3 ms·
The article came off as a disjointed rant at Peter Thiel. Why won't I be able to sue the next Gawker? That wasn't really answered in the post.
by jbob2000 10y ago
The article came off as a disjointed rant at Peter Thiel. Why won't I be able to sue the next Gawker? That wasn't really answered in the post.
- seangrant 10y agoIt was answered in the post: >Thiel just crucified the most notorious dissenter of Silicon Valley and called it ‘philanthropy.’ If this is how Silicon Valley billionaires are going to treat their dissenters, then dissenters have no choice but to go underground. >If the price of dissent in Silicon Valley is too high, dissent will find a darker avenue. The next ValleyWag is likely to be more like WikiLeaks. It could be anonymous. It could be outside the jurisdiction of The United States. And it could use all the shiny tools of the web, Tor, bitcoin financing, Zeronet, the blockchain, to exist above the law. The author is saying that if you legally shut down businesses through proxy lawsuits, the businesses will no longer operate on legal means to remain online and as such, the next Gawker can very well become something unstoppable.