6 ms·

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 worryi

by 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
        If one side can afford a decent lawyer and the other can't, sure, the money probably makes a big difference. If one side can afford a great lawyer and the other can only afford a decent lawyer, maybe. If both sides can afford great lawyers... are there amazing lawyers who are that much better than great lawyers? It seems to me like, beyond a certain point, having deeper pockets wouldn't really make a difference, and the case would be determined on ... its merits, and the choice of judge, and the choice of jury, and possibly other considerations. Well, the point is, it wouldn't be the money.
        tomc1985 10y ago
        Idunno, with the law as complex as it is, and with civil procedure being as complex as it is, it seems like there is so much room to grow as a lawyer that I'm sure they have a similar 10x distinction, as in programming
  - Goladus 10y ago
    Media can also corrupt the courts. Have you seen "Making a Murderer?"
    - icelancer 10y ago
      Just as it seems it corrupts public opinion. Have you read the facts behind the documentary that were very skewed in one direction?
      - Goladus 10y ago
        I have. Unless there's something new in the last few months, they left some things out that might sway my opinion (slightly) about whether Avery actually committed a crime but nothing that would sway my opinion on how the system treated him and whether the police and attorneys involved were engaged in corruption. In fact based on additional readings I'd actually add "incompetent judges" to the list of government faults and failures.
- CPLX 10y ago
  If you want an example of how the civil court system can easily be subverted to harass people to malicious ends that are bad for society, just look no further than Scientology. Which is only one of the best of many examples.
bishnu 10y ago
There is nothing remotely precedent setting about what Thiel is doing here. Billionaires have long used courts to silence dissent [0][1]. [0] - http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... [1] - https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/06/11/steelback_ceo_sues_sports_blogger.html https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/06/11/steelback_ceo_sues_s...
CPLX 10y ago
This story has little to do with fairness and justice and everything to do with power. It's this shameless exercise of hidden power by a prominent member of the billionaire class that is deeply scary. When you discover someone with way too much power and accountable to no one wielding it, it can and should be terrifying. It doesn't actually matter that much how much the victim of that power deserves it. This is a bad sign for our culture.
- Goladus 10y ago
  What happened was that power gave fairness and justice a chance.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    The penalty was bizarrely sized considering the damages suffered. Companies regularly suffer less hurt from killing people.
    - Goladus 10y ago
      They still have a chance to appeal the judgment.
    - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
      The penalty was chosen after the defense did nearly everything possible to sabotage their own case and paint themselves in an unsympathetic light. It's rather telling that the jury awarded damages in excess of what the plaintiff asked for.
adventured 10y ago
It doesn't set any broader precedent at all. Tycoons have been supporting or destroying news and media companies for more than a century, based on whim or bias or any number of reasons. There is absolutely nothing new or precedent setting about what Thiel is doing. A billionaire taking down Gawker is no worse than the (formerly) billion dollar Gawker Media corporation taking down Terry Bollea. It's all ugly, and it's all meaningless in broader terms - other than potentially setting a positive precedent that companies like Gawker aren't allowed to violate a person's privacy the way they did.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  At no point has Gawker Media ever been close to a billion dollar corporation. They only did $40M -revenue- at peak.
mst 10y ago
I agree that the broader play is worrying, but "Billionaire finances lawsuit of another victim of assholes who tried to out him as gay" makes it very hard for me to be upset at the instance. The generalisation of this instance scares the fuck out of me nonetheless.
s_m_t 10y ago
What exactly is the broader precedent here? That media outlets shouldn't collaborate with sexual predators for profit? If Gawker is allowed to do this then why shouldn't they be allowed to pay for a similar tape? Hell, if it's fair game they should be able to pay in advance. They could even have sexual predators on retainer :)
- untog 10y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. Like I said, you can look at the specifics, like the sexual nature of this particular case, and make a judgement based on that, but I'm personally very wary of doing so. Especially when it involves sex, which is not an area any of us are particularly rational with.
  - xviia 10y ago
    I hate when people use the specifics! For instance, I was saying that the police shouldn't be allowed to arrest people. In fact, the state has no right to jail anyone. Then, somebody came along and said, "In this case, they proved that he had murdered that person. And the murderer confessed on camera, too! In that case the state should be allowed to jail them." And I was like, "What are you doing there, using specifics? My point is that, in general, the state shouldn't be allowed to jail anyone! Especially in general cases of murder, which few of us are familiar with."
    - untog 10y ago
      Sigh. There's relying on specifics, and there is abstracting ideas to such a broad point that the entire debate is meaningless. You and I both know there is a middle ground. EDIT: eugh, forget it. I dislike how argumentative I end up being on HN. Such a waste of productive time. Overdue adding an entry to my hosts file...
  - Goladus 10y ago
    > I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. I get your point. That is a valid broader context, but as I wrote above it is not the only one. Gawker is a media organization that gets away with attacking anyone whenever they want for any motive at all and are shielded from consequences by hiding behind their status as a "media organization" despite having no journalistic standards to speak of. Which is worse, media organizations abusing people without the means or resources to fight back, or billionaires funding lawsuits against media organizations? You're imagining the danger of a billionaire with a personal vendetta against Gawker. I'm imagining staff writers at Gawker on power trips publishing hit pieces that barely toe the line of libel and getting normal people fired for clicks.
drumdance 10y ago
Class action lawsuits can cost lots of money and are frequently financed by investors. In a sense they're not much different than Silicon Valley startups. And in the US the media has much more latitude than in many other countries, so it's a much riskier bet for a financier.
Goladus 10y ago
> This is another one of those situations you can excuse away through specific context (Valleywag did plenty of crappy things) No, that is the broader context. Gawker being allowed to flagrantly abuse their first amendment rights to invade privacy for clicks is the broader context. They're the ones setting the precedent. If you truly care about the free exchange of ideas then you know that Gawker is the enemy. Someone had to stop them. The longer the system let them run amok violating every journalistic standard that ever existed, the worse the correction was going to be in the end. Precedent-wise, it could have been far, far worse.
- zardgiv 10y ago
  They were "abusing their freedom of speech rights?" That's a pretty narrow view of freedom of speech. Unsurprising, though, since it's an organization you disagree with. But I hope I'm not abusing my first amendment rights here...
  - Goladus 10y ago
    > I hope I'm not abusing my first amendment rights here... You aren't posting a sex tape of me without my permission, right? I consider willful defamation to be an abuse of free speech rights, yes. Here is an example: https://archive.is/sGKOF https://archive.is/sGKOF Biddle is protected either because he never technically lies or because Temkin might be considered a "Public Figure." But either way, Biddle's article is written explicitly to persuade a reader that Temkin is guilty of a specific crime in reckless disregard for the truth, and a significant amount of Temkin's status as a public figure derives from the accusation itself. > since it's an organization you disagree with In a world where media lies with moral hazard, individuals will have no choice but to pick sides. But speaking of that, what's your opinion on the Jennifer Lawrence nudes? Is that free speech?
oneloop 10y ago
> 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. Is it? I think it's a lot more worrying the fact that I can only have the protection of the law of if I have a lot of money. If a billionaire helps me with the bills, what's wrong with that?

