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

Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 383 posts

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#331

Post by zardgiv »

moultano wrote: post #193
wrsh07 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither side here looks great. It's reasonable for someone to sue Gawker because of what they publish. It's a bit scary to have someone attempt to take down a publishing company just because of a long-held grudge. That's a template for private censorship by the rich.

It's not the legal fees that are doing them in, it's the damages awarded by the judge.

This sounds like it's meant to be a correction, but the post your responding to mentions neither legal fees nor damages. Are you responding to the right comment?

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#332

Post by moultano »

zardgiv wrote: post #331
moultano wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the legal fees that are doing them in, it's the damages awarded by the judge.

This sounds like it's meant to be a correction, but the post your responding to mentions neither legal fees nor damages. Are you responding to the right comment?

Yes. My point is to make a distinction between using the high cost of the legal system for leverage and relying on the court system to actually dispense justice. Often people are bullied into a settlement because legal cases cost money, and the other side has more money, but that isn't happening here.

If the courts rule against you, and we believe the courts are just, then it shouldn't matter how the process was financed, or whose interests were involved.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#333

Post by zardgiv »

moultano wrote: post #332
zardgiv wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like it's meant to be a correction, but the post your responding to mentions neither legal fees nor damages. Are you responding to the right comment?

Yes. My point is to make a distinction between using the high cost of the legal system for leverage and relying on the court system to actually dispense justice. Often people are bullied into a settlement because legal cases cost money, and the other side has more money, but that isn't happening here. If the courts rule against you, and we believe the courts are just, then it shouldn't matter how the process was fina…

Considering this is the only one of the lawsuits he's funded that he's revealed, it's unclear that all of them have merit. On top of that, they forum shopped this specific case and dropped claims that would have allowed Gawker's insurance to cover damages.

Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.

Your argument is poorly thought out.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#334

Post by moultano »

zardgiv wrote: post #333
moultano wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. My point is to make a distinction between using the high cost of the legal system for leverage and relying on the court system to actually dispense justice. Often people are bullied into a settlement because legal cases cost money, and the other side has more money, but that isn't happening here. If the courts rule against you, and we believe the courts are just, then it shouldn't matter how the process was fina…

Considering this is the only one of the lawsuits he's funded that he's revealed, it's unclear that all of them have merit. On top of that, they forum shopped this specific case and dropped claims that would have allowed Gawker's insurance to cover damages. Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. Your argument is poorly thought out.

My understanding is that this judgement alone is sufficient to cause Gawker's financial problems, and that there aren't others that are material. Correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here.

>Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.

I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have a hard time calling the second class unethical, regardless of the motivation.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#335

Post by byuu »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #52
byuu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan Nations? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... If not, why not?

Is your point that I should ignore my convictions because I find the defendants detestable? Because while I don't feel Gawker is quite as awful as a group of white supremacists, I do very much dislike Gawker and would not be saddened to see them go.

I'm not really interested in loose-fitting analogies. Gawker didn't hire someone that shot at and kidnapped anyone. Let's rephrase it as a direct equivalence: let's say AN had a website where they outed Thiel, and then posted a sex tape of someone else. Then yes, I would feel the same way as I do now. My level of contempt for the defendent has no bearing on my concern over Thiel's actions.

That would be very dangerous thinking as well, to have different sets of ethics depending upon who the defendants are. One of these days, it may be a website you support revealing embarrassing yet truthful information about someone wealthy (and maybe you think it's justified because of this person's actions), and you'll end up with someone you despise using their vast wealth to bankroll lawsuits.

That said, I would like to see the cost of justice go way down. People are correct, you shouldn't need to be a billionaire to sue. And honestly, I don't think you'd have to be. I'm quite sure Bollea could have funded this lawsuit himself. Gawker isn't Oracle or Google with seven-figure lawyers on retainer. If Gawker really did break the law, and so far the first jury verdict suggests they did, then they should be punished, certainly.

I just don't like a system where the rich can scare journalists (a term I do not consider applicable to Gawker writers), and the poor don't have access to the same justice that they do.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#336

Post by zardgiv »

moultano wrote: post #334
zardgiv wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering this is the only one of the lawsuits he's funded that he's revealed, it's unclear that all of them have merit. On top of that, they forum shopped this specific case and dropped claims that would have allowed Gawker's insurance to cover damages. Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. Your argument is poorly thought out.

My understanding is that this judgement alone is sufficient to cause Gawker's financial problems, and that there aren't others that are material. Correct me if I'm wrong on the facts here. >Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP. I think it's worth differentiating cases with merit from cases where there has actually been a clear judgement against the defendant. I have…

What do you mean "there aren't others that are material?" Thiel himself has said that he's funding other suits against Gawker. The impending threat of a billionaire with a personal vendetta is a significant part of their financial problems.

