10 ms·

Peter Thiel Has Been Funding Hulk Hogan's Lawsuits Against Gawker

138 points by dogecoinbase 10y ago

leroy_masochist 10y ago
I'm betting it was Thiel himself who called the tip into Sorkin.
nibs 10y ago
“Valleywag is the Silicon Valley equivalent of Al Qaeda,” - Peter Thiel, 2009. Always playing the long game. Also nice 0-1 creative use of litigation court as investment vehicle and vessel for cultural change and constitutional rights all in one.
- untog 10y ago
  Oh that we could all live in a world where the most terroristic organisation in our lives is... Valleywag.
Analemma_ 10y ago
(Reposting here since I'm not sure which submission on new is going to "win") Sure does make this line in Thiel's Wikipedia page a bit awkward: "The Thiel Foundation is also a supporter of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which promotes the right of journalists to report the news freely without fear of reprisal" Oh, but I'm sure this wasn't reprisal against Gawker (and specifically Valleywag, which was always extremely critical of libertarian VC techbros in general and Thiel in particular), he was just so moved by the plight of a pro wrestler suffering immensely from a leaked sex tape. Look, I'll get out in front of people accusing me of bias and just say it: I've always hated Thiel. I hate his politics, the behavior of several of the companies he founded, and his smarmy "drop out of college!" advice. But even if you don't share my bile, you should be deeply disturbed by the fact that at least one Silicon Valley billionaire is talking about freedom and innovation with one side of his mouth, while using his money to try and destroy insufficiently sycophantic press outlets. We're moving ever-closer to a world where our industry leaders are not very distinguishable from 19th century robber barons (maybe not to you, but increasingly to the general public)
- FeepingCreature 10y ago
  Look, I sort of get where you're coming from but this wasn't exactly Snowden here.
- DKnoll 10y ago
  Please do not equate publishing the sex tape of an unwitting victim with freedom of the press... or Gawker bloggers with journalists, for that matter. I don't agree or disagree with your statements about Thiel as I don't know enough about him to form an opinion, but Gawker seems to very clearly be in the wrong here. If Thiel in any way helped justice to be served here, for whatever motive, good on him.
  - Analemma_ 10y ago
    > but Gawker seems to very clearly be in the wrong here That's not really relevant to my point. Even if Gawker was completely wrong to do what they did, why did Thiel pick that case to donate to? Plenty of people file lawsuits just as valid as Hulk Hogan's every day. Or why didn't he file an amicus curiae? This is clearly an attempt to destroy press he has a grudge against, which is alarming even if the specific lawsuit he picked was a valid one and the defendants were "Gawker bloggers". Look at the bigger picture.
    - DKnoll 10y ago
      I am looking at the bigger picture, and what I see is that those who wield extraordinary power, whether it be financial, political or otherwise, rarely use it purely in defense of the 'greater good.' However, sometimes their pragmatism serves it by coincidence and I'm willing to celebrate when that happens.
    - MrMullen 10y ago
      The Hulk Hogan case must have hit a ratio of how much money would Thiel have put up vs probability of success and damage to Gawker. Having a sex tape made and leaked without permission is an easy win. And why would Thiel file an amicus curiae? He can pay for Hulk's lawyer and if the case is thrown out, Thiel does not get outed as Hulks sponsor. If he wins, he might get a portion of the money, which most likely will not happen, but most importantly he gets to crush an enemy.
colinbartlett 10y ago
Is there a non-Forbes source? I'm not turning off my ad blocker.
- ParadoxOryx 10y ago
  It's on archive.is - http://archive.is/JK6N7 http://archive.is/JK6N7
untog 10y ago
This is another one of those situations you can excuse away through specific context (Valleywag did plenty of crappy things) but the broader play here is worrying: billionaire finances lawsuits he has nothing to do with, in order to take down media entity that he dislikes. I try not to think about the specifics and look at the broader precedent something like this sets and... erk. EDIT: all specifics aside, I think what bothers me most is that he can do this in secret. We only found out because of, wait for it, the media. Maybe he'll fund cases against Forbes next?
- RickS 10y ago
  Devil's Advocate: If the court system is presumed to be functional here, billionaire is funding a just outcome that could not otherwise come to pass.
  - untog 10y ago
