Hacker News Reader

Comment by JustSomeNobody | Hacker News Reader

Wait a minute. Gawker is no righteous hero here.

Let's see if I understand correctly. Gawker outs Thiel (which is nobody's business, yet Gawker decided to make it people's business). Gawker at some point later posts an illegal SEX tape (again, nobody's business).

Now, we're supposed to feel sorry for Gawker because Thiel wants to help out another person who was WRONGED by Gawker?

Wow. Just wow.

View on HN

I don't feel bad for Gawker at all.

I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. He's using that power for good in this case, but I doubt he always will.

He does have to buy the right litigation though. Thiel can't just sue the NYT out of existence because he gets it into his head to do so. He'd need to find a meritorious suit.

It's surprisingly easy to find some way that the law was broken... it's quite complex.

If your concern is that the legal system is too expensive, complex and dangerous then you are right. But there is nothing specially worrying about industrialists in this picture. The lawsuit suit that sideswipes you is far more likely to come from some crusading NGOs or from government agents trying to look tough.

There is something particularly worrying about the industrialists: they have the most resources.

More than than, say, the average government?

And then pour your money into a case that has more chances than not of being thrown out? More power to you.

Not really, just one that looks meritorious enough to a jury of average people.

So, do you also disagree when the ACLU backs a lawsuit? Or, say, when the EFF does?

Usually they don't do that anonymously.

As someone who has worked at 501(c)3 orgs that have launched public interest lawsuits, they are very likely receiving money to pay for those cases. And probably the majority of funding for a case comes from just one source--a source you likely don't know is funding it. Just because you see the ACLU or EFF doesn't mean you see where the money is ultimately coming from.

> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability.

What's wrong with backing some reasonable legal action?

Surely you're not against that?

I suspect the actual issue people have, which doesn't have anything to do with Thiel, is that a lot of people don't have the money to effectively back reasonable legal actions.

> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation.

What about when rich people fund the ACLU or EFF in order to support a lawsuit by those organizations?

> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability.

Welcome to the legal system. Money allows you to mount lawsuit (frivolous or not) and mount effective defenses against them.

The problem is when there's an imbalance: when a tech giant sues a small start-up (e.g., Zynga suing over the "Saga" trademark) or when an individual elects not to sue a large organization because the costs are too high.

Thiel (and Newegg re: patent trolls, and EFF, and ALCU, and others) are evening that money balance so justice can actually be served.

Can they use this power for evil instead? Of course: and it happens every day already. That's the point.

The anti-Thiel arguments come down to: "Even though Gawker was proven guilty in a court of law, it's not fair because Hogan never should have been able to mount the lawsuit in the first place." In other words, Gawker should have won because Hogan has less money. All Thiel did is even the playing field.

If this was about freedom of the press, they would have won the lawsuit. They didn't. End of story.

Follow up: the other argument here is that the damages awarded from the Hogan verdict shouldn't bankrupt Gawker. And that's a fair point: if total corporate annihilation is a possible outcome from publishing a story, then would the press be more leery of posting important, controversial news. Thus impacting the value of a free press.

Again, valid argument (though this case is a bad example). But your quibble is with the legal system, not with Hogan or Thiel.

You will also need to weigh fairness in tying damages to "ability to pay", as well as "news-worthiness" (e.g., not a sex tape).

In a larger context, I think corporate annihilation is something corporations should live in constant fear of.

I agree that in this case Thiel evened the playing field, but the fundamental problem still remains. It's still highly problematic that either Thiel or Gawker can buy the law.

Have you seen Gawker's piece on Thiel? (http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people)

Surely broke his privacy, but by no means was it offensive.

I get how HOGAN would be mad, but this seems like a whining billionaire without better ideas for his money. (irony much?)

Either way he righted a wrong. His outcome was to stop a media service from releasing non-important but damaging information and Gawker's was to exploit private information illegally obtained for profit.

It's a better way to spend money than on a boat.

The same could be said about any media company.

He did not "righted a wrong". This was a vicious "eye for an eye".

> He did not "righted a wrong".

go on...

1. What does a person's sexuality have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with VC funding? It blows my mind how much people care about who someone else is screwing!!! That's a private thing. Keep it at home.

2. If Thiel wanted anyone to know, it is his privilege to do so. It doesn't matter that it was not offensive to further_tech. Do you think it MAY have been offensive to Thiel?

1) First Amendment. Have you ever heard about celebrity gossips and VH1?

2) If it was offensive to Thiel, he clearly has an ego problem. Regardless, the article did not ATTACK him or MOCKED his sexuality. Any normal gay person would find other means to deal with this.

1) I would LOVE to hear how you believe the 1st answers the questions I posed.

2) So, when someone is outed, if they're offended, they have an ego problem? What planet are you from?

Honestly, you are either not intelligent or actively trying to distort my answers.

1) The 1st simply gives you freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if it is a gossip about someone.

2) I clearly was referring to the article exposing Thiel as gay ( his motivation for this). Because it clearly did not openly humiliated him, his overstated battle clearly shows an inflated ego.

Honestly, your answer and all the others sadly shows how rationality is just an "extra factor" when a "tech guru" is criticized. I expected more from this community.

> you are either not intelligent or actively trying to distort

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

Violating someone's privacy is always offensive. Is that really in question? While lots of people say they put little value on protecting privacy, I have never seen them post their medical records or tax returns.

In practical terms for Thiel, there are likely large investors in the world (like say in the middle east) who might not be willing to invest in a VC who is gay, etc.

You're not the one that gets to decide if that was offensive. If he was not comfortable enough to be out at the time that was written, then yes, that could be completely offensive to him.

I'm not deciding for him. I'm being commonsensical by saying his "punishment" was not justifiable because of this article.

For 99.9% of human beings, such article would never make someone spend enough money to put this newspaper out of business.

> For 99.9% of human beings, such article would never make someone spend enough money to put this newspaper out of business.

> I'm not deciding for him

You kind of are... by pointing out what you think is expected behavior and judging his against that benchmark.

Sounds like you are deciding for him.

And 99.9% of human beings wouldn't have that kind of money to spend in the first place. Now, if you were to adjust the amount of money as a % of wealth down to the average income, would they spend that much, if that's all it took?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com