4 ms·

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'

by 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...
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
- gardano 10y ago
  In an ideal world, what you say is probably correct. In the real world, the Streisand Effect comes into play.
- AlioSke 10y ago
  Maybe I am not understanding something about the situation, but I don't see the danger. Thiel is killing gawker via a meritorious lawsuit. I don't see whats problematic about that. If he was throwing frivilous lawsuits at I might agree, but that it isn't the case. If anything, isn't what Thiel is doing a positive good? We had a victim who didn't have the funds to bankroll his own case, Thiel stepped into do so. Gawker is only in this position because they violated people's rights. What this lawsuit says is "Say something about rich people they don't like, and they will start funding lawsuits from people you victimize." If anything, the problem here is that the victims of Gawker need the support of the ridiculously wealthy to take them down.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior." Maybe, but I can't say it's bad behavior, either. "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."" You're gonna have to point out what, if anything, the public's interest is in knowing that Peter Thiel was gay, or that Hogan made a sex tape. "We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."" Yeah, but when we're children, the world is pretty black and white. As adults, things tend to be gray.

by 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...
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
gardano 10y ago
In an ideal world, what you say is probably correct. In the real world, the Streisand Effect comes into play.
AlioSke 10y ago
Maybe I am not understanding something about the situation, but I don't see the danger. Thiel is killing gawker via a meritorious lawsuit. I don't see whats problematic about that. If he was throwing frivilous lawsuits at I might agree, but that it isn't the case. If anything, isn't what Thiel is doing a positive good? We had a victim who didn't have the funds to bankroll his own case, Thiel stepped into do so. Gawker is only in this position because they violated people's rights. What this lawsuit says is "Say something about rich people they don't like, and they will start funding lawsuits from people you victimize." If anything, the problem here is that the victims of Gawker need the support of the ridiculously wealthy to take them down.
st3v3r 10y ago
"Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing you as being gay is not good behavior." Maybe, but I can't say it's bad behavior, either. "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."" You're gonna have to point out what, if anything, the public's interest is in knowing that Peter Thiel was gay, or that Hogan made a sex tape. "We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."" Yeah, but when we're children, the world is pretty black and white. As adults, things tend to be gray.