6 ms·

Peter Thiel Is Said to Bankroll Hulk Hogan’s Suit Against Gawker

29 points by zdean 10y ago

mfringel 10y ago
The primary issue I have is that it's.... small. Of all the things that he could use his money and power on, it's garden-variety petty vengeance. Of course, it's his money and time. He can do whatever he wants with them. It just seems like poor prioritization.
mchanson 10y ago
Very mixed feelings on this.
mc32 10y ago
So? What's wrong with that? Gawker is predatory in terms of how they approach "news". I'm glad they got hit back in kind (someone with resources took on their legal resources). I'm not sure they have enough redeeming qualities to overcome their bottomfeeding approach.
- RankingMember 10y ago
  It just feels shady, an "anonymous benefactor" who's actually funding a legal assault he'd otherwise have no involvement in simply because he has an axe to grind. I agree with your feelings re: Gawker Media though- they're basically on par with Buzzfeed in my mind.
  - rospaya 10y ago
    Buzzfeed has a lot of excellent reporting and long form articles. I'm surprised that they're shamed on HN of all places, when they've found a great business model where they take money from clickbait to finance good journalism.
    - RankingMember 10y ago
      The "tak[ing] money from clickbait" is precisely the problem. Reputation matters.
  - thesehands 10y ago
    I used to not think a great deal of Buzzed given the clickbait heavy articles/links but they have done some interesting investigative work, notably tennis matches they found using statistical analysis to have been thrown. Admittedly I think I saw the link for that on here..
    - pmarreck 10y ago
      Got this link? Sounds interesting!
      - thesehands 10y ago
        https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket
  - mc32 10y ago
    But this "anonymous" benefactor happens more often than we think. Lots of times its someone indigent who gets a pro-bono lawyer or gets backing from interested parties to establish precedent --or to prevent precedent. I think the only newsworthiness in this comes from the "billionaire" adjective.
- rospaya 10y ago
  Gawker is crap, but it's awful seeing vengeful billionaires throwing money to suppress journalists.
  - xviia 10y ago
    In this case, the "journalists" posted a sex tape recorded without the consent of the person, and with no journalistic value other than to smear the person involved.
RankingMember 10y ago
So Peter's basically choke-slamming Gawker because they outed him as gay earlier on. I'm conflicted because I think Gawker is a click-bait cesspool, but at the same time feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for vengeance fueling a legal offensive.
- jfoster 10y ago
  It's only really concerning if you're looking to apply very broad principles to it. If you look at the full circumstances (what Gawker do, what they did to Peter, what they did to Hulk) then I think it becomes a bit easier to swallow.
- kbenson 10y ago
  How does the fuel matter? The case has legal merit or it doesn't. If you are assessing worth based on who is funding it, then you are looking at it the wrong way.
  - jfoster 10y ago
    There is an exception to that where the playing field is so uneven that a small entity would be bankrupted just by trying to get to a legal result in their favour. I don't mean to suggest that applies here, though.
  - mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
    That's a very naive and optimistic assessment of how our adversarial legal system works. The $$$ you bring to bear on a case matters just as much as the legal merit. Poor folks are put in jail because their overworked public defender was sleeping when they should have objected. A billion dollar company can bury a mom and pop shop with patent litigation, etc.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. The original commenter expressed that they "feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for vengeance fueling a legal offensive." If the legal offensive has merit, why does it matter who is behind it? It's one thing to express discomfort that someone if funding a frivolous lawsuit, but without some opinion on the merit of the case, I'm not sure how the involvement of money should be seen as a good thing or a bad thing.
IgorPartola 10y ago
Somewhat OT, but while I am not a reader of Gawker at all, I do enjoy posts on Jalopnic and Gizmodo quite a bit. It would be a shame if those sites got dragged down with Gawker.
6stringmerc 10y ago
I dropped this on another comment thread but think it'll apply here on the NYT take as well: 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.
detaro 10y ago
dupe, earlier and still active discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766621
- egwynn 10y ago
  No clue why you’re getting downvoted. I’ve seen at least two other (now-closed) posts about this that linked back to the original you pointed to.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jkot 10y ago
Gawker sites advocated harsh punishment for nude leaks of other celebrities. This is just holding them to their own standards.
grandalf 10y ago
If part of Gawker's strategy was that it could break the law because its victims lacked the financial resources to properly fund legal action, then Thiel is simply correcting a market failure. Ideally this would happen much more often. However Gawker has also shown some mettle in resisting DMCA takedowns for stories that I do not consider frivolous mischief. Considering how pliant and officious the mainstream press is, Gawker's overall attitude is refreshing. But it's in poor taste to out someone's private business when doing so accomplishes nothing other than embarrassing that person. The key ingredient for a respectable and effective press is a public that demands it.

