker owns insurance to decouple financial harm from existential harm in the case of lawsuits like these. The civil system expects that victims who are harmed will try to maximize expected payout in case of a suit. If Hulk's legal case is indeed robust, he should have included every possible harm in the suit to maximize his payout. The decision to struc…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN