4 ms·

Thiel's approach is scary. He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win - he just has to consume enough of a media company's money to force them out of b

by pm24601 10y ago

Thiel's approach is scary. He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win - he just has to consume enough of a media company's money to force them out of business. Many major stories that made it big in the national news start off as a local or small paper doing the initial reporting. (For example the Flint, Mi lead water) These papers have such tiny budgets that they can easily be silenced.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win - he just has to consume enough of a media company's money to force them out of business That's theoretically true - after all, it's the same way patent trolling works. But he hasn't actually proven that yet, since he did win a juried verdict (with punitive damages, on top of that). That's about as clear-cut a decision as our legal system can provide (before getting to the appellate level).
- PlainsWight 10y ago
  To be fair, this is the only one of his suits against Gawker that he's disclosed having funded, so it's quite difficult to judge their overall merits.
CyberDildonics 10y ago
Did you read the article? That is how tabloids end up printing false stories about people and defending themselves.
theoracle101 10y ago
How is this any different than Gawker using the legal system as a defense strategy? They print whatever they want, and good luck suing them, they'll wear you out in long legal battles with their deep pockets. The only difference this time is they picked on a bully with bigger pockets.
- internaut 10y ago
  I've seen this question asked about a dozen times now on HN and nobody is even attempting to answer it. It's all handwaving madly so the flaws in their reasoning aren't spotted. That remains my position until a good argument gets presented that isn't all over the place with logic leaps.
brc 10y ago
That is the whole point of punitive damages though. The big awards are a punishment of the person or company which lose. Plenty of environmentalists would be happy if an oil company got sued into bankruptcy over a spill. It's the way of the courts, really.

by pm24601 10y ago

chimeracoder 10y ago

> He is basically proving that he doesn't have to win - he just has to consume enough of a media company's money to force them out of business That's theoretically true - after all, it's the same way patent trolling works. But he hasn't actually proven that yet, since he did win a juried verdict (with punitive damages, on top of that). That's about as clear-cut a decision as our legal system can provide (before getting to the appellate level).

PlainsWight 10y ago
To be fair, this is the only one of his suits against Gawker that he's disclosed having funded, so it's quite difficult to judge their overall merits.

CyberDildonics 10y ago

Did you read the article? That is how tabloids end up printing false stories about people and defending themselves.

theoracle101 10y ago

How is this any different than Gawker using the legal system as a defense strategy? They print whatever they want, and good luck suing them, they'll wear you out in long legal battles with their deep pockets. The only difference this time is they picked on a bully with bigger pockets.

internaut 10y ago
I've seen this question asked about a dozen times now on HN and nobody is even attempting to answer it. It's all handwaving madly so the flaws in their reasoning aren't spotted. That remains my position until a good argument gets presented that isn't all over the place with logic leaps.

brc 10y ago

That is the whole point of punitive damages though. The big awards are a punishment of the person or company which lose. Plenty of environmentalists would be happy if an oil company got sued into bankruptcy over a spill. It's the way of the courts, really.