3 ms·

According to the article, not only was Thiel not convicted of anything, he wasn’t guilty of anything. Florida had already changed their laws. I’m at a doctor’s

According to the article, not only was Thiel not convicted of anything, he wasn’t guilty of anything. Florida had already changed their laws. I’m at a doctor’s appointment, but I wanted to quickly thank you for explaining your side. I disagree with some of it — perhaps even most - but the underlying motive is a good one. I just worry that you throw too many of us into the lake. Thiel, for example. Your possibly justified outrage against a few have made it more likely for you to argue that some of them are terrible when they don’t seem to be.

jacquesm 3y ago
I noted that Thiel wasn't convicted, but that does not mean that what he did was right or that it was legal, merely that he may well be insulated enough that he can get away with such stuff where you and I could not. And that in itself is a perversion of the law in its own right. Thiel and Musk lack ethics, they see the world as their property and carve it up with the same ease as the rulers of old did and never mind the consequences. With such power there should be a matching sense of responsibility. This lack of ethics seems to be the default for billionaires, it is very rare to see people that wealthy that use their wealth in a positive sense, more often than not it is used as a weapon and to acquire even more wealth at a cost to society and the environment in general. Good luck at the doctor's!
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  The part I don’t understand is that you feel Gawker was scum. Thiel removed Gawker’s ability to be scum. Thus, by logic, the world was improved. Isn’t that the core of what you’re saying you wish billionaires did? Improve the world? Quoting you: > I can't stand it that people with such an opportunity for improving the world around them would squander it and wreck it. This seems like the crux of our disagreement. I feel the law is a means to an end. Is it correct that you feel the law is the end of the debate? Or that people who can afford to accept the penalties under the law are scum for choosing to accept such penalties? I’m trying to make your worldview consistent and complete, but there might be a Gödel problem here.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It is possible to believe that both parties in a lawsuit are scum. Gawker was scum because of what they did to Hogan. Thiel was scum because of what he did to Gawker. The two are not mutually exclusive. Thiel used Hogan in much the same way that Hogan was used by Gawker: to further their own goals. > I feel the law is a means to an end. It is a reasonably practical approach to a - hopefully - minimal set of rules that society needs to make it all work. Having parties that perform in extra-legal ways breaks that principle and (1) requires the continued expansion of the volume of law to close the holes and (2) creates a non-level playingfield where the rich get to use their money to improve their own station at the expense of everybody else. Nobody should have that kind of power. > Is it correct that you feel the law is the end of the debate? No, I think it is very well possible that you find the need to change laws, amend them or remove them based on evaluation by the various legislative bodies, judges and advocates. But once something is written into law things bifurcate considerably compared between say the USA and the EU: in the USA the letter of the law is what drives the process, in the EU it is the spirit of the law that drives the process. This isn't as clear cut as I would like it to be, there are examples of the reverse on both sides but it serves as a useful shortcut. And, incidentally, it is also why US companies tend to have a hard time in Europe when faced with lawsuits that they think they can escape on a technicality: such tricks rarely work here and can easily make your problems worse. > Or that people who can afford to accept the penalties under the law are scum for choosing to accept such penalties? I'm not sure I can follow you there. What do you mean exactly? > I’m trying to make your worldview consistent and complete, but there might be a Gödel problem here. Or it may simply be that to fully understand someone's worldview you'd have to be that person and that anything else is just an approximation. I've met > 5 and < 10 billionaires in person. Some of them were the most humble and incredible people I have ever met, you wouldn't know their names and you would never realize that they did what they did because they do so quietly and effectively. And some are utter jerks that see this world as their personal playground where the rules are for suckers and their money insulates them from the consequences of their actions. The latter group is over-represented in the SV eco system, and it is something that we will all end up regretting, these people have a lot of power but not a gram of responsibility or ethics. You are not a person to them, you are a disposable unit that either serves to further their interests, can be discarded, ignored or destroyed at a whim.

jacquesm 3y ago

I noted that Thiel wasn't convicted, but that does not mean that what he did was right or that it was legal, merely that he may well be insulated enough that he can get away with such stuff where you and I could not. And that in itself is a perversion of the law in its own right. Thiel and Musk lack ethics, they see the world as their property and carve it up with the same ease as the rulers of old did and never mind the consequences. With such power there should be a matching sense of responsibility. This lack of ethics seems to be the default for billionaires, it is very rare to see people that wealthy that use their wealth in a positive sense, more often than not it is used as a weapon and to acquire even more wealth at a cost to society and the environment in general. Good luck at the doctor's!

sillysaurusx 3y ago
The part I don’t understand is that you feel Gawker was scum. Thiel removed Gawker’s ability to be scum. Thus, by logic, the world was improved. Isn’t that the core of what you’re saying you wish billionaires did? Improve the world? Quoting you: > I can't stand it that people with such an opportunity for improving the world around them would squander it and wreck it. This seems like the crux of our disagreement. I feel the law is a means to an end. Is it correct that you feel the law is the end of the debate? Or that people who can afford to accept the penalties under the law are scum for choosing to accept such penalties? I’m trying to make your worldview consistent and complete, but there might be a Gödel problem here.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It is possible to believe that both parties in a lawsuit are scum. Gawker was scum because of what they did to Hogan. Thiel was scum because of what he did to Gawker. The two are not mutually exclusive. Thiel used Hogan in much the same way that Hogan was used by Gawker: to further their own goals. > I feel the law is a means to an end. It is a reasonably practical approach to a - hopefully - minimal set of rules that society needs to make it all work. Having parties that perform in extra-legal ways breaks that principle and (1) requires the continued expansion of the volume of law to close the holes and (2) creates a non-level playingfield where the rich get to use their money to improve their own station at the expense of everybody else. Nobody should have that kind of power. > Is it correct that you feel the law is the end of the debate? No, I think it is very well possible that you find the need to change laws, amend them or remove them based on evaluation by the various legislative bodies, judges and advocates. But once something is written into law things bifurcate considerably compared between say the USA and the EU: in the USA the letter of the law is what drives the process, in the EU it is the spirit of the law that drives the process. This isn't as clear cut as I would like it to be, there are examples of the reverse on both sides but it serves as a useful shortcut. And, incidentally, it is also why US companies tend to have a hard time in Europe when faced with lawsuits that they think they can escape on a technicality: such tricks rarely work here and can easily make your problems worse. > Or that people who can afford to accept the penalties under the law are scum for choosing to accept such penalties? I'm not sure I can follow you there. What do you mean exactly? > I’m trying to make your worldview consistent and complete, but there might be a Gödel problem here. Or it may simply be that to fully understand someone's worldview you'd have to be that person and that anything else is just an approximation. I've met > 5 and < 10 billionaires in person. Some of them were the most humble and incredible people I have ever met, you wouldn't know their names and you would never realize that they did what they did because they do so quietly and effectively. And some are utter jerks that see this world as their personal playground where the rules are for suckers and their money insulates them from the consequences of their actions. The latter group is over-represented in the SV eco system, and it is something that we will all end up regretting, these people have a lot of power but not a gram of responsibility or ethics. You are not a person to them, you are a disposable unit that either serves to further their interests, can be discarded, ignored or destroyed at a whim.