5 ms·

This is totally BS. Litigation finance has been around for years, and has been done by all kind of people and organizations for all kind of purposes. Thiel is

by plehoux 10y ago

This is totally BS. Litigation finance has been around for years, and has been done by all kind of people and organizations for all kind of purposes. Thiel is rich, he does things, there is no causality with 'tech' here. > Maybe it’s time for Silicon Valley to tone things down. To admit that, no, the Valley can’t solve all human problems -- not even close -- and never will. WTF.

sdca 10y ago
Maybe Thiel paid Hulk Hogan's lawyers through PayPal. (sarcasm level: infinity)
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  Isn't Omidyar on Gawker's side, though?
nxzero 10y ago
Tech people to tend to generically think about the world in a way; this is not an absolute, but just a pattern. Techies for example care more about access to information than the general public; to be fair, being in SV does not make you a techie.
mukmuk 10y ago
Can you point me to some examples where an individual financed litigation against a media outlet or journalist? I don't doubt they exist, but I can't think of any specifically.
- camperman 10y ago
  When quite a few individuals took News International to court between 2009 and 2011 for illegally eavesdropping on their mobile phones in the UK, a number of them had their legal costs underwritten by Max Mosely. This is just the same thing: a wealthy individual making sure that legal costs do not preclude action against Gawker.
  - mukmuk 10y ago
    Thank you. I disagree that it's "just the same thing", but it is an interesting precedent to consider and one that I was not familiar with.
    - camperman 10y ago
      It's exactly the same thing. Mosely had his privacy violated by News International. Thiel had his violated by Gawker. Mosely set up a war chest to assist those taking legal action against News International. Thiel did so for those taking action against Gawker. Both had an axe to grind with news organisations they felt were behaving badly. Both assisted individuals with legal cases that would have otherwise gone nowhere because of the high cost of the legal system. Both News International and Gawker have relied on this in the past. Where are the differences?
- DrScump 10y ago
  Not sure about the "financed" distinction, but the Alioto case pretty much put Look Magazine out of business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alioto#Political_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alioto#Political_career
further_tech 10y ago
> WTF I don't understand your indignation. Is it that obvious to you the Valley can solve ALL human problems?
- bionsuba 10y ago
  No one ever said it would. There's a term for this (I forget it now), but what this person is doing is setting up an easy target to be torn down by creating a ridiculous opinion no one has. Then the author can be seen as the victor; it's really dishonest, and it should make everyone question the veracity of the whole article.
  - actsasbuffoon 10y ago
    I believe you're looking for "Straw Man Argument": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
  - plehoux 10y ago
    This.
- actsasbuffoon 10y ago
  Not the original poster, but I read the comment differently. > Maybe it’s time for Silicon Valley to tone things down. To admit that, no, the Valley can’t solve all human problems -- not even close -- and never will. I have a few problems with this quote. First, I don't think the people of SV ever got together and said, "We're going to solve all human problems!" The author is putting words into other people's mouths in order to make them look ridiculous. Second, what does this quote have to do with the topic at hand? This is a discussion of whether or not it's okay for a billionaire to help fund someone else's litigation, and it suddenly veers into a weird attack on all of SV. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the author of the article is a paid media relations person. This probably isn't journalism, it's more likely unmarked native advertising paid for by Gawker to drum up outrage in preparation for appealing the verdict of the lawsuit. I really thought Reuters was better than this.
- cderwin 10y ago

by plehoux 10y ago

sdca 10y ago

Maybe Thiel paid Hulk Hogan's lawyers through PayPal. (sarcasm level: infinity)

saint_fiasco 10y ago
Isn't Omidyar on Gawker's side, though?

nxzero 10y ago

Tech people to tend to generically think about the world in a way; this is not an absolute, but just a pattern. Techies for example care more about access to information than the general public; to be fair, being in SV does not make you a techie.

mukmuk 10y ago

Can you point me to some examples where an individual financed litigation against a media outlet or journalist? I don't doubt they exist, but I can't think of any specifically.

camperman 10y ago
When quite a few individuals took News International to court between 2009 and 2011 for illegally eavesdropping on their mobile phones in the UK, a number of them had their legal costs underwritten by Max Mosely. This is just the same thing: a wealthy individual making sure that legal costs do not preclude action against Gawker.
- mukmuk 10y ago
  Thank you. I disagree that it's "just the same thing", but it is an interesting precedent to consider and one that I was not familiar with.
  - camperman 10y ago
    It's exactly the same thing. Mosely had his privacy violated by News International. Thiel had his violated by Gawker. Mosely set up a war chest to assist those taking legal action against News International. Thiel did so for those taking action against Gawker. Both had an axe to grind with news organisations they felt were behaving badly. Both assisted individuals with legal cases that would have otherwise gone nowhere because of the high cost of the legal system. Both News International and Gawker have relied on this in the past. Where are the differences?
DrScump 10y ago
Not sure about the "financed" distinction, but the Alioto case pretty much put Look Magazine out of business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alioto#Political_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alioto#Political_career

further_tech 10y ago

> WTF I don't understand your indignation. Is it that obvious to you the Valley can solve ALL human problems?

bionsuba 10y ago
No one ever said it would. There's a term for this (I forget it now), but what this person is doing is setting up an easy target to be torn down by creating a ridiculous opinion no one has. Then the author can be seen as the victor; it's really dishonest, and it should make everyone question the veracity of the whole article.
- actsasbuffoon 10y ago
  I believe you're looking for "Straw Man Argument": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
- plehoux 10y ago
  This.
actsasbuffoon 10y ago
Not the original poster, but I read the comment differently. > Maybe it’s time for Silicon Valley to tone things down. To admit that, no, the Valley can’t solve all human problems -- not even close -- and never will. I have a few problems with this quote. First, I don't think the people of SV ever got together and said, "We're going to solve all human problems!" The author is putting words into other people's mouths in order to make them look ridiculous. Second, what does this quote have to do with the topic at hand? This is a discussion of whether or not it's okay for a billionaire to help fund someone else's litigation, and it suddenly veers into a weird attack on all of SV. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the author of the article is a paid media relations person. This probably isn't journalism, it's more likely unmarked native advertising paid for by Gawker to drum up outrage in preparation for appealing the verdict of the lawsuit. I really thought Reuters was better than this.
cderwin 10y ago