    That feels like a big presumption. The court system often seems to operate on a "biggest pockets wins" basis.
    - adventured 10y ago
      Bigger pockets than Gawker Media? Gawker was very easily able to afford its own defense - it's the damages they couldn't afford. Can you explain how the bigger pockets dictated the Bollea outcome? It looked like the just outcome to me.
      - untog 10y ago
        > Bigger pockets than Gawker Media? Er, yes. Billionaire Peter Thiel has considerably bigger pockets than Gawker Media. But that's not really my point, I was talking in general terms. The court system is not reliable enough that it will always find the right outcome no matter what.
        waterhouse 10y ago
droopyEyelids 10y ago
Here is something else Thiel financed http://twitter.com/italkyoubored/status/730470870360203265 http://twitter.com/italkyoubored/status/730470870360203265
- exolymph 10y ago
  My estimation of him just dropped to a new low. How cruel.
eugeneionesco 10y ago
Good.
kevinpet 10y ago
Is this the groundbreaking journalism that involved publishing a private sex tape? I'm confused. Do I need to know the political opinions of people having their privacy invaded, or can I safely assume leaking private photos and videos is okay when it's a man, but the most heinous thing ever when it's a woman?
- draw_down 10y ago
  I don't think there's a side worth picking here. Gawker are turds, Thiel too.
- dang 10y ago
  "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
bronz 10y ago
gawker put tesla on a death watch. they exploited their struggle and heartbreak, their endeavour to make the world a better place, for clicks. they hosted a video of hulk hogan having sex on their website despite him not wanting them to. maybe people dont realize just how fucked up that is because people tend to dehumanize celebrities. these are not journalists. these people are fucking scum. good riddance. the fact that a billionaire funded hogans case doesnt bother me at all. it reminds me more of bill gates funding malaria research than anything. another parasite wiped out for the betterment of humanity. all the people saying this is creepy because its a billionaire shutting down journalism -- dont make me laugh. these werent journalists. and they sealed their own doom by doing things that were not only mean and cruel but super illegal. they did this to themselves. hogan was going to win that case no matter what. i would have donated to his case given the opportunity.
- chatmasta 10y ago
  Is Gawker the root of the problem, or a symptom of a larger one? Perhaps the problem is that people will ingest and internalize information from anywhere, without putting it through any sort of critical-thinking funnel. They let themselves become so convinced of something they read on gawker, that they actually try to convince other people it's true. To put it another way: sure, good riddance to gawker. But what's to stop its successor? You may not like gawker, and your reasons may be valid, rational, or even altruistic. But you cannot dictate the will of its audience. What gives anyone, government or otherwise, the right to stop information at its source? If you want to lessen the power of information, regardless of how "right" you think it is, the best way to invest your time or money is into teaching people how to think critically, and also why to think critically. Unfortunately it's quite difficult to teach on that subject when you're silencing an opinion from one side of your mouth, and preaching critical thinking from the other.
  - analognoise 10y ago
    I think you can silence the opinion of fuckwits like Gawker without losing the ability to teach critical thinking. In fact, the silence might be better for studying.
guelo 10y ago
Peter Thiel is a delegate for Trump. I for one welcome our new asshole billionaire overlords. They've meritocratically proven that they're better than us and they deserve it.
maxlybbert 10y ago
When people say the signal to noise ratio is bad, articles like this are in the "noise" side of the statement.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  So are posts like yours (and this one for that matter)
- maxlybbert 10y ago
  I didn't expect to get downvoted so much. I never would have thought of Hacker News as the place to learn about a former celebrity, a sex tape, and the fact that the celebrity's friend helped pay for a lawsuit against an Internet-only tabloid (OMG!).
jgalt212 10y ago
Here's how it looks to me: A very big bully (Thiel) beating up a medium sized bulley (Gawker). I hate bullies.
whyenot 10y ago
