3 ms·

Why would the "Paypal Mafia" make you think it is risky to attack successful people and companies? Ideally it wouldn't be risky at all; in some circumstances i

Why would the "Paypal Mafia" make you think it is risky to attack successful people and companies? Ideally it wouldn't be risky at all; in some circumstances it can be risky; but I don't see anything about the "Paypal Mafia" that indicates more risk. If anything most of these people seem like they started off as relative nobodies, and could return to obscurity just as easily. EDIT: This has ben downvoted :) I guess it's (very slightly) risky to say the Paypal Mafia isn't that scary.

Swizec 5y ago
Well there is that Gawker vs. Thiel story where Thiel purposefully destroyed Gawker because they said mean things and he decided an internet without Gawker is better. He's probably right that the internet is better without Gawker, but it's also a good example of what may happen when you upset successful people and companies enough.
- catgary 5y ago
  I mean, Gawker got destroyed when they ignored court orders to take down pornography that was made without the subject’s consent.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    That isn't what it got sued for. That all would have opened them to court sanctions and copyright claims, but that isn't the lawsuit that Peter Thiel bankrolled, probably because those things wouldn't have been enough to destroy Gawker. Instead, Thiel bankrolled a lawsuit for invasion ift privacy and emotional distress, because there's no ceiling on jury awards in cases like that.
    - catgary 5y ago
      Right, Gawker posted pornography made without a subject’s consent. Then when they were sued about it, they kept the illegal pornography up on their website despite a court order. I don’t like Peter Thiel, but to be honest I think more companies need to be Gawkered when they flagrantly ignore the law.
- barrenko 5y ago
  It is really a bit more complicated than that (but still simple). Legacy media and Gawker WAS and is a bully.

Swizec 5y ago

Well there is that Gawker vs. Thiel story where Thiel purposefully destroyed Gawker because they said mean things and he decided an internet without Gawker is better. He's probably right that the internet is better without Gawker, but it's also a good example of what may happen when you upset successful people and companies enough.

catgary 5y ago
I mean, Gawker got destroyed when they ignored court orders to take down pornography that was made without the subject’s consent.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  That isn't what it got sued for. That all would have opened them to court sanctions and copyright claims, but that isn't the lawsuit that Peter Thiel bankrolled, probably because those things wouldn't have been enough to destroy Gawker. Instead, Thiel bankrolled a lawsuit for invasion ift privacy and emotional distress, because there's no ceiling on jury awards in cases like that.
  - catgary 5y ago
    Right, Gawker posted pornography made without a subject’s consent. Then when they were sued about it, they kept the illegal pornography up on their website despite a court order. I don’t like Peter Thiel, but to be honest I think more companies need to be Gawkered when they flagrantly ignore the law.
barrenko 5y ago
It is really a bit more complicated than that (but still simple). Legacy media and Gawker WAS and is a bully.