Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kristine1975 | Hacker News Reader

Kristine1975

>These articles attacking Thiel framed as billionaire versus journalists doesn't even mention this fact.

This one does though:

>As for Gawker, it disseminated a sex tape of a retired pro wrestler. Let’s not pretend that the website did it as part of a great journalistic mission. Gawker did it to lure eyes to its website while smugly saying the First Amendment sheltered it.

The author's beef isn't with Thiel using his money to help sue Gawker, but with him considering this to be philanthropic:

>The problem isn’t the way Thiel used his money. It’s his pretensions about it.

View on HN

> The author's beef isn't with Thiel using his money to help sue Gawker, but with him considering this to be philanthropic:

>> The problem isn’t the way Thiel used his money. It’s his pretensions about it.

But it is philanthropic, it just doesn't align with the author's idea of philanthropy.

Just like how it's philanthropic if I tape bum fights and make them freely available on YouTube.

Except in Thiel's case, there seems to be a strong concurrence of moral justice behind him. Your example would get none of that.

Philanthropy assumes a common/public good.

Because getting a settlement for invasion of privacy is exactly the same?

False equivalence. Hulk Hogan may not be my favorite celebrity, but he deserves privacy more than Gawker deserves page views.

What?! You have a seriously messed up idea of the definition of the word philanthropic.

>the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.

If Thiel believes that sponsoring this lawsuit improves the welfare of others, then it is by definition philanthropy.

Are more leaked sex tapes used for commercial purposes in the public interest?

Nobody pretended so - which is the whole point. Thiel could have given his money to a foundation that openly sponsors lawsuits for media victioms. That would haven been for the public good.

Instead he chose to sponsor the lawsuit (and other lawsuits) against gawker in secret because he feels wronged by them with the intent of punishing them. And that's not in the public interest because it can be considered a form of vigilantism.

Bollea had a valid legal cause of action and Thiel backed the lawsuit financially...no matter what Thiel's motives isn't working within the confines of the law and availing oneself to their legal rights the complete opposite of vigilantism?

I agree he should rather have been open about it. But for one, it doesn't appear to have been a terribly well-kept secret, and for another, he could easily have hid behind a foundation too.

>it can be considered a form of vigilantism

No. Vigilantism is extralegal. A lawsuit is by definition not vigilantism.

Boom! Exactly. He did something good using available means. Pragmatism is the ultimate move to make good things happen in the short term and he did it.

Had he not the risk of other people's information being leaked for the entertainment of the masses could be higher.

Maybe he did so in secret because he didn't want it to be framed 'billionaire vs journalist'

Perhaps he felt that he was wronged by them and that may be petty, but it doesn't mean that the lawsuit he did participate in is unjust or an unworthy cause.

So the US courts are so corrupt that going through them is considered vigilantism?

If Thiel's action was vigilantism, the use of private combat or violence to punish perceived injustice, then maybe the real problem is that our legal system has become a form of trial by financial combat.

Cannot agree.

Legal precedent is legal precedent regardless of who brings the case or their stature. Thiel going in via the Hogan case is still public interest.

> Thiel could have given his money to a foundation that openly sponsors lawsuits for media victioms.

Why is that better than shuttering a perpetrator and dancing on its grave?

It's not substantively any different, but the other old people are disconcerted by the dancing. Perhaps if there was a formal dancing school scheduled at the graveyard they could get used to the idea.

this is getting too much into "... and he said, and then she said...". was something wrong done? is there some sort of justice being done? no need to go deeper than this, unless it's one's hobby to discuss famous people's private lives

Thanks for contributing!

It's rare that someone contributes without adding anything worth reading. YOU are BETTER. RARE isn't just how you take your eggs.

You're not a hypocrite. You're a trendsetter. It's so lame to discuss famous people's lives. Especially when they aren't SF-famous! You have set the tone for this thread and HN is better for it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

well, thank you too :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com