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

No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#251

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #115
monkeydreams wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. 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?

If AMI committed a crime by threatening to post them if he didn't keep quiet, and he posted this, AMI definitely also committed a crime if they then posted the pictures in retaliation. Bezos is reasonably safe in airing this, because AMI will only dig itself a deeper hole if they post them. AMI botched the crud out of this operation by leaving a paper trail: They made accepting their offer completely unnecessary; I d…

[deleted]

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#252

Post by toomuchtodo »

busterarm wrote: post #250
toomuchtodo wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His wife supported him after he left his IB job to start Amazon. Amazon would not be without her in all probability. I argue Jeff earned half; precisely half, which would otherwise be zero without his wife's 20+ years of support. https://www.wired.com/story/mackenzie-bezos-amazon-lone-geni...

Jeff's parents supported him when he left his hedge fund job at D.E. Shaw. He was a quant and he had been there 4 years. He left his bonus on the table when he left but he was extremely well paid. He wasn't exactly hurting for cash. It's already well established fact that Jeff's/Amazon's costs in the early days were paid for with his parents' life savings.

You interpreted "support" differently than I:

"The couple was leaving behind a wealthy existence on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, according to Brad Stone, the author of the 2013 book The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon. “They gave up a really comfortable lifestyle and successful careers to move across the country and start something on the internet,” says Stone. “The only reason [Jeff] was able to do that is because he had an extremely supportive spouse. It was an incredible risk and one that they both took on jointly.”

"In a 2010 commencement speech he gave at Princeton, Jeff himself acknowledged the gamble his wife had taken. “I told my wife MacKenzie that I wanted to quit my job and go do this crazy thing that probably wouldn’t work since most startups don’t, and I wasn’t sure what would happen after that,” he said. “MacKenzie … told me I should go for it.” (Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)"

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#253

Post by kevinmchugh »

notatoad wrote: post #173
fisherjeff wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the analysis I suppose. This one makes it sound unlikely that the agreement will be voided: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/10936583665834229...

"blackmail is legal" is a pretty depressing take, but it does seem plausible.

Blackmail is a law which forbids the possessor of some information from offering to sell it to the subject of the information. The possessor can sell it to anyone else in the world, but cannot offer to the subject.

If I had an affair with a celebrity, I can start a bidding war for my story between all the movies studios, television studios, and publishing houses. That's legal. If I invite the celebrity to bid, then I've committed a crime.

I've always found it hard to justify blackmail laws.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#254

Post by [deleted] »

lapnitnelav wrote: post #98
stupidcar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All the money in the world can't buy your pride / dignity back, especially if some "embarrassing" evidence get out there. It's something in the way people would look at you, talk about you, etc ... If you combine that with the Streisand effect, there's no way a public figure can take this kind of hit and walk away unphased. It's very much human nature, and that's why Jeff's move is bold.

[deleted]

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#255

Post by busterarm »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #252
busterarm wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff's parents supported him when he left his hedge fund job at D.E. Shaw. He was a quant and he had been there 4 years. He left his bonus on the table when he left but he was extremely well paid. He wasn't exactly hurting for cash. It's already well established fact that Jeff's/Amazon's costs in the early days were paid for with his parents' life savings.

You interpreted "support" differently than I: "The couple was leaving behind a wealthy existence on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, according to Brad Stone, the author of the 2013 book The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon. “They gave up a really comfortable lifestyle and successful careers to move across the country and start something on the internet,” says Stone. “The only reason [Jeff] was able to d…

And yet spousal support after a divorce isn't in the form of "yes, you should take the extremely risky move of living without my billions of dollars. I support your doing this."

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#256

Post by toomuchtodo »

busterarm wrote: post #255
toomuchtodo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You interpreted "support" differently than I: "The couple was leaving behind a wealthy existence on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, according to Brad Stone, the author of the 2013 book The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon. “They gave up a really comfortable lifestyle and successful careers to move across the country and start something on the internet,” says Stone. “The only reason [Jeff] was able to d…

And yet spousal support after a divorce isn't in the form of "yes, you should take the extremely risky move of living without my billions of dollars. I support your doing this."

Such are the perils of a billionaire's marriage dissolving in a community property state. Marriage and living in Washington state are voluntary actions. My argument was for more value of a partner's contributions to business success, regardless of statute.

EDIT: @busterarm: We're not going to agree on what defines "earned", good chat.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#257

Post by CamperBob2 »

ocschwar wrote: post #117
lapnitnelav wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the money in the world can't buy your pride / dignity back, especially if some "embarrassing" evidence get out there. It's something in the way people would look at you, talk about you, etc ... If you combine that with the Streisand effect, there's no way a public figure can take this kind of hit and walk away unphased. It's very much human nature, and that's why Jeff's move is bold.

Standing up to that fucker does, in fact, buy you your pride and dignity back. The only thing missing here is Bezos offering to up the ante with a newer dickpic.

A good reply might have been, "Sorry, Mr. Pecker, but I'm not interested in working with you on this. But I'd suggest you hold off for a couple of weeks before releasing those photos. Playgirl has an exclusive on them in their next issue, and their lawyers are probably better than yours."

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#258

Post by busterarm »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #256
busterarm wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet spousal support after a divorce isn't in the form of "yes, you should take the extremely risky move of living without my billions of dollars. I support your doing this."

Such are the perils of a billionaire's marriage dissolving in a community property state. Marriage and living in Washington state are voluntary actions. My argument was for more value of a partner's contributions to business success, regardless of statute. EDIT: @busterarm: We're not going to agree on what defines "earned", good chat.

Yes, but then regulatory hazard isn't the same thing as earning the money. It's just being entitled to it.

Edit: I'm pretty sure Amazon shareholders won't agree with you about the definition of "earned" either. It's not just cash at stake here, it's voting power. Is that spousal support worth 8.5% control of the company? Up from 0%.

I'm not saying she isn't entitled to it, just that there's a difference between value through entitlement and value through work.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#260

Post by newsbinator »

imgabe wrote: post #222
minimaxir wrote: post #2

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.)

Yeah but why Medium? Surely he could throw up a static site in an S3 bucket...

Because it's there.

Jeff Bezos didn't spend his Thursday afternoon throwing up a static site in an S3 bucket.

He hit "publish" on Medium.

Post reply on HN