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

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#191

Post by graeme »

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…

>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.

I never understand this kind of argument. Bezos says the enquirer used blackmail against many others who couldn't fight back because they had less power.

Bezos is fighting back, and will deprive the enquirer of their ability to blackmail. He also shows a public relations strategy that others can use, not simply a billionaire.

How does publicly punishing extortion fail to help others?

Likewise, legal precedents established by the rich can be used by the poor, more cheaply.

I feel this argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#192

Post by kbutler »

ousta wrote: post #102
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

gawker deserved everything it happened and more. https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1444591425984.jpg

But the indictment (pun intended) of the legal system is that it took a billionaire's $10 million to see that justice was done.

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#193

Post by dominotw »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #44
throwaway2048 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure national enquirer is a "media outlet." In general I agree that the fourth estate needs protection but I don't think arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.

> arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.

Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#194

Post by ggm »

graeme wrote: post #191
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…

>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. I never understand this kind of argument. Bezos says the enquirer used blackmail against many others who couldn't fight back because they had less power. Bezos is fighting back, and will deprive the enquirer of their abili…

I feel this argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

If as a result of what he does, the bar lowers for others to get redress. But, I did not see a surge in low-bar redress stem from Peter Theil's legal action. I saw him pony up significantly more lawyer points in a fight which the publisher couldn't win. He killed them. Every other publishers legal defence insurance went up, but none of them think this means they have to be sorry the next time they defame a small time player. If you can't even get in the door to complain, nothing Theil did helped.

OK nothing is maybe arguing to hard. There will be some redress for ordinary folk from this. Some.

To your side of the argument, the stuff in the UK taking on News Ltd over abuse of phone tapping went beyond simple famous people win: some famous people (Elle McPherson) settled privately, but others secured real redress for more ordinary people.

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#195

Post by savanaly »

ggm wrote: post #118
lxmorj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 communi…

I lean libertarian, but I like to think I have a lot of empathy and also to some degree share your preference for a quainter, high-price era of goods. So I'll try to argue Amazon's side from a point of view you might relate to.

Here's the thing: that era of town heart, like a beautiful sunset, is only charming if it's natural. Keeping an inefficient system alive at the point of the gun (for, and here's where my libertarian stripes are showing, that is what a tax necessarily entails in the end calculus) robs said system of whatever aesthetic pleasantness it used to hold. I would feel good being the proprietor of a clean, trustworthy and useful small shop in a town. I would feel much less good if I knew my existence was only due to charity or due to the novelty of having a small shop in town, essentially making me into a tourist attraction.

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#196

Post by graeme »

ggm wrote: post #194
graeme wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I never understand this kind of argument. Bezos says the enquirer used blackmail against many others who couldn't fight back because they had less power. Bezos is fighting back, and will deprive the enquirer of their abili…

I feel this argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good. If as a result of what he does, the bar lowers for others to get redress. But, I did not see a surge in low-bar redress stem from Peter Theil's legal action. I saw him pony up significantly more lawyer points in a fight which the publisher couldn't win. He killed them. Every other publishers legal defence insurance went up, but none of them think this mean…

I would distinguish the thiel case. That wasn't what I was basing my argument on; you hadn't mentioned Thiel. The Thiel case was a two part process, with two lessons:

1. Don't make an enemy of a powerful person (Outing Peter Thiel as gay) 2. Don't publish a video of Hulk Hogan

The court case was about #2 but Gawker's real error was #1.

Whereas in the bezos case both the legal wrong and the enemy making involve the same person: Bezos

So any outcomes are more direct. Not everyone can afford private investigars like Bezos, but anyone will be able to see if legal precedent comes from it. And PR precedent.

That would change future negotiating leverages. Before, people feared the blackmail. After, they can more credibly know that the blackmailers risk legal jeopardy. The blackmailers will know this too and possibly refrain.

Finally, for PR, people's risk calculus may change. It Bezos comes out a hero, others too may be able to look heroic while publicly resisting blackmail, if their case parallels this one. (I.e. Bezos already is getting divorced, so the blackmailers only have public embarrassment as a tool)

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#197

Post by tomp »

untog wrote: post #115
lr4444lr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's unfortunate that not everybody has this power. But since we can't change that, it's fortunate that at least some random rich guy has this power. (Random in the sense that he's not royalty/political dynasty, but literally anyone lucky enough to have become rich in capitalism.)

Re: Jeff Bezos Accuses National Enquirer of Blackmail

#198

Post by thrillgore »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #39
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.

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

But at the same time, Trump uses the Enquirer to cover his antics up. Today, my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Post reply on HN