9 ms·
Seems clear you are eluding to his endorsement and $1m contribution to the Trump campaign. We share different views - I am happy to disagree with you because I
by mrschwabe 9y ago
Seems clear you are eluding to his endorsement and $1m contribution to the Trump campaign.
We share different views - I am happy to disagree with you because I think Peter Thiel is to be commended for conducting business in line with his own philosophical & political views: this is perhaps the entire goal of business.
From my perspective, he clearly sees the need for change in this world and works diligently to see that his vision can come about via the best possible tool that one has to do that: business.
Just so happens he has the means to move a lot of capital around so his vision can more easily come about - here's rooting for him and his libertarian visions to come true.
- dguaraglia 9y agoNo, I'm pretty sure he's referring to the whole Gawker vs. Hulk Hogan trial thing, which was one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press in recent history. Whether you believe Gawker deserved it or not, he used Terry Bollea (Hogan) as a prop to push his own agenda.
- jpttsn 9y agoPutin and Xi must be relieved to hear that Gawker going bankrupt is “one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press in recent history.”
- dguaraglia 9y agoContext is everything, isn't it? If I said that the North Bay fires were one of the biggest tragedies in recent memory, you wouldn't chastise me for not mentioning the Rohingya pogroms, would you?
- jpttsn 9y agoI wouldn’t say I chastised you.
- CalChris 9y agoWhataboutism.
- jpttsn 9y agoWhataboutism: you say ”this is bad” and I say ”but what about <other bad thing>.” Logical smooth sailing: you say “this is the worst” and I say “can’t be the worst because here is something worse.”
- mrschwabe 9y agoNot deeply familiar with the case, thank-you for highlighting that - perhaps I will take the time one day to read about it but in the meantime I won't reserve judgment on him based on a few HN commenters (and I don't expect others to do the same based on what I say). It's easy to make a convincing sounding assessment about something but it's another to really know the truth unless you were directly there in person or are intimately familiar with every available detail about the particular situation.
- CamperBob2 9y agoNo, I'm pretty sure he's referring to the whole Gawker vs. Hulk Hogan trial thing, which was one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press in recent history. How is what Thiel did any different from what a nonprofit like the EFF or ACLU does every day? They identify legal cases they feel are important, and offer material assistance to the side they agree with. (Not attempting to defend either Thiel or Gawker, just honestly curious.)
- tiles 9y agoWell, EFF or ACLU support a broad number of cases every year that align with their mission statements. Thiel's involvement may be similarly principled and nondiscriminatory, but since his involvement was just on one case against an entity he dislikes, it is much easier to believe he just supported whatever legal action that let him use the judicial system as a weapon against them.
- speedplane 9y agoAnother major difference is the concentration of power. EFF and ACLU are supported by thousands of volunteers and donors and must be accountable to them. Thiel is one person. The ability for an organization to attack a media company is significantly less of a threat than the ability of a single person to attack them.
- AJRF 9y ago> one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press in recent history Not even close.
- dguaraglia 9y agoSure, in light of Trump's constant barrage of attacks on the press, Gawker's demise might look small (even deserved, to a point), until you realize this sets a precedent for "if you are a billionaire, you can kill whatever outlet you want." Scary, considering there's a number of billionaires with rather ass-backwards agendas, like say the Merced family supporting white supremacist rags.
- blfr 9y agoIf publishing revenge porn is the essence of freedom of press, the press should be destroyed ASAP.
- dguaraglia 9y agoThat is a straw man and you know it.
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago>the whole Gawker vs. Hulk Hogan trial thing, which was one of the biggest attacks on freedom of the press in recent history What a disingenuous load of nonsense. If you film people having sex with their permission, then you are a pornographer and subject to certain restrictions as to how you may publish your works. If you film people having sex WITHOUT their permission or knowledge and post the videos online then you are a criminal and, in a just world, a benefactor would come to the aid of your victims and finance whatever legal proceedings necessary to drive your operation out of business. Crying "freedom of the press" to defend sex criminals is absolutely reprehensible, as was Gawker's behavior both in this case and its repeated outing of homosexuals.
- speedplane 9y agoIf Thiel sued over Gawker's outing of Thiel being gay, that would be okay. If Hogan sued and won on his own, that would also be okay. What's not okay is using one's own immense wealth to fund litigation against a media outlet you do not like over issues unrelated to the reason you dislike them. There's no question this tips the balance of power.
- whatyoucantsay 9y agoIt is a separate problem that legal fees in the US are so exorbitant as to render even millionaires helpless in confrontations with abusive corporations. By all means, there should have been no need for a wealthy benefactor in the first pace. Unfortunately, there was. Mr. Thiel may have acted due to an alignment of selfish motivations, but he provided a public service, nonetheless. Both sides were adequately funded and the victim won on the merits of the case. Surely you're not suggesting it preferable that Gawker's sex crime go largely unpunished due to their victims being unable to afford a legal team of equal calibre?
- speedplane 9y ago> It is a separate problem that legal fees in the US are so exorbitant Not at all, the cost of obtaining justice is the central issue here. If obtaining justice lies only with those with immense wealth, they can selectively choose to apply or not apply it, which is inherently unjust.
- burnte 9y agoI'm referring to the Gawker case, although I think his political donations are harmful to the nation as a whole, too. Also, you meant alluding, not eluding. :)