6 ms·

> he vengefully bankrupted a website because he didn’t like how they wrote about him. This is so uncharitable and dishonest. Sure it's technically true, but I

> he vengefully bankrupted a website because he didn’t like how they wrote about him. This is so uncharitable and dishonest. Sure it's technically true, but I think outing someones sexuality deserves to be noted as more than just 'didn't like how they wrote about him.'

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
intopieces 7y ago
The usual concern about outing someone's sexuality is the impact it might have on their personal safety or ability to obtain or maintain employment. Not in Thiel's case. There was no negative repercussion whatsoever -- the dude is super-villain rich. The bankrupting was just spite.
- jiveturkey 7y ago
  or perhaps it was making a stand on principle. for an ordinary person, outing can completely and thoroughly ruin their life. bankrupting them was a just desert.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    Ordinary people are more likely to be outed by companies Thiel has invested in, like Facebook[1]. Interestingly, he has yet to sue Facebook “on principle”. [1] https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-privacy-policy-outs-lgbt-users-15241ec5461e/ https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-privacy-policy-outs-lgbt-...
    - coldtea 7y ago
      I'm pretty sure if Gawker's expose was due to a "privacy glitch" (like here) and not a conscious effort, they wouldn't have suffered any consequences... Or does FB go out of its way to expose LBGT people for some profit of its own?
  - powowow 7y ago
    If Peter Thiel wants to pretend he cares about privacy, he should shut down Clearview and Palantir.
- hello_friendos 7y ago
  Also Thiel has a history to supporting anti-gay people. Like the anti-gay politicians who get outed, I don't have any sympathy for him and how he has harmed the community.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - rusk 7y ago
    He gave the trump campaign a fairly sizable and timely donation. Not saying Trump is homophobic or anything ... EDIT https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-donald-j-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-do... $1.25M is fairly sizable 2 weeks before the election is timely For sure Trump is probably indifferent to sexuality, but his voters are not.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >For sure Trump is probably indifferent to sexuality, but his voters are not. Trump is also for X other things one might agree with and Y they might disagree. People vote wholesale, not on individual matters, so other attributes might matter more to Thiel (or any voter). And similarly, X or Y pros or cons on the other side might also matter more (negatively in this case). Besides, if Trump is indifferent to sexuality, what's the argument? Not to give his supporters (some of which might not be) the pleasure of seeing their candidate becoming president?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - tomcam 7y ago
    can you give an example of his support of anti-gay people?
- influx 7y ago
  To clarify, you are ok with outing LGBTQ folks as long as there is no discernible repercussions?
  - ajross 7y ago
    I don't think anyone would claim that. To flip the strawman: are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? It's not inconsistent to think that Gawker was a bad site which did a bad thing for which they should be punished and that suing them into oblivion was a worse thing with worse effects for society.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? No, but I'm OK with suing them to bankruptcy.
      - ajross 7y ago
        Yeah, sure you are, just keep saying that when The Globalists come for Sinclair or whoever for doing nothing but printing one offensive truth. You don't actually think that, you just fooled yourself because you considered Gawker your enemy. [1] To repeat: what Gawker did was awful. But silencing the whole organization for one sin is not what you want.