Setting aside the specifics of this particular publisher (Valleywag) and their criticisms of Thiel, it's very disturbing that someone with deep pockets can work to secretly take out critical media like this.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  How is it any different from the unlimited ways they can use their money to influence things? This is far less concerning than how lobbying works in the US, how polticians get paid absurd speaking fees by companies who benefit tremendously from said politcian, or how they can funnel unlimited amounts of money into super PACs to promote whatever candidate they want. They can buy entire media outlets and make their reporting biased in favor of whatever opinions they have. Funding a valid, founded lawsuit against an entity they don't like is pretty far down the list of disturbing things for them to do with their money. This isn't even as bad as buying up patents and trolling companies for settlements which happens all the time.
- leohutson 10y ago
  Gawker took themselves out by putting a sex tape on their website without the consent of the people appearing in it. Perhaps Theil helped the process along, but he wouldn't have been able to do so if they hadn't been so reckless.
Pinatubo 10y ago
Why would Thiel need to fund this lawsuit in the first place? Don't lawyers usually take cases with the potential for a multi-million dollar payoff on a contingency basis? Edit: Apparently there's another rumor that the Hulkster refused a generous settlement from Gawker in favor of taking his chances at trial. If true, the Thiel rumor would make more sense.
- akanet 10y ago
  Do good engineers take their salary entirely in equity? In both cases, despite high payoffs, there is extreme variability in outcome. Running a serious lawsuit is very expensive.
  - Pinatubo 10y ago
    Taking large cases on contingency is exactly the business model of many law firms. They don't charge the client directly, and take about 50% of the payout, plus legal fees if the court awards it. The firms take on multiple cases at once so they can afford to lose some. Accepting funding from an outside party reduces the risk of making nothing, but eliminates the big payoff. Most serious law firms wouldn't take that deal. Was the firm in this case very small? That's the only way this rumor would make sense. Even then, why wouldn't Thiel just point the Hulkster to a big law firm that could handle the case without help?
- chatmasta 10y ago
  He obviously has a personal vendetta against gawker. And hey, fair enough. They weren't exactly nice to him. But then, tabloids aren't very nice to Hollywood celebrities either. Yet celebrities in Hollywood tolerate their detractors far more than Thiel even has to tolerate his.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zardgiv 10y ago
Dude, your most recent comments on HN are defending Moldbug. This puts to lie any free speech argument there, so just say you're happy because Gawker is a bunch of SJWs and move on.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I have no love for his political views (or even computing views, for the most part), but has Yarvis/Moldbug ever defamed someone or published private videos? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy.
  - zardgiv 10y ago
    Nah, he just talked about how some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being good slaves. Seems to be a weird set of priorities where that is deserving of free speech protection, but Gawker as an actual press organization needs to be silenced.
- Goladus 10y ago
  Dredging my comment history for rhetorical ammunition is rather creepy. I defended Moldbug's right to free speech because I saw no credible argument that he deserved to be punished for it. I did get angry at the smugness of tptacek's dishonesty, which was obvious to me a priori. That was a moment of weakness on my part but has nothing to do with my choice to defend Moldbug, which I stand by until I am persuaded otherwise. > so just say you're happy because Gawker is a bunch of SJWs and move on. That is also true but I yet attempt to be objective and rational in the (rapidly dwindling) hope that reason and discourse will prevail over the coercion and dishonesty of culture warfare.
  - zardgiv 10y ago
    It's pretty clear that "objective and rational" is a cover for you to reinforce your existing beliefs, rather than any sort of critical thinking, but, hey, you do you.
    - 10y ago
6stringmerc 10y ago
My perspective is this won't have a chilling effect on real journalism. This, to me, simply re-iterates the ingrained expectations of conduct that journalism attempts to envelop and embrace as a profession. There are newsworthy stories, and there is muck raking. They are different, and on completely different ends of the integrity scale. Personally I like that the courts are a venue for recourse when there is perceived harm; sure, things could be improved mechanics wise but at least there's an attempt at "checks and balances" the way laws are written.

