3 ms·
I totally understand why Peter Thiel felt the way he did about Gawker. Outing someone is a HORRIBLE thing to do. I can't underscore that enough. Especially in t
by John23832 10y ago
I totally understand why Peter Thiel felt the way he did about Gawker. Outing someone is a HORRIBLE thing to do. I can't underscore that enough. Especially in the way that they did. They engaged in yellow journalism and hid behind the shield of reporting.
That being said, this idea that we can extinguish the flame of reporting with a firehose of money is a horrible precedent. This is essentially saying that the rich few can determine what is reported to the masses due to their wealth. Allowing things like this endangers the important investigative reporting that uncovers things like bad working conditions, corruption and other horrible things that go on in society.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoI think you've confused “prescient” and “precedent” there. (Not that it matters.)
- John23832 10y agoThanks. Edited
- gumby 10y ago> I totally understand why Peter Thiel felt the way he did about Gawker. Outing someone is a HORRIBLE thing to do. I can't underscore that enough. True, but he did feed the beast, producing a Streisand Effect. I had no idea he was gay (not that I care either way) until he won this lawsuit.
- John23832 10y agoI agree, the lawsuit did bring more attention, but there shouldn't have been a "beast to feed".
- drspacemonkey 10y agoDon't understate the serious amount of wrongdoing on Gawker's part in that lawsuit. After that giant, public "we're not going to obey the court order we were just given" article, there's no way in hell Gawker was planning on wining the lawsuit. My guess is they were planning on out-spending Hogan and pushing a settlement on him when he ran out of money. It wasn't until much later that they found out they wouldn't be able to buy their way out of trouble.
- John23832 10y agoI'm not saying that Gawker was right. They were very wrong. But this is not the type of justice that should be doled out. It does more harm to us as a society than good. I do think that there should have been serious repercussions for Gawker. I can't say what those should have been. But I know that this wasn't the right route to take.
- dilemma 10y agoWhat you're saying is that you would have preferred that Gawker's strategy of outspending Hogan had worked, so that not only would he have had his privacy violated and reputation ruined, but he should also be bankrupt. That's your justice.
- John23832 10y agoWhere did I say any of that? I didn't.