3 ms·

> Many people look at what Thiel did as a public service. How they feel about that is going to closely track partisan allegiance. And what constitutes "justic

> Many people look at what Thiel did as a public service. How they feel about that is going to closely track partisan allegiance. And what constitutes "justice", in the context of a sex tape or other journalistic malpractice? Tens of millions of dollars? Uncountable millions? Any number of millions so long as it's enough to put the company out of business? I don't agree that shutting down Gawker was the appropriate remedy. Damages yes, annihilation no.

malvosenior 9y ago
> I don't agree that shutting down Gawker was the appropriate remedy. Damages yes, annihilation no. Couldn't disagree more.
- rectang 9y ago
  Over a sex tape? Good grief, As a result, in your world and mine, the press now has to fear secret reprisals should they offend the wrong billionaire. It is now more dangerous to report on the powerful. You can't fight them with your free speech, because you can't even know who's financing the campaign against you, or even that it's happening.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    Good. As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. Like I said, I wish you didn’t need billions to keep them honest but at least someone can do it.
    - rectang 9y ago
      > As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. There's no constraint on billionaires as to what might motivate them to spend their money secretly financing lawsuits. Reporting on say, their bribery of a government official, could also persuade a billionaire to adopt Thiel's tactics.
      - malvosenior 9y ago
        They still have to win the case though, they can’t just sue without justification. Again, I wish this option was available to more people but I won’t begrudge billionaires for financing legal defenses for people the media have illegally attacked.
        rectang 9y ago
        They don't have to win. It suffices to overwhelm the legal resources of their opponent.
        malvosenior 9y ago
        That's not what happened though, they (Hogan) did win. Gawker was in the wrong. We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about global media brands. They can overwhelm most people with their resources, sadly only the rich can defend themselves.
        rectang 9y ago
        But when the press defend themselves, it is obvious where the financing is coming from. Thiel's innovation was the secrecy of his passing ten million dollars to a third-party litigant. http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/
        malvosenior 9y ago
        I see no issue with that. We shouldn’t audit people before we give them a chance at justice. I’d gladly take his help if a large media company slandered me. I’d feel no obligation to disclose the source of my funds. I wouldn’t expect anyone to divulge that information.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

malvosenior 9y ago

> I don't agree that shutting down Gawker was the appropriate remedy. Damages yes, annihilation no. Couldn't disagree more.

rectang 9y ago
Over a sex tape? Good grief, As a result, in your world and mine, the press now has to fear secret reprisals should they offend the wrong billionaire. It is now more dangerous to report on the powerful. You can't fight them with your free speech, because you can't even know who's financing the campaign against you, or even that it's happening.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  Good. As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. Like I said, I wish you didn’t need billions to keep them honest but at least someone can do it.
  - rectang 9y ago
    > As long as they stick to reporting factual information and not releasing private gossip and sex tapes they have nothing to worry about. There's no constraint on billionaires as to what might motivate them to spend their money secretly financing lawsuits. Reporting on say, their bribery of a government official, could also persuade a billionaire to adopt Thiel's tactics.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      They still have to win the case though, they can’t just sue without justification. Again, I wish this option was available to more people but I won’t begrudge billionaires for financing legal defenses for people the media have illegally attacked.
      - rectang 9y ago
        They don't have to win. It suffices to overwhelm the legal resources of their opponent.
        malvosenior 9y ago
        That's not what happened though, they (Hogan) did win. Gawker was in the wrong. We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about global media brands. They can overwhelm most people with their resources, sadly only the rich can defend themselves.
        rectang 9y ago
        But when the press defend themselves, it is obvious where the financing is coming from. Thiel's innovation was the secrecy of his passing ten million dollars to a third-party litigant. http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/ http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/thiel-gawker/
        malvosenior 9y ago
        I see no issue with that. We shouldn’t audit people before we give them a chance at justice. I’d gladly take his help if a large media company slandered me. I’d feel no obligation to disclose the source of my funds. I wouldn’t expect anyone to divulge that information.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]