Hacker News Reader

Comment by vintermann | Hacker News Reader

Now, I agree with that. But it's not the argument other people are making. People are saying this is an attack on journalism, and complaining that Thiel could have bankrupted Gawker just by attrition.

Yeah, he could. But that was not in fact what he did. Gawker didn't lose by attrition, they lost a particular case they damn well deserved to lose.

On the other hand, Thiel says Gawker's former victims have been forced to settle for a pittance because of attrition on their end. That sounds entirely plausible.

Money matters in court, by default that favours corporations (including media corporations like Gawker, and their $200-million owner Nick Denton) over all but the richest of individuals. That's the status quo, now the media are upset that it didn't work in their favor for once.

View on HN

Yes, Gawker deserved to lose that case.

However, the Thiel involvement produced a vindictive and revenge-based strategy to try the case in such a way that Gawker couldn't use their insurance to pay the damages.

So I don't think anybody's arguing that Gawker shouldn't have lost that case. But it's clear the motive here wasn't just punishment, it was to put Gawker out of business.

And I used to hate Gawker because of all this Valleywag nonsense they did, but they have a lot of good sites today.

Like the site that sold that bought a stolen iPhone and bragged about it? If Gawker has any good content it's coincidence and not because they actively attempt to make it good.

remove "that sold" from above, can't edit anymore.

Part of the purpose of tort law is to discourage tortfeasors from future misconduct. With a company as big as Gawker, insurance subverts this to some extent.

Do you think it should be possible to insure yourself out of liability for gross invasions of privacy?

It's not the insurance company that has wronged him. It's perfectly reasonable for Bollea to seek deterrence rather than settlement money/damages. Anyone would prefer that, unless they were forced to settle for something else for money reasons. Usually the plaintiff would settle/go for damages because they have to prefer money, because going to court is damn expensive.

So saying this was unfair and vindictive is presuming that the status quo, where money decides court cases, is just and reasonable. That Bollea should have been forced to go for the money because he's not really rich, he just has a rich backer. But I disagree with that. As long as money matters in court, the more people get access to multimillionaire justice the better.

I used to hate OJ Simpson because of the murders, but he was funny in the naked gun movies..

If Thiel didn't have a history with Gawker, I would believe to this nobel cause. However, it is obvious that he is using his power for personal revenge.

The short article just tries to show that the new billionaires are not different than old billionaires. They won't hesitate to use their power for personal gain in any area.

Well, you may say, of course, they will use their power for their personal gain. Well, yes, that is the point. Silicon Valley billionaires are not different.

> If Thiel didn't have a history with Gawker, I would believe to this nobel cause.

Thiel's history with Gawker is irrelevant to whether the cause is noble. If the cause is noble, it's noble regardless of who is funding it and why. If funding cancer research is noble, it is still noble even if you became interested because you had cancer.

I didn't discuss whether the cause is noble or not. I discussed whether what Peter Thiel is doing noble or not. I don't find his action noble. In other words, that someone supports a noble cause does not make them noble, one should also check their intentions.

You literally said "noble cause" (well, "nobel cause").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com