5 ms·

I don't get why the issue of Peter Thiel and Gawker was grafted onto this article. Even if you do think something of value was lost when Gawker was shut down (

by labster 10y ago

I don't get why the issue of Peter Thiel and Gawker was grafted onto this article. Even if you do think something of value was lost when Gawker was shut down (and I don't), I can't see how it's relevant to the issue of the walled garden Facebook is trying to create. They don't even mention Free Basics or internet.org. Rather than elevating an issue of real concern, it makes the whole piece come off as "kids these days are ruining my internet".

helloworld 10y ago
Thiel’s strategy [to shut down Gawker through litigation] demonstrates how tech money...can now also suppress freedom of expression.... I think the writer is pointing out the irony that an investor who has benefited enormously from an open web has now effectively made it less open, because of the potentially stifling effect of lawsuits like his.
- 2opdude 10y ago
  The argument was not compelling nor well reasoned.
  - Melk 10y ago
    I disagree. >As that uber-blogger Dave Winer observed: “Gawker is gone because Peter Thiel financed its murder-by-lawyer. It’s legal to do this in the US, but until now as far as I know, no one has crossed this line. Now that the line has been crossed, it’s fair to assume it will become standard practice for billionaires like Thiel to finance lawsuits until the publication loses and has to sell itself to pay the judgment.” >I wasn’t ever a great admirer of Gawker, but Dave Winer is right: Thiel’s strategy demonstrates how tech money not only talks, but can now also suppress freedom of expression, even in the land of the first amendment.
    - kirrent 10y ago
      He financed their murder by lawyer but it's a vulnerability that only affects the weak and diseased. Expecting not to be punished for egregious illegal actions simply because your victims don't have enough money to make use of the court system is even more cynical and worrying than the alternative. As someone in a country without a first amendment equivalent, I think it's great. It's fabulous. It also doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you want to about anyone in public and that's entirely reasonable. As for a party with more money tying up someone else in multiple expensive lawsuits. It's certainly not a practice limited to tech billionaires alone.
      - vonklaus 10y ago
        > expecting not to be punished. I suspect Denton expected to have negative ramifications. I do not believe he expected to be held personally liable for the actions of a corporation he was part of and that both the personal and corporate liabilities would have unprecedented magnitude. Further, the article says that benefactor style lawsuits are fairly novel and thus it is unreasonable to expect someone with a vendetta for publishing a true statement about them would relentlessly pursue and finance litigation until the company was destroyed. > it only effects[sic] the weak and diseased I would hope, but would not expect that to be the case. The government and large scale corporations can certainly make headway sueing companies like wikileaks for publishing damaging media they do not control. This is quite a dangerous precedent and how bad things can potentially get is up to the creativity of very powerful companies & lawyers.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > someone with a vendetta for publishing a true statement about them So if I publish all your personal details online: address, contacts, workplace, political leanings etc, it'd ok? The only problem here is that non-billionaires aren't able to easily do this. > This is quite a dangerous precedent So is the behavior of Gawker going unchecked.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        > He financed their murder by lawyer but it's a vulnerability that only affects the weak and diseased This is in no way true! Everyone is vulnerable because win or lose, a lawsuit costs both sides money. Repeated enough times, the side with more money wins. If I had the motivation and the resources, do you think I would fail to fund a suit by someone who has a valid grievance against you for something you did in the past 5 years? Are you certain you are not "weak and diseased"?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      How about murder by judge/trial? Thiel didn't buy a private court and force a judgement.