  - djannzjkzxn 7y ago
    Personally I’m not “ok” with it, but I don’t think it’s much different than many other things that get reported about public figures. So many stories have been written about folks’ sexuality in gossip rags over the years. The reaction in this particular case was bizarre.
  - powowow 7y ago
    To clarify, you are ok with billionaires having the ability to use the legal system to destroy any organization they personally dislike?
- 1996 7y ago
  People do things - sometimes good, sometimes not good. But him using his money to take down a website that thought it was ok to out people? I never heard about it before, but I find that damn cool. That's not super-villain rich but Batman-level good.
- tomcam 7y ago
  > There was no negative repercussion whatsoever How do you know without mind reading?
  - intopieces 7y ago
    Well, he's buying land the size of Manhattan in NZ to build an apocalypse compound. [0] I'm no mind-reader, but he seems to have come out OK. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-val...
    - tomcam 7y ago
      Does that mean he’s had no repercussions? I don’t see the connection.
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  Gawker went bankrupt because of the damages awarded to Hulk Hogan by a judge in a legitimate lawsuit. Thiel wasn't a plaintiff in the case - he paid for Hogan's defense. I'm sure that money helped Hogan mount the best case possible, but it didn't determine the outcome of the trial.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Knowing that somebody is gay could also change how they might be received by an entire community, such as a church community that cares about child-rearing. A church might simply feel that a homosexual is not sexually safe around children, and it's not really an outsider's place to tell how people should run their own church. But why should Peter Thiel absorb these blows for nothing? And his response? To fund somebody in a civil claim, because Gawker was depending on the fact that people are too weak to sue them. Gawker gambled wrong. The sad part isn't that Peter Thiel could choose which horse to back -- the sad part is that you need a financial backer to get justice.
- mam2 7y ago
  That's not really to you to decide why someone want to keep his sexuality a secret. His family could hate him. You can see it the other way: why would gawker reveal this if not to cause a but of malice.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >The usual concern about outing someone's sexuality is the impact it might have on their personal safety or ability to obtain or maintain employment. It's also privacy, basic human decency, and their choice to disclose or not, which are just as important. You can't just shit on them because someone is "super-rich" and wont lose their job.
sdinsn 7y ago
Also it's important to note that he financial supported a case that deserved to win. Gawker did a terrible thing to Hogan.
iron0013 7y ago
It’s so funny to me that when it comes to whether YouTube or Facebook or whoever should be forced to host hate speech on their servers, the HN zeitgeist shouts “Platforms! Publishers! The right to free speech is absolute in all contexts—it’s the principle of the thing!” But then Gawker says something that one of HN’s favorite billionaires doesn’t like...
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Have you considered that these are different people holding different opinions?
ephextom 7y ago
Not really even technically true. He didn't do anything about it for at least 3-4 years after the outing, and was personally content to live and let live. He only took action after being persuaded by someone else that he had a responsibility to fight back in defence of the countless people, most of whom were vastly less powerful than Thiel, that Gawker's business was built on attacking. Full story: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intrigue-ebook/dp/B07637TDJJ https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intri...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

