In other news a rich person used the law to their advantage.
Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
31–40 of 383 posts
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#32Yeah... no.
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#33What a hack piece. It would have a modicum of legitimacy if it wasn't criticising the status quo of modern media that Reuters has deemed unworthy of coverage for the past forty years. Why the sudden self righteous moral indignation? I smell a rat.
I get the sense that "they" simply don't like Thiel his powers for good, when everyone knows you should only use the powers that come with been knee-tremblingly rich for evil.
And It would be a good thing if Gawker ceased to be. It's a blight.
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These articles attacking Thiel framed as billionaire versus journalists doesn't even mention this fact. This one does though: >As for Gawker, it disseminated a sex tape of a retired pro wrestler. Let’s not pretend that the website did it as part of a great journalistic mission. Gawker did it to lure eyes to its website while smugly saying the First Amendment sheltered it. The author's beef isn't with Thiel using his…
Are more leaked sex tapes used for commercial purposes in the public interest?
Nobody pretended so - which is the whole point. Thiel could have given his money to a foundation that openly sponsors lawsuits for media victioms. That would haven been for the public good.
Instead he chose to sponsor the lawsuit (and other lawsuits) against gawker in secret because he feels wronged by them with the intent of punishing them. And that's not in the public interest because it can be considered a form of vigilantism.
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#35What do people expect? They are humans with a lot of money and power.
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I can't believe Scott Adams holds such a crazy opinion!" -- said nobody ever. I see no reason to take sides on this debacle. Both Nick Denton and Peter Thiel are guilty of absolutely awful behavior. Denton for outing people and publishing private videos; Thiel for Paypal (and its horrible practices) and using his wealth to bankroll personal vendettas. Both are happy to exploit others for their own personal gain. The…
What exactly is the difference between "bankroll personal vendettas" and "fight against what you believe is bad"? The latter has to be broke and the former isn't?
if Mr Thiel wants to raise journalistic integrity standards when it comes to outing people, then the right things to do would be something like opening a public discussion, advocating some change in the law, etc. or perhaps, if he must use litigation, then focusing on suing all media that out people recklessly in this way. that would be a way more admirable approach. but this is not what Mr Thiel is doing. he is instead attacking just Gawker, for >10 years now, supporting any suit against them, and to top it all of, he is doing it secretively.
the lesson the media are going to take away from this is not "we must behave morally", but rather, "we must be careful not to get any rich guy pissed at us". which is where these arguments about how Mr Thiel is hurting the freedom of the press are coming from.
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#37Wait a minute. Gawker is no righteous hero here.
Let's see if I understand correctly. Gawker outs Thiel (which is nobody's business, yet Gawker decided to make it people's business). Gawker at some point later posts an illegal SEX tape (again, nobody's business).
Now, we're supposed to feel sorry for Gawker because Thiel wants to help out another person who was WRONGED by Gawker?
Wow. Just wow.
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I can't believe Scott Adams holds such a crazy opinion!" -- said nobody ever. I see no reason to take sides on this debacle. Both Nick Denton and Peter Thiel are guilty of absolutely awful behavior. Denton for outing people and publishing private videos; Thiel for Paypal (and its horrible practices) and using his wealth to bankroll personal vendettas. Both are happy to exploit others for their own personal gain. The…
What exactly is the difference between "bankroll personal vendettas" and "fight against what you believe is bad"? The latter has to be broke and the former isn't?
Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior. This has dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in journalism. If what Gawker did was illegal in outing him, he should have sued for that. If it were just morally objectionable, he should have called them on it and let the public decide how to respond.
What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business." That's not a world I want to live in, regardless of what I think of Gawker (they're the internet equivalent of The National Enquirer in my eyes.)
We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#39Gawker is utter shite and it's a dangerous tabloid. I have no idea why anyone with a sane mind would be on their side in this issue. this is just a revenge story, let it go!
Because I am free speech absolutist which means defending speech that I don't like.
There were other ways to nail gawker - copyright infringement comes to mind.
Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These articles attacking Thiel framed as billionaire versus journalists doesn't even mention this fact. This one does though: >As for Gawker, it disseminated a sex tape of a retired pro wrestler. Let’s not pretend that the website did it as part of a great journalistic mission. Gawker did it to lure eyes to its website while smugly saying the First Amendment sheltered it. The author's beef isn't with Thiel using his…
this is getting too much into "... and he said, and then she said...". was something wrong done? is there some sort of justice being done? no need to go deeper than this, unless it's one's hobby to discuss famous people's private lives
Thanks for contributing!
It's rare that someone contributes without adding anything worth reading. YOU are BETTER. RARE isn't just how you take your eggs.
You're not a hypocrite. You're a trendsetter. It's so lame to discuss famous people's lives. Especially when they aren't SF-famous! You have set the tone for this thread and HN is better for it.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.