3 ms·

Except it wasn't a one time mistake. I can think of at least one other specific instance of them outing somebody, and the Hulk Hogan sex tape situation is equal

Except it wasn't a one time mistake. I can think of at least one other specific instance of them outing somebody, and the Hulk Hogan sex tape situation is equally morally bankrupt. This isn't even counting multiple other pointless invasions of privacy. Gawker got its just desserts, no matter how much Nick Denton cries about it.

FireBeyond 6y ago
One of the many facets I dislike about this story is the "Gawker outed Peter Thiel" claim. Peter Thiel had used pictures of himself shirtless on a gay cruise as his profile on some social media. To consider that his privacy was invaded because he may not have specifically said the precise words "I am gay" is disingenuous. Not to mention, courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" by virtue of their "outsized influence and impact on public affairs". There's a reason Gawker was never successfully sued by Thiel. Gawker and Hogan _had_ also settled before Thiel got involved. Hogan had settled with the other party, the one who _sold_ the tape, for 0.02% of the claim against Gawker. Isn't another of the tenets of a justice system the right to face your accuser, not have someone Wizard of Oz behind the scenes bankrolling things because of their own vendetta? I can dislike Gawker (TMZ, et al) and still see huge flaws in how this all went down.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  > Isn't another of the tenets of a justice system the right to face your accuser, not have someone Wizard of Oz behind the scenes bankrolling things because of their own vendetta? You communicated it better than I. I was somewhat horrified with the outcome because I (perhaps naively) had some belief that this tenet of the justice system had not yet been compromised. But the old adage that we have N justice systems for N wealth buckets (where N in {[rich, poor], [1%, 99%], ...}) seems to be true.
  - toasterlovin 6y ago
    But this isn't a case of one party with financial means going up against another party without financial means.
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      Clearly, it wasn't enough. Denton's fortune, large was it was, paled in comparison to Thiel's by a factor of 100, in pure net worth terms, never mind the social capital. In my eyes, that made it especially noteworthy.
      - slg 6y ago
        Even Thiel himself admitted exactly this. He helped justify the bankrolling of Hogan's lawsuit by saying "single-digit millionaires" have no access to the legal system. The more money you have the more power you have. It isn't a binary rich/poor.
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        It's true. It's ironic that he proved the rule by proving that double digit millionaires too can effectively be locked out of the legal system by those with greater financial might. After all, are you really justifying the illegitimacy of the system if all you accomplish is merely swapping the places of who is destroyed?
        nwienert 6y ago
        So if I provide one example of a double digit millionaire beating a billionaire in a lawsuit will you take back this claim? We’d have to go to data then, do you have that data?
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        > So if I provide one example of a double digit millionaire beating a billionaire in a lawsuit will you take back this claim? I wouldn't take back the claim, but I would chuckle a bit. The plural of data is not necessarily a narrative. I would ask you to try again, this time without deliberately ignoring the thread and misreading it.

FireBeyond 6y ago

One of the many facets I dislike about this story is the "Gawker outed Peter Thiel" claim. Peter Thiel had used pictures of himself shirtless on a gay cruise as his profile on some social media. To consider that his privacy was invaded because he may not have specifically said the precise words "I am gay" is disingenuous. Not to mention, courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" by virtue of their "outsized influence and impact on public affairs". There's a reason Gawker was never successfully sued by Thiel. Gawker and Hogan _had_ also settled before Thiel got involved. Hogan had settled with the other party, the one who _sold_ the tape, for 0.02% of the claim against Gawker. Isn't another of the tenets of a justice system the right to face your accuser, not have someone Wizard of Oz behind the scenes bankrolling things because of their own vendetta? I can dislike Gawker (TMZ, et al) and still see huge flaws in how this all went down.

yowlingcat 6y ago
> Isn't another of the tenets of a justice system the right to face your accuser, not have someone Wizard of Oz behind the scenes bankrolling things because of their own vendetta? You communicated it better than I. I was somewhat horrified with the outcome because I (perhaps naively) had some belief that this tenet of the justice system had not yet been compromised. But the old adage that we have N justice systems for N wealth buckets (where N in {[rich, poor], [1%, 99%], ...}) seems to be true.
- toasterlovin 6y ago
  But this isn't a case of one party with financial means going up against another party without financial means.
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    Clearly, it wasn't enough. Denton's fortune, large was it was, paled in comparison to Thiel's by a factor of 100, in pure net worth terms, never mind the social capital. In my eyes, that made it especially noteworthy.
    - slg 6y ago
      Even Thiel himself admitted exactly this. He helped justify the bankrolling of Hogan's lawsuit by saying "single-digit millionaires" have no access to the legal system. The more money you have the more power you have. It isn't a binary rich/poor.
      - yowlingcat 6y ago
        It's true. It's ironic that he proved the rule by proving that double digit millionaires too can effectively be locked out of the legal system by those with greater financial might. After all, are you really justifying the illegitimacy of the system if all you accomplish is merely swapping the places of who is destroyed?
        nwienert 6y ago
        So if I provide one example of a double digit millionaire beating a billionaire in a lawsuit will you take back this claim? We’d have to go to data then, do you have that data?
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        > So if I provide one example of a double digit millionaire beating a billionaire in a lawsuit will you take back this claim? I wouldn't take back the claim, but I would chuckle a bit. The plural of data is not necessarily a narrative. I would ask you to try again, this time without deliberately ignoring the thread and misreading it.