138 points by dogecoinbase 10y ago

I'm betting it was Thiel himself who called the tip into Sorkin.

nibs 10y ago

“Valleywag is the Silicon Valley equivalent of Al Qaeda,” - Peter Thiel, 2009. Always playing the long game. Also nice 0-1 creative use of litigation court as investment vehicle and vessel for cultural change and constitutional rights all in one.

untog 10y ago
Oh that we could all live in a world where the most terroristic organisation in our lives is... Valleywag.

Analemma_ 10y ago

(Reposting here since I'm not sure which submission on new is going to "win") Sure does make this line in Thiel's Wikipedia page a bit awkward: "The Thiel Foundation is also a supporter of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which promotes the right of journalists to report the news freely without fear of reprisal" Oh, but I'm sure this wasn't reprisal against Gawker (and specifically Valleywag, which was always extremely critical of libertarian VC techbros in general and Thiel in particular), he was just so moved by the plight of a pro wrestler suffering immensely from a leaked sex tape. Look, I'll get out in front of people accusing me of bias and just say it: I've always hated Thiel. I hate his politics, the behavior of several of the companies he founded, and his smarmy "drop out of college!" advice. But even if you don't share my bile, you should be deeply disturbed by the fact that at least one Silicon Valley billionaire is talking about freedom and innovation with one side of his mouth, while using his money to try and destroy insufficiently sycophantic press outlets. We're moving ever-closer to a world where our industry leaders are not very distinguishable from 19th century robber barons (maybe not to you, but increasingly to the general public)

FeepingCreature 10y ago
Look, I sort of get where you're coming from but this wasn't exactly Snowden here.
DKnoll 10y ago
Please do not equate publishing the sex tape of an unwitting victim with freedom of the press... or Gawker bloggers with journalists, for that matter. I don't agree or disagree with your statements about Thiel as I don't know enough about him to form an opinion, but Gawker seems to very clearly be in the wrong here. If Thiel in any way helped justice to be served here, for whatever motive, good on him.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  > but Gawker seems to very clearly be in the wrong here That's not really relevant to my point. Even if Gawker was completely wrong to do what they did, why did Thiel pick that case to donate to? Plenty of people file lawsuits just as valid as Hulk Hogan's every day. Or why didn't he file an amicus curiae? This is clearly an attempt to destroy press he has a grudge against, which is alarming even if the specific lawsuit he picked was a valid one and the defendants were "Gawker bloggers". Look at the bigger picture.
  - DKnoll 10y ago
    I am looking at the bigger picture, and what I see is that those who wield extraordinary power, whether it be financial, political or otherwise, rarely use it purely in defense of the 'greater good.' However, sometimes their pragmatism serves it by coincidence and I'm willing to celebrate when that happens.
  - MrMullen 10y ago
    The Hulk Hogan case must have hit a ratio of how much money would Thiel have put up vs probability of success and damage to Gawker. Having a sex tape made and leaked without permission is an easy win. And why would Thiel file an amicus curiae? He can pay for Hulk's lawyer and if the case is thrown out, Thiel does not get outed as Hulks sponsor. If he wins, he might get a portion of the money, which most likely will not happen, but most importantly he gets to crush an enemy.

colinbartlett 10y ago

Is there a non-Forbes source? I'm not turning off my ad blocker.

ParadoxOryx 10y ago
It's on archive.is - http://archive.is/JK6N7 http://archive.is/JK6N7

untog 10y ago

This is another one of those situations you can excuse away through specific context (Valleywag did plenty of crappy things) but the broader play here is worrying: billionaire finances lawsuits he has nothing to do with, in order to take down media entity that he dislikes. I try not to think about the specifics and look at the broader precedent something like this sets and... erk. EDIT: all specifics aside, I think what bothers me most is that he can do this in secret. We only found out because of, wait for it, the media. Maybe he'll fund cases against Forbes next?

