5 ms·

"I can't believe Scott Adams holds such a crazy opinion!" -- said nobody ever. I see no reason to take sides on this debacle. Both Nick Denton and Peter Thiel

by byuu 10y ago

"I can't believe Scott Adams holds such a crazy opinion!" -- said nobody ever. I see no reason to take sides on this debacle. Both Nick Denton and Peter Thiel are guilty of absolutely awful behavior. Denton for outing people and publishing private videos; Thiel for Paypal (and its horrible practices) and using his wealth to bankroll personal vendettas. Both are happy to exploit others for their own personal gain. They deserve each other.

NhanH 10y ago
What exactly is the difference between "bankroll personal vendettas" and "fight against what you believe is bad"? The latter has to be broke and the former isn't?
- bakhy 10y ago
  if Mr Thiel wants to raise journalistic integrity standards when it comes to outing people, then the right things to do would be something like opening a public discussion, advocating some change in the law, etc. or perhaps, if he must use litigation, then focusing on suing all media that out people recklessly in this way. that would be a way more admirable approach. but this is not what Mr Thiel is doing. he is instead attacking just Gawker, for >10 years now, supporting any suit against them, and to top it all of, he is doing it secretively. the lesson the media are going to take away from this is not "we must behave morally", but rather, "we must be careful not to get any rich guy pissed at us". which is where these arguments about how Mr Thiel is hurting the freedom of the press are coming from.
- byuu 10y ago
  Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior. This has dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in journalism. If what Gawker did was illegal in outing him, he should have sued for that. If it were just morally objectionable, he should have called them on it and let the public decide how to respond. What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business." That's not a world I want to live in, regardless of what I think of Gawker (they're the internet equivalent of The National Enquirer in my eyes.) We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan Nations? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... If not, why not?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I bet it would be way less controversial if it came out that Thiel was openly funding an independent group that was focused on ethics in web journalism.
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        The problem is more the reverse scenario. EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt / silence the media outlet. The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble. This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to quell any little bit of criticism. Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if you win.)
        627467 10y ago
        "Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others"[1]. I don't know how much it's tons, but certainly not only one, and so far seems like the only non-frivolous by that definition. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kelukelugames 10y ago
I don't understand why people cite Dilbert. He is smart, but out of touch. He is also petty so it's not a surprise he supports vindictive behavior. [1] Personally, I despise Gawker and disapprove of Thiel, but if I were rich and displeased then I would do the same. How many can claim otherwise? Even a small mount of money changes people. [1]https://www.reddit.com/user/plannedchaos https://www.reddit.com/user/plannedchaos

by byuu 10y ago

NhanH 10y ago

What exactly is the difference between "bankroll personal vendettas" and "fight against what you believe is bad"? The latter has to be broke and the former isn't?

bakhy 10y ago
if Mr Thiel wants to raise journalistic integrity standards when it comes to outing people, then the right things to do would be something like opening a public discussion, advocating some change in the law, etc. or perhaps, if he must use litigation, then focusing on suing all media that out people recklessly in this way. that would be a way more admirable approach. but this is not what Mr Thiel is doing. he is instead attacking just Gawker, for >10 years now, supporting any suit against them, and to top it all of, he is doing it secretively. the lesson the media are going to take away from this is not "we must behave morally", but rather, "we must be careful not to get any rich guy pissed at us". which is where these arguments about how Mr Thiel is hurting the freedom of the press are coming from.
byuu 10y ago
Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior. This has dangerous precedent for freedom of speech in journalism. If what Gawker did was illegal in outing him, he should have sued for that. If it were just morally objectionable, he should have called them on it and let the public decide how to respond. What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire business." That's not a world I want to live in, regardless of what I think of Gawker (they're the internet equivalent of The National Enquirer in my eyes.) We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan Nations? https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan... If not, why not?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I bet it would be way less controversial if it came out that Thiel was openly funding an independent group that was focused on ethics in web journalism.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      The problem is more the reverse scenario. EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt / silence the media outlet. The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble. This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to quell any little bit of criticism. Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if you win.)
        627467 10y ago
        "Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others"[1]. I don't know how much it's tons, but certainly not only one, and so far seems like the only non-frivolous by that definition. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-th...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kelukelugames 10y ago

I don't understand why people cite Dilbert. He is smart, but out of touch. He is also petty so it's not a surprise he supports vindictive behavior. [1] Personally, I despise Gawker and disapprove of Thiel, but if I were rich and displeased then I would do the same. How many can claim otherwise? Even a small mount of money changes people. [1]https://www.reddit.com/user/plannedchaos https://www.reddit.com/user/plannedchaos