5 ms·
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive. It takes time for people who have been suddenly vaulted into the position of being the ru
by CPLX 10y ago
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive. It takes time for people who have been suddenly vaulted into the position of being the ruling class to realize that they are regarded as such.
Silicon Valley as a culture still sees itself as a scrappy underdog. They see startups as small underfunded rebels trying to disrupt rich and powerful corporate interests. They see themselves as unstylish and unpopular "geeks" outside the social power of the attractive and successful. Silicon Valley doesn't perceive itself as a center of wealth, power, and social control. But the rest of the world has no trouble whatsoever figuring it out, and they are scared of this power.
As they should be. Concentrations of wealth and power without accountability are dangerous.
The meta-discussion around Peter Thiel and Gawker is fundamentally about power and who wields it in society. When you see someone on your playground who is clearly far stronger than a normal person walk over and punch someone in the face with no accountability and no real ability to seek redress you don't actually care much what the person did to deserve it. You suddenly start getting very nervous about who he's going to punch in the face next, as you're keenly aware that it's not you who gets to decide.
This backlash is going to get louder not softer. The "Who me? What are you talking about we're all just private ordinary citizens pay us no mind" type arguments like this one I am replying to are not going to help.
Stanford has the number one business school in the country. Apple, Google, and Microsoft are the top three most valuable companies in the world. Peter Thiel has almost three billion dollars.
To an outsider watching this movie, the tech sector isn't Hoth, it's the Death Star.
Extremely wealthy people are not at all like any other group of people. They are far, far, more powerful.
- leereeves 10y agoPeter Thiel funding a lawsuit is far from the center of power and social control. In this, he's merely a petitioner, hoping the true center of power and social control (the courts and lawmakers) will act in his favor.
- zem 10y agoexcept that having effectively unlimited amounts of money to keep throwing at a lawsuit is a depressingly good predictor of success.
- leereeves 10y agoAnd publishing sex tapes is an encouragingly good predictor of failure. The system isn't perfect but I think it worked this time.
- zem 10y agothe question wasn't whether he used his powers for good this time, but whether it's good that he has those powers at all
- leereeves 10y agoWhat I object to here isn't Peter Thiel funding the lawsuit, but the system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help. In a perfect world, Hogan should have been able to pursue this lawsuit without outside funding. It's interesting that Reuters is attacking Peter Thiel for this. "Justice" has long been for sale. Is the old guard merely afraid of new players in the game?
- zem 10y agothere i definitely agree with you. before thiel intervened it was gawker who had the money and hogan who did not, and as you note, justice was equally for sale.
- CPLX 10y ago> system that forced Hulk Hogan to turn to him for help That doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation of what happened. Hogan is a wealthy celebrity, and even if he wasn't the case was an obvious one to qualify for a contingency fee arrangement. Gawker was insured against a judgement, and they also apparently offered an eight figure settlement amount. Thiel's involvement wasn't needed for the lawsuit to exist, it was used to make the lawsuit into an attempt to bankrupt the company.
- leereeves 10y agoMy opinion: in a perfect world, no one would be forced to settle for less than they are legally entitled to simply because they can't afford to pursue the case to its conclusion in court.
- xenadu02 10y agoAgain, that's depressingly naive. If journalists call out Billionaire X for some bad behavior... Just buy the paper and fire those people. Or fund an endless stream of lawsuits to silence them. That's the bigger picture here: Theil is trying to put a news outlet he doesn't like out of business. Even if he's totally justified the next 10 cases may not be but you can bet people will get the picture: don't piss off the SV billionaire club.
- leereeves 10y agoYou know that calling a different opinion naive isn't actually an argument, right? The mere possibility of a slippery slope doesn't show that Peter Thiel did anything wrong here. I hope other websites should learn not to publish something they don't have the legal right to publish.
- bduerst 10y agoThe argument behind why it's a naive perspective was made in the parent comment.
- leereeves 10y agoAm I alone in thinking insults like naive don't belong in discussions on Hacker News? No one's denying that wealthy people are powerful, but that's so well known that it's hardly worth discussing. Not all power is equal. Thiel is powerful; Gawker was powerful; neither comes close to the power of the government, or the established media, or the old money that quietly dominates most everything outside SV.
- bduerst 10y agoAd hom attacks aren't fallacious when relating to the credibility of statements and when they are backed up by reasoning. Blatant name calling isn't welcome, but saying something is naive and then taking the time to explain why and without malice shouldn't be censored.
- BurningFrog 10y agoSo who punched who in the face? The way I see it, Gawker punched Hogan very hard. Gawker was clearly far stronger, and Hogan could not afford legal redress. Thiel helped the victim, not by punching Gawker, but by asking the legal system to provide redress. This is the civilized way to solve a conflict, by not taking personal revenge, but by asking an impartial court to adjudicate the conflict. In the end, after hearing the evidence, the State of Florida agreed to punch Gawker in the face.
- internaut 10y ago> The meta-discussion around Peter Thiel and Gawker is fundamentally about power and who wields it in society. We agree on that much, but the Media are returning fire against Silicon Valley writ large, not just Peter Thiel. They view us as competition. It's not about rich vs poor at all, it's a power vs a power. The media wants to drag the government into regulating Silicon Valley as a special case. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11824117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11824117 I think the future is weirder than they think.