RickS 10y ago
Devil's Advocate: If the court system is presumed to be functional here, billionaire is funding a just outcome that could not otherwise come to pass.
- untog 10y ago
  That feels like a big presumption. The court system often seems to operate on a "biggest pockets wins" basis.
  - adventured 10y ago
    Bigger pockets than Gawker Media? Gawker was very easily able to afford its own defense - it's the damages they couldn't afford. Can you explain how the bigger pockets dictated the Bollea outcome? It looked like the just outcome to me.
    - untog 10y ago
      > Bigger pockets than Gawker Media? Er, yes. Billionaire Peter Thiel has considerably bigger pockets than Gawker Media. But that's not really my point, I was talking in general terms. The court system is not reliable enough that it will always find the right outcome no matter what.
      - waterhouse 10y ago

droopyEyelids 10y ago

Here is something else Thiel financed http://twitter.com/italkyoubored/status/730470870360203265 http://twitter.com/italkyoubored/status/730470870360203265

exolymph 10y ago
My estimation of him just dropped to a new low. How cruel.

eugeneionesco 10y ago

Good.

kevinpet 10y ago

Is this the groundbreaking journalism that involved publishing a private sex tape? I'm confused. Do I need to know the political opinions of people having their privacy invaded, or can I safely assume leaking private photos and videos is okay when it's a man, but the most heinous thing ever when it's a woman?

draw_down 10y ago
I don't think there's a side worth picking here. Gawker are turds, Thiel too.
dang 10y ago
"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bronz 10y ago

gawker put tesla on a death watch. they exploited their struggle and heartbreak, their endeavour to make the world a better place, for clicks. they hosted a video of hulk hogan having sex on their website despite him not wanting them to. maybe people dont realize just how fucked up that is because people tend to dehumanize celebrities. these are not journalists. these people are fucking scum. good riddance. the fact that a billionaire funded hogans case doesnt bother me at all. it reminds me more of bill gates funding malaria research than anything. another parasite wiped out for the betterment of humanity. all the people saying this is creepy because its a billionaire shutting down journalism -- dont make me laugh. these werent journalists. and they sealed their own doom by doing things that were not only mean and cruel but super illegal. they did this to themselves. hogan was going to win that case no matter what. i would have donated to his case given the opportunity.

chatmasta 10y ago
Is Gawker the root of the problem, or a symptom of a larger one? Perhaps the problem is that people will ingest and internalize information from anywhere, without putting it through any sort of critical-thinking funnel. They let themselves become so convinced of something they read on gawker, that they actually try to convince other people it's true. To put it another way: sure, good riddance to gawker. But what's to stop its successor? You may not like gawker, and your reasons may be valid, rational, or even altruistic. But you cannot dictate the will of its audience. What gives anyone, government or otherwise, the right to stop information at its source? If you want to lessen the power of information, regardless of how "right" you think it is, the best way to invest your time or money is into teaching people how to think critically, and also why to think critically. Unfortunately it's quite difficult to teach on that subject when you're silencing an opinion from one side of your mouth, and preaching critical thinking from the other.
- analognoise 10y ago
  I think you can silence the opinion of fuckwits like Gawker without losing the ability to teach critical thinking. In fact, the silence might be better for studying.

guelo 10y ago

Peter Thiel is a delegate for Trump. I for one welcome our new asshole billionaire overlords. They've meritocratically proven that they're better than us and they deserve it.

maxlybbert 10y ago

When people say the signal to noise ratio is bad, articles like this are in the "noise" side of the statement.

throwaway2048 10y ago
So are posts like yours (and this one for that matter)
maxlybbert 10y ago
I didn't expect to get downvoted so much. I never would have thought of Hacker News as the place to learn about a former celebrity, a sex tape, and the fact that the celebrity's friend helped pay for a lawsuit against an Internet-only tabloid (OMG!).

jgalt212 10y ago

Here's how it looks to me: A very big bully (Thiel) beating up a medium sized bulley (Gawker). I hate bullies.