- S_Daedalus 10y ago
  It would be a powerful argument, except that Thiel's money wasn't as instrumental in killing Gawker as Gawker's own behavior. The same attacks levied against, say, the NYT wouldn't have accomplished anything except losing Thiel money.
  - shard972 10y ago
    I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. I mean if Tiel was pouring millions after millions into failing lawsuits that just aim to drain whatever money he can sure but a single successful lawsuit?
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. It's not spin if it is true: a suit does not need to be successful to ruin the targeted victim - simply defending yourself from a lawsuit costs a lot of money, good luck defending yourself from a well-resourced nemesis. Without commenting on Gawker's culpability, I will draw parallels to Mother Jones, which was also sued by a billionaire[1] (Vandersloot), but they managed to beat the suit. Incensed, VanderSloot set up a million dollar fund available to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the "liberal press."[1] MoJo even weighed in on Thiel v Gawker, stating For the likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump, the courts have become an avenue not so much for vindication, but for exacting a price[2]. They've been in the trenches, I'll take their word over people who assume only the guilty get punished by the justice system. 1. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... 2.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vandersloot-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vand...
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump > They've been in the trenches Thiel isn't like the others in that list. And was Thiel and the others not "in the tranches" too?
unfunco 10y ago
The article links to a story about Free Basics, specifically the sentence: And the whole thrust of his company’s strategy is to persuade billions of future users that Facebook is the only bit of the internet they really need. I think mentioning Thiel is valid, I outright disagree with what Gawker did, but Thiel then hid behind a different and unrelated lawsuit to enact his revenge, both Zuckerberg and Thiel have the money to oppress those that can't match the size of their wallets and they're doing so, the comparison is fair.
- labster 10y ago
  One sentence with a tangential reference. Whoop-dee-doo. This is not good for an article about how Facebook is closing the web. The print edition won't even include a link due to technical reasons. The comparison to Thiel may be fair if a comparison was made in the article. Instead we get this: Interestingly, Thiel is also a member of Facebook’s board of directors. Super-convincing. Actually, parent post is far more convincing than the article, which seems to think that illegal speech somehow deserves first amendment protection.
  - Melk 10y ago
    Scroll down. There is an entire paragraph about Thiel.
orionblastar 10y ago
Gawker was basically a Supermarket News Rag Tabloid on the Internet and sort of like TMZ trying to dig dirt on celebrities. Hulk Hogan got hit really bad when they found he was using racist words in the video, and they tried to blackmail Hulk Hogan and threaten to release the sex tape if he didn't pay it. Hogan didn't pay, the sex tape was released and he lost his job at WWE and they erased him from most of their history. HHH and the McMahons want a PG rated show, and won't allow R-Rated stuff on their show as they try to appeal to children now with the action figures and other toys.
bambax 10y ago
Because Thiel is a board member of FB. If Zuckerberg is committed to openness and "freedom" he should distance himself from Thiel; that he doesn't highlights his hypocrisy.
throwanem 10y ago
Your use of the present imperfect strikes me as unduly optimistic. Facebook's user base is roughly a quarter of the species. It mediates the social interactions of a sizable subset thereof. Network effect implicitly penalizes those who don't behave so as to generate value. To do so requires that you participate. It is trivial to enter, and as difficult as can be made practicable to exit. Those within often enough distrust those without, simply because the distinction exists. What is this if not a walled garden? What is a walled garden if not this?