intopieces 7y ago

The usual concern about outing someone's sexuality is the impact it might have on their personal safety or ability to obtain or maintain employment. Not in Thiel's case. There was no negative repercussion whatsoever -- the dude is super-villain rich. The bankrupting was just spite.

jiveturkey 7y ago
or perhaps it was making a stand on principle. for an ordinary person, outing can completely and thoroughly ruin their life. bankrupting them was a just desert.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  Ordinary people are more likely to be outed by companies Thiel has invested in, like Facebook[1]. Interestingly, he has yet to sue Facebook “on principle”. [1] https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-privacy-policy-outs-lgbt-users-15241ec5461e/ https://thinkprogress.org/facebook-privacy-policy-outs-lgbt-...
  - coldtea 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure if Gawker's expose was due to a "privacy glitch" (like here) and not a conscious effort, they wouldn't have suffered any consequences... Or does FB go out of its way to expose LBGT people for some profit of its own?
- powowow 7y ago
  If Peter Thiel wants to pretend he cares about privacy, he should shut down Clearview and Palantir.
hello_friendos 7y ago
Also Thiel has a history to supporting anti-gay people. Like the anti-gay politicians who get outed, I don't have any sympathy for him and how he has harmed the community.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rusk 7y ago
  He gave the trump campaign a fairly sizable and timely donation. Not saying Trump is homophobic or anything ... EDIT https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-donald-j-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-do... $1.25M is fairly sizable 2 weeks before the election is timely For sure Trump is probably indifferent to sexuality, but his voters are not.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >For sure Trump is probably indifferent to sexuality, but his voters are not. Trump is also for X other things one might agree with and Y they might disagree. People vote wholesale, not on individual matters, so other attributes might matter more to Thiel (or any voter). And similarly, X or Y pros or cons on the other side might also matter more (negatively in this case). Besides, if Trump is indifferent to sexuality, what's the argument? Not to give his supporters (some of which might not be) the pleasure of seeing their candidate becoming president?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- tomcam 7y ago
  can you give an example of his support of anti-gay people?
influx 7y ago
To clarify, you are ok with outing LGBTQ folks as long as there is no discernible repercussions?
- ajross 7y ago
  I don't think anyone would claim that. To flip the strawman: are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? It's not inconsistent to think that Gawker was a bad site which did a bad thing for which they should be punished and that suing them into oblivion was a worse thing with worse effects for society.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >are you OK with any feasible retaliation for such an outing, no matter the repercussions? No, but I'm OK with suing them to bankruptcy.
    - ajross 7y ago
      Yeah, sure you are, just keep saying that when The Globalists come for Sinclair or whoever for doing nothing but printing one offensive truth. You don't actually think that, you just fooled yourself because you considered Gawker your enemy. [1] To repeat: what Gawker did was awful. But silencing the whole organization for one sin is not what you want.
- djannzjkzxn 7y ago
  Personally I’m not “ok” with it, but I don’t think it’s much different than many other things that get reported about public figures. So many stories have been written about folks’ sexuality in gossip rags over the years. The reaction in this particular case was bizarre.
- powowow 7y ago
  To clarify, you are ok with billionaires having the ability to use the legal system to destroy any organization they personally dislike?
1996 7y ago
People do things - sometimes good, sometimes not good. But him using his money to take down a website that thought it was ok to out people? I never heard about it before, but I find that damn cool. That's not super-villain rich but Batman-level good.
tomcam 7y ago
> There was no negative repercussion whatsoever How do you know without mind reading?
- intopieces 7y ago
  Well, he's buying land the size of Manhattan in NZ to build an apocalypse compound. [0] I'm no mind-reader, but he seems to have come out OK. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-val...
  - tomcam 7y ago
    Does that mean he’s had no repercussions? I don’t see the connection.
SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
Gawker went bankrupt because of the damages awarded to Hulk Hogan by a judge in a legitimate lawsuit. Thiel wasn't a plaintiff in the case - he paid for Hogan's defense. I'm sure that money helped Hogan mount the best case possible, but it didn't determine the outcome of the trial.
threatofrain 7y ago
Knowing that somebody is gay could also change how they might be received by an entire community, such as a church community that cares about child-rearing. A church might simply feel that a homosexual is not sexually safe around children, and it's not really an outsider's place to tell how people should run their own church. But why should Peter Thiel absorb these blows for nothing? And his response? To fund somebody in a civil claim, because Gawker was depending on the fact that people are too weak to sue them. Gawker gambled wrong. The sad part isn't that Peter Thiel could choose which horse to back -- the sad part is that you need a financial backer to get justice.
mam2 7y ago
That's not really to you to decide why someone want to keep his sexuality a secret. His family could hate him. You can see it the other way: why would gawker reveal this if not to cause a but of malice.
coldtea 7y ago
>The usual concern about outing someone's sexuality is the impact it might have on their personal safety or ability to obtain or maintain employment. It's also privacy, basic human decency, and their choice to disclose or not, which are just as important. You can't just shit on them because someone is "super-rich" and wont lose their job.

sdinsn 7y ago

Also it's important to note that he financial supported a case that deserved to win. Gawker did a terrible thing to Hogan.

iron0013 7y ago

It’s so funny to me that when it comes to whether YouTube or Facebook or whoever should be forced to host hate speech on their servers, the HN zeitgeist shouts “Platforms! Publishers! The right to free speech is absolute in all contexts—it’s the principle of the thing!” But then Gawker says something that one of HN’s favorite billionaires doesn’t like...

pmoriarty 7y ago
Have you considered that these are different people holding different opinions?

ephextom 7y ago

Not really even technically true. He didn't do anything about it for at least 3-4 years after the outing, and was personally content to live and let live. He only took action after being persuaded by someone else that he had a responsibility to fight back in defence of the countless people, most of whom were vastly less powerful than Thiel, that Gawker's business was built on attacking. Full story: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intrigue-ebook/dp/B07637TDJJ https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intri...