whyenot 10y ago

Setting aside the specifics of this particular publisher (Valleywag) and their criticisms of Thiel, it's very disturbing that someone with deep pockets can work to secretly take out critical media like this.

whamlastxmas 10y ago
How is it any different from the unlimited ways they can use their money to influence things? This is far less concerning than how lobbying works in the US, how polticians get paid absurd speaking fees by companies who benefit tremendously from said politcian, or how they can funnel unlimited amounts of money into super PACs to promote whatever candidate they want. They can buy entire media outlets and make their reporting biased in favor of whatever opinions they have. Funding a valid, founded lawsuit against an entity they don't like is pretty far down the list of disturbing things for them to do with their money. This isn't even as bad as buying up patents and trolling companies for settlements which happens all the time.
leohutson 10y ago
Gawker took themselves out by putting a sex tape on their website without the consent of the people appearing in it. Perhaps Theil helped the process along, but he wouldn't have been able to do so if they hadn't been so reckless.

Pinatubo 10y ago

Why would Thiel need to fund this lawsuit in the first place? Don't lawyers usually take cases with the potential for a multi-million dollar payoff on a contingency basis? Edit: Apparently there's another rumor that the Hulkster refused a generous settlement from Gawker in favor of taking his chances at trial. If true, the Thiel rumor would make more sense.

akanet 10y ago
Do good engineers take their salary entirely in equity? In both cases, despite high payoffs, there is extreme variability in outcome. Running a serious lawsuit is very expensive.
- Pinatubo 10y ago
  Taking large cases on contingency is exactly the business model of many law firms. They don't charge the client directly, and take about 50% of the payout, plus legal fees if the court awards it. The firms take on multiple cases at once so they can afford to lose some. Accepting funding from an outside party reduces the risk of making nothing, but eliminates the big payoff. Most serious law firms wouldn't take that deal. Was the firm in this case very small? That's the only way this rumor would make sense. Even then, why wouldn't Thiel just point the Hulkster to a big law firm that could handle the case without help?
chatmasta 10y ago
He obviously has a personal vendetta against gawker. And hey, fair enough. They weren't exactly nice to him. But then, tabloids aren't very nice to Hollywood celebrities either. Yet celebrities in Hollywood tolerate their detractors far more than Thiel even has to tolerate his.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

zardgiv 10y ago

Dude, your most recent comments on HN are defending Moldbug. This puts to lie any free speech argument there, so just say you're happy because Gawker is a bunch of SJWs and move on.

icebraining 10y ago
I have no love for his political views (or even computing views, for the most part), but has Yarvis/Moldbug ever defamed someone or published private videos? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy.
- zardgiv 10y ago
  Nah, he just talked about how some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being good slaves. Seems to be a weird set of priorities where that is deserving of free speech protection, but Gawker as an actual press organization needs to be silenced.
Goladus 10y ago
Dredging my comment history for rhetorical ammunition is rather creepy. I defended Moldbug's right to free speech because I saw no credible argument that he deserved to be punished for it. I did get angry at the smugness of tptacek's dishonesty, which was obvious to me a priori. That was a moment of weakness on my part but has nothing to do with my choice to defend Moldbug, which I stand by until I am persuaded otherwise. > so just say you're happy because Gawker is a bunch of SJWs and move on. That is also true but I yet attempt to be objective and rational in the (rapidly dwindling) hope that reason and discourse will prevail over the coercion and dishonesty of culture warfare.
- zardgiv 10y ago
  It's pretty clear that "objective and rational" is a cover for you to reinforce your existing beliefs, rather than any sort of critical thinking, but, hey, you do you.
  - 10y ago

6stringmerc 10y ago

My perspective is this won't have a chilling effect on real journalism. This, to me, simply re-iterates the ingrained expectations of conduct that journalism attempts to envelop and embrace as a profession. There are newsworthy stories, and there is muck raking. They are different, and on completely different ends of the integrity scale. Personally I like that the courts are a venue for recourse when there is perceived harm; sure, things could be improved mechanics wise but at least there's an attempt at "checks and balances" the way laws are written.