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

Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

fusion.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#31

Post by dragonwriter »

narrowrail wrote: post #27
TillE wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next Thiel didn't "punish" anyone. Gawker broke the law, and he helped hold them to account via the legal system. I don't like Thiel one tiny bit. He's a weirdo. But this is, like, the least bad thing a billionaire has ever done to infringe on "free speech". Hypothetically abusing the legal system (eg, many frivolous lawsuits) would be bad, but he hasn't actually done…

>Gawker broke the law This may seem pedantic, but Gawker didn't break the law. This is a civil case. >He's a weirdo. I don't know what to make of this, and it adds nothing to the discussion.

Civil cases involve breaking the law, too. You seem to make the error of thinking the law is limited to criminal law; but this is incorrect.

So, the problem isn't that you're being pedantic, it's just that you're plain wrong.

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#32

Post by internaut »

arielm wrote: post #26
gonmf wrote: post #2

Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.

I completely agree and don't get why so many people are so grossly upset. Peter Thiel didn't use his money to bribe anyone, he didn't do anything illegal for Hulk. The court made a decision and Gawker needs to live with the consequences...

It's all about one word. Tribalism.

A lot of people feel Gawker was a member of their tribe. It's the old "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard" thing.

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#33

Post by internaut »

pervycreeper wrote: post #12
gh-lfneu28 wrote: post #5

From the article: "Historically, news publications have treated certain subjects very carefully: if you’re rich and [...] litigious, then [...] organizations will have lawyers do a careful review of anything they write about you [...]" Well, if they would now have to "do a careful review" of everything they write for the fear of vengeful billionaire going after them, nobody would shed a tear. But obviously that wont…

He seems to be saying that vetting info about people who are not known to have enough resources to pursue legal remedy themselves is too large a hardship for journalists to endure. In all of the voluminous writing about this topic this week, I have yet to encounter a single good objection to what Thiel is doing. I'm honestly mystified by why so many people are objecting to this.

There are no good logical or legal arguments that I've heard so far. It's all hand waving furiously.

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#34

Post by shrewduser »

internaut wrote: post #33
pervycreeper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He seems to be saying that vetting info about people who are not known to have enough resources to pursue legal remedy themselves is too large a hardship for journalists to endure. In all of the voluminous writing about this topic this week, I have yet to encounter a single good objection to what Thiel is doing. I'm honestly mystified by why so many people are objecting to this.

There are no good logical or legal arguments that I've heard so far. It's all hand waving furiously.

It's scummy journalists all circling the wagons as they feel one of their own is under attack.

that's why you won't find logical or reasonable arguments from them.

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#35

Post by someguydave »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #25

I have no idea why everyone thinks this is doing something unusual. Using lawsuits to stifle free speech is commonplace. For example, using lawsuits to stifle climate skepticism: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae... Hillary Clinton was famous for shutting down free speech - her critics had to go all the way to the supreme Court to protect their right to criticize politicians (see citizens u…

Yeah the median 'media' person has no problem with lawsuits against "racists" or "climate deniers". Low-level government employees should know that only their bosses are entitled to leak with impunity.

The Gawker lawsuit scares 'media' people because some of them realize that someone might hold them accountable for their shoddy (or nonexistent) research, poor sourcing and clickbaity content.

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#36

Post by arielm »

internaut wrote: post #32
arielm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree and don't get why so many people are so grossly upset. Peter Thiel didn't use his money to bribe anyone, he didn't do anything illegal for Hulk. The court made a decision and Gawker needs to live with the consequences...

It's all about one word. Tribalism. A lot of people feel Gawker was a member of their tribe. It's the old "He's a bastard, but he's our bastard" thing.

I guess. Until Gawker finds something juicy on them...

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#37

Post by arielm »

Razengan wrote: post #11
gonmf wrote: post #2

Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.

Good point. This isn't an argument against your comment but I wonder, at which point does everyone exercising their freedoms become anarchy?

Given that all of this took place legally in a courtroom I don't think anarchy should be an issue now or in the future.

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#38

Post by jonathankoren »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #20
Jun8 wrote: post #3

"Later asked by an attorney for Hogan if there was a situation in which a celebrity sex tape might not be newsworthy, Delaurio responded: “If they were a child.” The attorney then asked him to specify: a child under what age? Daulerio responded: “Four.”" This was the Gawker editor who came up with the sex tape and story. This sums up the the anything goes interpretation of free speech these people have. (Although he…

I dunno, I don't see this as any different than when someone gets donations to their legal fund from supporters, or really what the ACLU, EFF, NAACP, etc., do with their legal programs.

It's different because the the organizations you cite do so publically. Thiel is doing it secretly to try to keep his hands clean. That's disturbing.

Also the organizations you cite are actually working for the public good, while Thiel is working from a petty personal vendetta.

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#39

Post by insane_dreamer »

There are so many things wrong with this article that I don't even know where to start.

* Gawker does not deal in journalism any more than Keeping up with the Kardashians does. It's an entertainment company that makes a profit by exposing details of people's lives which other people have no business knowing. There's an argument to be made that the world be better off with that type of gutter "journalism". It's not giving people "news" which they "have a right to know" (the kind of thing for which journalism needs to be protected).

* But if we accept that Gawker has the right to its thing - and it does - then Gawker has to accept the consequences of pissing people off - which is usually solves through litigation insurance. If it gets sued out of existence, it's its own fault, no one else's.

* Thiel did not "take down" or "punish" Gawker. A court of law punished Gawker for breaking the law. The fact that Thiel paid the defendants attorneys is irrelevant. If we have a problem with that, then we could pass laws to disallow third parties from funding other people's law suits which would have terrible consequences (no more ACLU, for example).

* If the argument is that "the person with the most money wins lawsuits", I don't disagree. But that is a problem with the justice system, not Thiel.

* We can't have "freedom of speech" without "freedom to sue", otherwise these entertainment "news" outlets can easily ruin the lives of people for profit (as they do).

Re: Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy

#40

Post by jonathankoren »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #25

I have no idea why everyone thinks this is doing something unusual. Using lawsuits to stifle free speech is commonplace. For example, using lawsuits to stifle climate skepticism: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenae... Hillary Clinton was famous for shutting down free speech - her critics had to go all the way to the supreme Court to protect their right to criticize politicians (see citizens u…

The thing that makes it unusual is that he's acting in secret and actively soliciting lawsuits he has no interest in, and structures the lawsuits to remove incurable claims because he has a personal vendetta against a media outlet that he doesn't like.

If you can't see the difference between working in public against a violent racist organization and a petulant billionaire waiting 7 years to throw a bunch of middle class people out of work, and send a message to the media at large to play nice with him, because he got his feelings hurt, I can't help you.

Post reply on HN