by labster 10y ago

helloworld 10y ago

Thiel’s strategy [to shut down Gawker through litigation] demonstrates how tech money...can now also suppress freedom of expression.... I think the writer is pointing out the irony that an investor who has benefited enormously from an open web has now effectively made it less open, because of the potentially stifling effect of lawsuits like his.

2opdude 10y ago
The argument was not compelling nor well reasoned.
- Melk 10y ago
  I disagree. >As that uber-blogger Dave Winer observed: “Gawker is gone because Peter Thiel financed its murder-by-lawyer. It’s legal to do this in the US, but until now as far as I know, no one has crossed this line. Now that the line has been crossed, it’s fair to assume it will become standard practice for billionaires like Thiel to finance lawsuits until the publication loses and has to sell itself to pay the judgment.” >I wasn’t ever a great admirer of Gawker, but Dave Winer is right: Thiel’s strategy demonstrates how tech money not only talks, but can now also suppress freedom of expression, even in the land of the first amendment.
  - kirrent 10y ago
    He financed their murder by lawyer but it's a vulnerability that only affects the weak and diseased. Expecting not to be punished for egregious illegal actions simply because your victims don't have enough money to make use of the court system is even more cynical and worrying than the alternative. As someone in a country without a first amendment equivalent, I think it's great. It's fabulous. It also doesn't give you free reign to say whatever you want to about anyone in public and that's entirely reasonable. As for a party with more money tying up someone else in multiple expensive lawsuits. It's certainly not a practice limited to tech billionaires alone.
    - vonklaus 10y ago
      > expecting not to be punished. I suspect Denton expected to have negative ramifications. I do not believe he expected to be held personally liable for the actions of a corporation he was part of and that both the personal and corporate liabilities would have unprecedented magnitude. Further, the article says that benefactor style lawsuits are fairly novel and thus it is unreasonable to expect someone with a vendetta for publishing a true statement about them would relentlessly pursue and finance litigation until the company was destroyed. > it only effects[sic] the weak and diseased I would hope, but would not expect that to be the case. The government and large scale corporations can certainly make headway sueing companies like wikileaks for publishing damaging media they do not control. This is quite a dangerous precedent and how bad things can potentially get is up to the creativity of very powerful companies & lawyers.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > someone with a vendetta for publishing a true statement about them So if I publish all your personal details online: address, contacts, workplace, political leanings etc, it'd ok? The only problem here is that non-billionaires aren't able to easily do this. > This is quite a dangerous precedent So is the behavior of Gawker going unchecked.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > He financed their murder by lawyer but it's a vulnerability that only affects the weak and diseased This is in no way true! Everyone is vulnerable because win or lose, a lawsuit costs both sides money. Repeated enough times, the side with more money wins. If I had the motivation and the resources, do you think I would fail to fund a suit by someone who has a valid grievance against you for something you did in the past 5 years? Are you certain you are not "weak and diseased"?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    How about murder by judge/trial? Thiel didn't buy a private court and force a judgement.
S_Daedalus 10y ago
It would be a powerful argument, except that Thiel's money wasn't as instrumental in killing Gawker as Gawker's own behavior. The same attacks levied against, say, the NYT wouldn't have accomplished anything except losing Thiel money.
- shard972 10y ago
  I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. I mean if Tiel was pouring millions after millions into failing lawsuits that just aim to drain whatever money he can sure but a single successful lawsuit?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > I feel like we are getting to a scary place in society when you can spin funding a successful lawsuit into suppressing free speech. It's not spin if it is true: a suit does not need to be successful to ruin the targeted victim - simply defending yourself from a lawsuit costs a lot of money, good luck defending yourself from a well-resourced nemesis. Without commenting on Gawker's culpability, I will draw parallels to Mother Jones, which was also sued by a billionaire[1] (Vandersloot), but they managed to beat the suit. Incensed, VanderSloot set up a million dollar fund available to pay the legal expenses of people wanting to sue Mother Jones or other members of the "liberal press."[1] MoJo even weighed in on Thiel v Gawker, stating For the likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump, the courts have become an avenue not so much for vindication, but for exacting a price[2]. They've been in the trenches, I'll take their word over people who assume only the guilty get punished by the justice system. 1. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vander... 2.http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vandersloot-lawsuit http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/thiel-trump-vand...
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > likes of VanderSloot, Adelson, Thiel, and Trump > They've been in the trenches Thiel isn't like the others in that list. And was Thiel and the others not "in the tranches" too?

unfunco 10y ago

The article links to a story about Free Basics, specifically the sentence: And the whole thrust of his company’s strategy is to persuade billions of future users that Facebook is the only bit of the internet they really need. I think mentioning Thiel is valid, I outright disagree with what Gawker did, but Thiel then hid behind a different and unrelated lawsuit to enact his revenge, both Zuckerberg and Thiel have the money to oppress those that can't match the size of their wallets and they're doing so, the comparison is fair.

labster 10y ago
One sentence with a tangential reference. Whoop-dee-doo. This is not good for an article about how Facebook is closing the web. The print edition won't even include a link due to technical reasons. The comparison to Thiel may be fair if a comparison was made in the article. Instead we get this: Interestingly, Thiel is also a member of Facebook’s board of directors. Super-convincing. Actually, parent post is far more convincing than the article, which seems to think that illegal speech somehow deserves first amendment protection.
- Melk 10y ago
  Scroll down. There is an entire paragraph about Thiel.

orionblastar 10y ago

Gawker was basically a Supermarket News Rag Tabloid on the Internet and sort of like TMZ trying to dig dirt on celebrities. Hulk Hogan got hit really bad when they found he was using racist words in the video, and they tried to blackmail Hulk Hogan and threaten to release the sex tape if he didn't pay it. Hogan didn't pay, the sex tape was released and he lost his job at WWE and they erased him from most of their history. HHH and the McMahons want a PG rated show, and won't allow R-Rated stuff on their show as they try to appeal to children now with the action figures and other toys.

bambax 10y ago

Because Thiel is a board member of FB. If Zuckerberg is committed to openness and "freedom" he should distance himself from Thiel; that he doesn't highlights his hypocrisy.

throwanem 10y ago

Your use of the present imperfect strikes me as unduly optimistic. Facebook's user base is roughly a quarter of the species. It mediates the social interactions of a sizable subset thereof. Network effect implicitly penalizes those who don't behave so as to generate value. To do so requires that you participate. It is trivial to enter, and as difficult as can be made practicable to exit. Those within often enough distrust those without, simply because the distinction exists. What is this if not a walled garden? What is a walled garden if not this?