by untog 10y ago

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
      If one side can afford a decent lawyer and the other can't, sure, the money probably makes a big difference. If one side can afford a great lawyer and the other can only afford a decent lawyer, maybe. If both sides can afford great lawyers... are there amazing lawyers who are that much better than great lawyers? It seems to me like, beyond a certain point, having deeper pockets wouldn't really make a difference, and the case would be determined on ... its merits, and the choice of judge, and the choice of jury, and possibly other considerations. Well, the point is, it wouldn't be the money.
      - tomc1985 10y ago
        Idunno, with the law as complex as it is, and with civil procedure being as complex as it is, it seems like there is so much room to grow as a lawyer that I'm sure they have a similar 10x distinction, as in programming
- Goladus 10y ago
  Media can also corrupt the courts. Have you seen "Making a Murderer?"
  - icelancer 10y ago
    Just as it seems it corrupts public opinion. Have you read the facts behind the documentary that were very skewed in one direction?
    - Goladus 10y ago
      I have. Unless there's something new in the last few months, they left some things out that might sway my opinion (slightly) about whether Avery actually committed a crime but nothing that would sway my opinion on how the system treated him and whether the police and attorneys involved were engaged in corruption. In fact based on additional readings I'd actually add "incompetent judges" to the list of government faults and failures.
CPLX 10y ago
If you want an example of how the civil court system can easily be subverted to harass people to malicious ends that are bad for society, just look no further than Scientology. Which is only one of the best of many examples.

bishnu 10y ago

There is nothing remotely precedent setting about what Thiel is doing here. Billionaires have long used courts to silence dissent [0][1]. [0] - http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... [1] - https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/06/11/steelback_ceo_sues_sports_blogger.html https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/06/11/steelback_ceo_sues_s...

CPLX 10y ago

This story has little to do with fairness and justice and everything to do with power. It's this shameless exercise of hidden power by a prominent member of the billionaire class that is deeply scary. When you discover someone with way too much power and accountable to no one wielding it, it can and should be terrifying. It doesn't actually matter that much how much the victim of that power deserves it. This is a bad sign for our culture.

