3 ms·
Yeah ,There are no good guys here. Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next
by mkawia 10y ago
Yeah ,There are no good guys here.
Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next
- strangecasts 10y agoYeah, it scares me that people are accepting this as "philanthropy" uncritically.
- Kristine1975 10y agoFWIW I would never have considered Thiel's actions to be philanthropy. Which is why I was so confused when reading the headline "Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy."
- TillE 10y ago> we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next Thiel didn't "punish" anyone. Gawker broke the law, and he helped hold them to account via the legal system. I don't like Thiel one tiny bit. He's a weirdo. But this is, like, the least bad thing a billionaire has ever done to infringe on "free speech". Hypothetically abusing the legal system (eg, many frivolous lawsuits) would be bad, but he hasn't actually done that.
- narrowrail 10y ago>Gawker broke the law This may seem pedantic, but Gawker didn't break the law. This is a civil case. >He's a weirdo. I don't know what to make of this, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
- dragonwriter 10y agoCivil cases involve breaking the law, too. You seem to make the error of thinking the law is limited to criminal law; but this is incorrect. So, the problem isn't that you're being pedantic, it's just that you're plain wrong.