Had Gawker won the case in federal court, as it was expected to and likely would have, or if they win on appeal, suddenly Thiel's actions become unethical? This hardly sounds like a well-thought out ethical system, but it seems like people only care about a free press or free speech depending on whose ox is getting gored.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#337

Post by yummyfajitas »

byuu wrote: post #335
yummyfajitas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan Nations? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... If not, why not?

Is your point that I should ignore my convictions because I find the defendants detestable? Because while I don't feel Gawker is quite as awful as a group of white supremacists, I do very much dislike Gawker and would not be saddened to see them go. I'm not really interested in loose-fitting analogies. Gawker didn't hire someone that shot at and kidnapped anyone. Let's rephrase it as a direct equivalence: let's say A…

In both cases, there is a group (call them X) who's speech is disliked. X engaged in illegal actions. A lawsuit was filed against them and funded by third parties in order to hinder/shut down X. The plaintiffs emerged victorious, suggesting the lawsuit had merit (i.e. it wasn't a frivolous lawsuit).

I stand by the analogy. And yes, I'm asking if you oppose SPLC the same way you oppose Thiel.

I actually do oppose Thiel here (though not the SPLC) since I'm opposed to revenge porn laws. However I'd support Thiel if he were targeting Gawker for something I think should be illegal. But I'm asking because very few of Thiel's critics seem willing to actually bite that bullet.

(Incidentally, I was opposed to actions like this way back when the victims were completely sympathetic innocent females and the perpetrators were giant jerky perverts too. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/defending_hunter_moo... )

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#338

Post by wpietri »

dpark wrote: post #205
wpietri wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? Many cases brought by individuals or groups on moral grounds have led the way to better governance. Intent matters. One of capitalism's great powers is harnessing the greedy and power-hungry and getting them to at least sometimes work for society. (It's not perfect, but it's better to have Bill Gates trying for a monopoly than starting land wars.) But that doesn't make them great-souled public benefactors. (Al…

> If Peter Thiel's goal was to help out defenseless individuals harmed by thoughtless journalists, that suggests one set of structures. E.g., a public nonprofit This has popped up several times in this thread, and I don't see why it's true. There's no obligation, legal or moral, that philanthropy be coordinated through a nonprofit. The only reason for the nonprofit is to get tax advantages. If you're donating tens of…

"E.g." means "for example". By which I mean: there are a bunch of ways he could do this, and I was suggesting one. Also note that I said other words than "nonprofit" that are part of the example that I expected people to generalize from.

But to yield to your nitpicking for a moment, your last sentence is wrong. Nonprofits have public disclosure requirements and state audits to make sure that they are acting to actually benefit the public. So him putting tens of millions into a nonprofit would be a) inherently less wrong, because they would not have been secret, and b) likely to be yet less wrong, in that they would have had to face substantial scrutiny from public servants.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#339

Post by davesque »

nostrademons wrote: post #291
davesque wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd better hope this is true/continues to be true. If there's anything the latest election season has shown us, it's that a lot of people resent big, secret money.

Like Trump's fortune? I think a better lesson would be that a lot of people are angry, and all too happy to follow anyone who gives them a target for that anger. Both this case and the press cycle following it are examples of that.

I don't think Trump supporters give a crap about that. They're too dumb to care. I was mostly referring to the Bernie camp of which I am not necessarily a member.

Re: Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons

#340

Post by dpark »

wpietri wrote: post #338
dpark wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Peter Thiel's goal was to help out defenseless individuals harmed by thoughtless journalists, that suggests one set of structures. E.g., a public nonprofit This has popped up several times in this thread, and I don't see why it's true. There's no obligation, legal or moral, that philanthropy be coordinated through a nonprofit. The only reason for the nonprofit is to get tax advantages. If you're donating tens of…

"E.g." means "for example". By which I mean: there are a bunch of ways he could do this, and I was suggesting one. Also note that I said other words than "nonprofit" that are part of the example that I expected people to generalize from. But to yield to your nitpicking for a moment, your last sentence is wrong. Nonprofits have public disclosure requirements and state audits to make sure that they are acting to actual…

I agree that there are a bunch of ways he could do this. What I don't agree is that any of those other ways are inherently more moral. The morality of an action is independent of the legal structure erected around that action. You might prefer a non-profit or some other structure that doesn't make it easy for Thiel to hide his involvement, but the reality is that none of that matters morally (or legally, really). Bad actions don't become good because a non-profit manages them and good actions don't become bad when they are performed by private citizens.

Your ideas about non-profits being "less wrong" are just incorrect. Privacy and secrecy are not immoral things. A non-profit structure would be more transparent but that doesn't make it "less wrong". Secrecy can hide bad actions but can also make possible good ones. e.g. An ex-con (or at the more extreme end, a Nazi) who wants to donate to cancer research might have his public donation rejected on moral grounds. The donation is moral even if the person has engaged in other immoral acts. A secret donation is therefore more moral in this case because it is more likely to be accepted. More immediately relevant, Thiel's public backing of the suit might have made a win less likely, meaning that if funding the suit is moral, funding it privately was the more effective and therefore more moral option.

Post reply on HN