10 ms·

I suspect these comments will descend into a pit of chaos within a few minutes as everyone talks past each other... but the principle of this disturbs me. Basic

• olfactory 9y ago
  Are you equally concerned with other billionaires owning major news orgs (Bezos, Slim, etc.)?
  • emodendroket 9y ago
    Surely "owning a major news organization" and "shutting down a major news organization because you don't like what they published about you" are not exactly the same.
    • olfactory 9y ago
      OK then I'll rephrase it to using one's massive wealth to significantly control the fate of a news organization
      • emodendroket 9y ago
        I can't speak for anyone else but I am certainly troubled by media consolidation in the US.
    • breitling 9y ago
      Correct, but there's a difference between publishing what is in the public domain and publishing deeply private information, which they would have got through questionable sources.
      • emodendroket 9y ago
        > publishing what is in the public domain and publishing deeply private information, which they would have got through questionable sources You mean "reporting"?
  • untog 9y ago
    If those billionaires play an active role in shutting down unfavourable coverage of themselves, yes. To my knowledge that hasn't been uncovered yet, though. Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world all reporting would be independent, but I'm not sure how that model would be achieved.
    • olfactory 9y ago
      I agree with the ideal you describe, but I think it is naive to assume that billionaires buy news orgs simply because they enjoy picking up a good newspaper in the morning.
  • slg 9y ago
    I don't see how buying a media outlet to shut it down is different to buying it to influence the coverage. Both are shady but perfectly legal. I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than those are both protected by the 1st amendment.
    • throwawayjava 9y ago
      > I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than those are both protected by the 1st amendment. There is a difference. It's a microcosm of the difference between a god-king and an elected president.
      • slg 9y ago
        That analogy doesn't fit because the money doesn't give someone direct power but instead allows them to tip the scales in their favor. It is the same as Citizens United. The money allows influencing other people's votes but the money isn't directly choosing the president. I am also not speaking about a moral difference, I am speaking about a legal difference. How can you allow someone to spend $X on something with the logic that money equals speech but not allow someone to spend $X multiplied by a million on the same thing?
        • throwawayjava 9y ago
          Sure. Citizens United is also terrible.
          • slg 9y ago
            I agree, but that is a clear result of the 1st Amendment. And you get lots of people angry if you start to question whether the 1st Amendment is a great idea.
            • 9y ago
• the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  this is a good take. id like to add that this is one of the negative externalities of entrusting a single person with an outrageous amount of power by allowing them to have many millions or billions of dollars. there are certainly counter examples, but on the whole it seems very unlikely that billionaires are going to, as a group, do a better job allocating their money for public good than if that money was distributed more widely among the populace. i dont think people should be billionaires basically. edit: to preempt some questions- my guess is that by raising the marginal tax rate, especially for people who earn alot, we could address this problem to some degree.
  • mankash666 9y ago
    The logical fallacies here run VERY VERY deep. You've attributed the entire problem to being a "Billionaire"
    • emodendroket 9y ago
      You may not agree with the argument, but where is the logical fallacy?
      • mankash666 9y ago
        Where is the logical connection between being a billionaire & shutting down a publication in a vindictive manner established? ANYONE disagreeing with negative press about themselves will do everything in their power to do so. From politicians to people accessing reputation management services [1], in general, people with shut down negative opinion against them. So, the "logical" fallacy is in attributing wealth to reputation management, when everyone, from the very poor to the very rich, and otherwise powerful behave the exact same way. Disallowing people from becoming billionaires by using punitive taxation is NOT logic. [1]: https://www.reputation.com/ https://www.reputation.com/
        • emodendroket 9y ago
          It has a lot to do with it. Only the very wealthy have the means to fund nuisance lawsuits until a publication is forced to shut down (or, for that matter, effectively bend the ear of influential politicians, etc.). The rest of us are stuck with stuff like Reputation Defender, which is not very effective, and in any case does not completely shut down any news organization.
• debt 9y ago
  Not too mention, Thiel wasn't the least bit disturbed by what Hulk Hogan said about African Americans in the very same case! Thiel was more concerned about eliminating Gawker. It really reveals what he values as a person: himself. Peter Thiel, a Silicon Valley VC, financially supported a man, Hulk Hogan, that uttered this: “I mean, I’d rather if she was going to f-ck some n-gger, I’d rather have her marry an 8-foot-tall n-gger worth a hundred million dollars! Like a basketball player! https://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/hulk-hogan-fired-wwe-072415 https://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/hulk-hogan-fired-wwe-...
  • sifoo 9y ago
    I thought the fact that he buys and injects blood from teenagers to (possibly) extend his own pathetic life would have proven that much by now. Someone said something about it being easier to pass camels through eyes of needles than for rich men to go to heaven.