29 points by zdean 10y ago

The primary issue I have is that it's.... small. Of all the things that he could use his money and power on, it's garden-variety petty vengeance. Of course, it's his money and time. He can do whatever he wants with them. It just seems like poor prioritization.

mchanson 10y ago

Very mixed feelings on this.

mc32 10y ago

So? What's wrong with that? Gawker is predatory in terms of how they approach "news". I'm glad they got hit back in kind (someone with resources took on their legal resources). I'm not sure they have enough redeeming qualities to overcome their bottomfeeding approach.

RankingMember 10y ago
It just feels shady, an "anonymous benefactor" who's actually funding a legal assault he'd otherwise have no involvement in simply because he has an axe to grind. I agree with your feelings re: Gawker Media though- they're basically on par with Buzzfeed in my mind.
- rospaya 10y ago
  Buzzfeed has a lot of excellent reporting and long form articles. I'm surprised that they're shamed on HN of all places, when they've found a great business model where they take money from clickbait to finance good journalism.
  - RankingMember 10y ago
    The "tak[ing] money from clickbait" is precisely the problem. Reputation matters.
- thesehands 10y ago
  I used to not think a great deal of Buzzed given the clickbait heavy articles/links but they have done some interesting investigative work, notably tennis matches they found using statistical analysis to have been thrown. Admittedly I think I saw the link for that on here..
  - pmarreck 10y ago
    Got this link? Sounds interesting!
    - thesehands 10y ago
      https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-tennis-racket
- mc32 10y ago
  But this "anonymous" benefactor happens more often than we think. Lots of times its someone indigent who gets a pro-bono lawyer or gets backing from interested parties to establish precedent --or to prevent precedent. I think the only newsworthiness in this comes from the "billionaire" adjective.
rospaya 10y ago
Gawker is crap, but it's awful seeing vengeful billionaires throwing money to suppress journalists.
- xviia 10y ago
  In this case, the "journalists" posted a sex tape recorded without the consent of the person, and with no journalistic value other than to smear the person involved.

RankingMember 10y ago

So Peter's basically choke-slamming Gawker because they outed him as gay earlier on. I'm conflicted because I think Gawker is a click-bait cesspool, but at the same time feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for vengeance fueling a legal offensive.

jfoster 10y ago
It's only really concerning if you're looking to apply very broad principles to it. If you look at the full circumstances (what Gawker do, what they did to Peter, what they did to Hulk) then I think it becomes a bit easier to swallow.
kbenson 10y ago
How does the fuel matter? The case has legal merit or it doesn't. If you are assessing worth based on who is funding it, then you are looking at it the wrong way.
- jfoster 10y ago
  There is an exception to that where the playing field is so uneven that a small entity would be bankrupted just by trying to get to a legal result in their favour. I don't mean to suggest that applies here, though.
- mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
  That's a very naive and optimistic assessment of how our adversarial legal system works. The $$$ you bring to bear on a case matters just as much as the legal merit. Poor folks are put in jail because their overworked public defender was sleeping when they should have objected. A billion dollar company can bury a mom and pop shop with patent litigation, etc.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. The original commenter expressed that they "feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for vengeance fueling a legal offensive." If the legal offensive has merit, why does it matter who is behind it? It's one thing to express discomfort that someone if funding a frivolous lawsuit, but without some opinion on the merit of the case, I'm not sure how the involvement of money should be seen as a good thing or a bad thing.

IgorPartola 10y ago

Somewhat OT, but while I am not a reader of Gawker at all, I do enjoy posts on Jalopnic and Gizmodo quite a bit. It would be a shame if those sites got dragged down with Gawker.

6stringmerc 10y ago

I dropped this on another comment thread but think it'll apply here on the NYT take as well: 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.

detaro 10y ago

dupe, earlier and still active discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766621

egwynn 10y ago
No clue why you’re getting downvoted. I’ve seen at least two other (now-closed) posts about this that linked back to the original you pointed to.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jkot 10y ago

Gawker sites advocated harsh punishment for nude leaks of other celebrities. This is just holding them to their own standards.

grandalf 10y ago

If part of Gawker's strategy was that it could break the law because its victims lacked the financial resources to properly fund legal action, then Thiel is simply correcting a market failure. Ideally this would happen much more often. However Gawker has also shown some mettle in resisting DMCA takedowns for stories that I do not consider frivolous mischief. Considering how pliant and officious the mainstream press is, Gawker's overall attitude is refreshing. But it's in poor taste to out someone's private business when doing so accomplishes nothing other than embarrassing that person. The key ingredient for a respectable and effective press is a public that demands it.