Goladus 10y ago
What happened was that power gave fairness and justice a chance.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  The penalty was bizarrely sized considering the damages suffered. Companies regularly suffer less hurt from killing people.
  - Goladus 10y ago
    They still have a chance to appeal the judgment.
  - GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
    The penalty was chosen after the defense did nearly everything possible to sabotage their own case and paint themselves in an unsympathetic light. It's rather telling that the jury awarded damages in excess of what the plaintiff asked for.

adventured 10y ago

It doesn't set any broader precedent at all. Tycoons have been supporting or destroying news and media companies for more than a century, based on whim or bias or any number of reasons. There is absolutely nothing new or precedent setting about what Thiel is doing. A billionaire taking down Gawker is no worse than the (formerly) billion dollar Gawker Media corporation taking down Terry Bollea. It's all ugly, and it's all meaningless in broader terms - other than potentially setting a positive precedent that companies like Gawker aren't allowed to violate a person's privacy the way they did.

FireBeyond 10y ago
At no point has Gawker Media ever been close to a billion dollar corporation. They only did $40M -revenue- at peak.

mst 10y ago

I agree that the broader play is worrying, but "Billionaire finances lawsuit of another victim of assholes who tried to out him as gay" makes it very hard for me to be upset at the instance. The generalisation of this instance scares the fuck out of me nonetheless.

s_m_t 10y ago

What exactly is the broader precedent here? That media outlets shouldn't collaborate with sexual predators for profit? If Gawker is allowed to do this then why shouldn't they be allowed to pay for a similar tape? Hell, if it's fair game they should be able to pay in advance. They could even have sexual predators on retainer :)

untog 10y ago
I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. Like I said, you can look at the specifics, like the sexual nature of this particular case, and make a judgement based on that, but I'm personally very wary of doing so. Especially when it involves sex, which is not an area any of us are particularly rational with.
- xviia 10y ago
  I hate when people use the specifics! For instance, I was saying that the police shouldn't be allowed to arrest people. In fact, the state has no right to jail anyone. Then, somebody came along and said, "In this case, they proved that he had murdered that person. And the murderer confessed on camera, too! In that case the state should be allowed to jail them." And I was like, "What are you doing there, using specifics? My point is that, in general, the state shouldn't be allowed to jail anyone! Especially in general cases of murder, which few of us are familiar with."
  - untog 10y ago
    Sigh. There's relying on specifics, and there is abstracting ideas to such a broad point that the entire debate is meaningless. You and I both know there is a middle ground. EDIT: eugh, forget it. I dislike how argumentative I end up being on HN. Such a waste of productive time. Overdue adding an entry to my hosts file...
- Goladus 10y ago
  > I'm not sure if you're being obtuse here, but the broader precedent is exactly what I outlined in my original post: that a billionaire can anonymously attack a media organisation he doesn't like. I get your point. That is a valid broader context, but as I wrote above it is not the only one. Gawker is a media organization that gets away with attacking anyone whenever they want for any motive at all and are shielded from consequences by hiding behind their status as a "media organization" despite having no journalistic standards to speak of. Which is worse, media organizations abusing people without the means or resources to fight back, or billionaires funding lawsuits against media organizations? You're imagining the danger of a billionaire with a personal vendetta against Gawker. I'm imagining staff writers at Gawker on power trips publishing hit pieces that barely toe the line of libel and getting normal people fired for clicks.

drumdance 10y ago

Class action lawsuits can cost lots of money and are frequently financed by investors. In a sense they're not much different than Silicon Valley startups. And in the US the media has much more latitude than in many other countries, so it's a much riskier bet for a financier.

Goladus 10y ago

> This is another one of those situations you can excuse away through specific context (Valleywag did plenty of crappy things) No, that is the broader context. Gawker being allowed to flagrantly abuse their first amendment rights to invade privacy for clicks is the broader context. They're the ones setting the precedent. If you truly care about the free exchange of ideas then you know that Gawker is the enemy. Someone had to stop them. The longer the system let them run amok violating every journalistic standard that ever existed, the worse the correction was going to be in the end. Precedent-wise, it could have been far, far worse.

zardgiv 10y ago
They were "abusing their freedom of speech rights?" That's a pretty narrow view of freedom of speech. Unsurprising, though, since it's an organization you disagree with. But I hope I'm not abusing my first amendment rights here...
- Goladus 10y ago
  > I hope I'm not abusing my first amendment rights here... You aren't posting a sex tape of me without my permission, right? I consider willful defamation to be an abuse of free speech rights, yes. Here is an example: https://archive.is/sGKOF https://archive.is/sGKOF Biddle is protected either because he never technically lies or because Temkin might be considered a "Public Figure." But either way, Biddle's article is written explicitly to persuade a reader that Temkin is guilty of a specific crime in reckless disregard for the truth, and a significant amount of Temkin's status as a public figure derives from the accusation itself. > since it's an organization you disagree with In a world where media lies with moral hazard, individuals will have no choice but to pick sides. But speaking of that, what's your opinion on the Jennifer Lawrence nudes? Is that free speech?

oneloop 10y ago

> 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. Is it? I think it's a lot more worrying the fact that I can only have the protection of the law of if I have a lot of money. If a billionaire helps me with the bills, what's wrong with that?