• ikeboy 9y ago
  Well "shutting down a garbage site for doing something bad" is quite different from "shutting down a site over frivolous complaints". You'll note that Gawker lost their case, and Mother Jones won.
  • throwawayjava 9y ago
    Yeah, but unlike Mother Jones, most political bloggers don't have millions of dollars to wage a multi-year war. The general concern is that money provides one the ability to silence other people's speech.
    • ikeboy 9y ago
      I agree this is an issue, but just because some people can't afford to defend themselves doesn't make what Thiel did wrong. You'll note Gawker was fully able to fund their defense. If Thiel had did this against a smaller site that gave up without having its day in court that would be a different matter.
      • throwawayjava 9y ago
        untog ended their up-thread comment with a pre-emptive answer to exactly this sentiment: >> Personally, I'm concerned that the individual factors of this case (i.e. Gawker being Gawker) will overshadow the principle at stake, which feels a lot more important than a gossip site. Thiel isn't on trial in this thread, but our justice system perhaps is.
        • ikeboy 9y ago
          What principle are they defending?
          • throwawayjava 9y ago
            Free speech. And, in particular, the chilling effect that's possible due to how our civil justice system is defined.
• JonFish85 9y ago
  A different way to look at it might be that in most cases, an illegal deed might be overlooked simply because someone didn't have the funds to see it through the court system. It's one thing if someone is funding endless lawsuits just to drive someone out of business, it's another for someone like Hogan to have a legitimate case, and for Thiel to fund his lawsuit. Thiel's funding of the case did not influence the judgement against Gawker, it simply allowed it to proceed further than if Hogan ran out of money. I agree with what I think you're saying, that we should be careful about allowing someone to sue someone out of business simply out of spite; however, I think there's something to be said for someone with deeper pockets funding a legitimate suit. It might be comparable to things that the EFF funds, or that the ACLU takes on -- they have deeper pockets, and can take the financial hit that someone with a legitimate claim may not be able to take. Imagine if Gawker published the same thing of some average middle-class person. They can't afford a high-priced lawyer, so likely Gawker gets away with something that, if it went to court, they would lose. In this case, the bully ran into someone who actually could fight back. As far as I know, Thiel didn't fund endless lawsuits just hoping to run them out of money. He funded a legitimate lawsuit that ended up with Gawker being found in the wrong for.
  • untog 9y ago
    I agree that your point has merit. It's difficult to work out where the middle ground is, or whether "billionaires get to choose who sees their day in court" is better or worse than "poor people don't get their day in court" (they feel similar). At the least, it would be good if those funding these cases had to make that fact public - Thiel only admitted that he was funding Hogan's case after journalists uncovered it. If he was campaigning on the side of truth and righteousness I can't see any reason why he wouldn't say as much (like the ACLU does).
  • debt 9y ago
    Gawker didn't go after the average person, they very specifically went after a billionaire, Peter Thiel. Then after that, Hulk Hogan filed a lawsuit because he got caught saying super racist things against African Americans on tape and Thiel secretly funds that lawsuit. Does this make Thiel, by extension, somewhat racist considering he clearly had no qualms funding this lawsuit?[1] He's also a well-known Trump supporter, go figure lol Call me crazy, but this seems very counter to where Silicon Valley wants to be and Silicon Valley values. He's also considered a pretty well-known VC in the area. It's not hard to figure out why SV has so many diversity problems, when you have people like Thiel hailed as their leader. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/03/hulk-hogan-sues-gawker-again-racist-remarks-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/03/hulk-hogan-sue...
• sheepmullet 9y ago
  > will overshadow the principle at stake If we take a step back what is the key principle at stake here? I think the key principle is privacy. Should we allow a media company to ruin a persons reputation and career by violating his privacy in direct violation of a court order? The real concern for me is that you need to find a supportive billionaire to be able to put a stop to it. If the media turns on me tomorrow and invades my privacy I don't have a billionaire friend to turn to.
  • aetherson 9y ago
    Whose reputation and career was ruined?
    • sheepmullet 9y ago
      Hulk Hogan! There was a reason the courts ordered gawker to pay massive damages.
      • aetherson 9y ago
        What is it you would say Hulk Hogan's career is?
        • sheepmullet 9y ago
          Probably advertizing/merchandizing? The courts found his career was damaged to the tune of $130 million.
  • throwawayjava 9y ago
    Yes, I think this is one case where both sides of the issue can agree the real problem is that our civil justice system seems to care more about the depth of your pockets than the veracity of your position. That needs to change, and you can find your way to this conclusion via sympathy with Hogan or with Gawker, but perhaps not via sympathy with Thiel (for the obvious reason).
