> And (more importantly imo) the larger issue is -- are you comfortable with a random person having enough money/power to threaten freedom of the press? OK, le

> And (more importantly imo) the larger issue is -- are you comfortable with a random person having enough money/power to threaten freedom of the press? OK, let's see if we agree on the basic timeline: 1. Gawker outed Thiel. 2. Gawker released the Hulk Hogan sex tape. 3. Thiel funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. 4. Gawker lost the lawsuit. Is that accurate? If it is, the problem isn't that Thiel funded the lawsuit, the problem is that Hulk Hogan needed Thiel to fund the lawsuit for him to prevail in court and get justice for the wrong Gawker did to him. I'm for taxing billionaires. I'm also for privacy and people being protected against paparazzi. Those things don't come into conflict unless someone sees a billionaire funding lawsuits based on the right to privacy and decides that anything a billionaire does must be wrong, prima facie. > Do you think its equally wrong that Wired outed Naomi Wu while she lives in a country hostile to LGBTQ+ people? Yes. > Have you read Conspiracy? No.