• ellius 9y ago
  “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws [actions] are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
• cantrip 9y ago
  > Personally, I'm concerned Your "personal" concern is an extremely common opinion in a major debate that has been going on for years. There is even a documentary to support it.
• AceJohnny2 9y ago
  Voltaire's apocryphal quote comes to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Liberties aren't etched away by attacking the just users first. They are etched away by attacking those users most Good People disapprove of.
  • s73ver_ 9y ago
    That quote is almost never relevant when it's quoted.
• vvanders 9y ago
  Totally aside from the whole gawker thing this tactic looks a lot like one commonly used by publishers in gamedev to get IP/game on the cheap. 1. Sign contract with game company that all IP/source reverts to publisher on bankruptcy. 2. Start denying milestone payments 3/4 through development(highest burn rate) for frivolous reasons. 3. Dev runs out of money, bankruptcy. 4. Publisher offers to re-hire team at reduced rate + no royalties since they're all now unemployed to complete the game. 5. Profit (for the publisher).
• sov 9y ago
  That's an interesting take, but not one I'd agree with. The argument that Thiel acted unethically by funding Hogan's lawsuit is not one that I support. You can picture it as a millionaire throwing his money around to exact vengeance on a company that wronged him if you want, and that certainly feeds the idea of a sort of "chilling effect" where media orgs intentionally avoid printing things about powerful (read: rich) people. I think we can both agree that that would be truly unfortunate and a great loss of speech principles. However, I don't think that accurately maps to the validity of the case. In an ideal world, Hogan wouldn't have had to get Thiel to fund his lawsuit--he was legitimately wronged. Is a better alternative to this universe one where news/distribution organizations can say whatever they want about anyone all the time and unless you're a billionaire you just have to take it? It wasn't like Gawker was acting ethically here. Compare it to Mother Jones, who was sued frivolously, won, and is still around! But, of course, that's not really your argument. Your argument isn't that news orgs can be sued and that's a problem, it's that legal battles are often a matter of who has more money to spend on them, and regardless of outcome, can leave even honest organizations out of capital. I agree with this (even though Mother Jones is still around). It's unreasonable to expect MJ to pay up $2.4m to cover fees, especially when margins on online journalism are already so low (forcing worse incentives on them just to compete). But there's hope! We don't need to wring our hands and lament the death knell of free speech--rather, we can just support anti-SLAPP laws to reduce both the cost and frequency of frivolous defamation suits. The technology exists! In fact, the only reason MJ had to pay up is because their state doesn't have anti-SLAPP statutes. I'm fundamentally not concerned at all with Thiel buying the decaying corpse of Gawker. They acted in incredibly poor taste, noncompliance of legal orders and vitriolic defiance of journalistic good will, so, they pay the price. Rather, I'm more concerned about two issues: first, valid lawsuits require far too large an initial capital investment, preventing truly wronged but non-rich individuals from seeking justice and second, incredibly wealthy individuals can force frivolous lawsuits onto organizations where their best case scenario is a pyrrhic victory.
  • AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > In fact, the only reason MJ had to pay up is because their state doesn't have anti-SLAPP statutes. Their state (California) wasn't the problem. The problem was that they were being sued in a different state (Idaho). You aren't safe until all the states have anti_SLAPP statutes.
• aaroninsf 9y ago
  IMO the elephant in the room is even more fundamental: the _existence of billionaires_. There is a disturbing narrative I now notice whenever it appears, specifically, the formulation of "good billionaire X takes on public interest Y." The subtext is, we should celebrate that some wealthy titan has decided to back an interest aligned with our political interest. The problem is that our current political and cultural divisions are, if not necessarily solely originating in, primarily–even, almost exclusively–_driven and determined_ by a battle of billionaires. So long as "normal" people are reduced to pawns in a not so secret chess match between billionaires, our entire civilization is hostage. Our democratic institutions certainly are. The GOP's contempt for public opinion in pushing through a crappy tax bill which extracts a trillion dollars from the collective future, to further enrich its richest stake holders, is just one more example of the consequences. And it's getting worse, not better. The last 40+ years have consistently accelerated the consolidation of wealth. This process gives every appearance of having passed an event horizon, beyond which all political remedies to that consolidation are neutralized, through the simple expediency of the very very wealthy seizing ownership literal and figurative of political process. The historic solutions to the extreme consolidation of wealth are few and don't offer much road map. But we solve this, or it looks like we get a 2.5 class society. An underclass, a 1% overclass–and a frightened buffer class jealous of its limited remaining prerogatives and lottery chances of entering the overclass. Recognize that last cohort? That's the readership of Hackernews.