Hacker News Reader

> Especially given Thiel's motive that "they outed me" - come on, Thiel's sexuality was probably the worst kept secret in the Valley. When you pose shirtless on a gay cruise, I think it's fairly safe the rest of the world didn't need Valleywag to tell them of your homosexuality.

Does all that evidence matter? Shouldn't it be up to Theil when and where he outs himself instead of blog like Valleywag doing it for him?

If you post a profile picture like that when you are a person of public interest, I think there's a fairly good argument that you -have- outed yourself, at least implicitly.

So you'd like it if Gawker was trolling your feed (and those of your friends and family) for what they feel to be sufficient disclosure to post some gossip clickbait?

If I was a public figure (as most billionaires are classified, by the courts), and posted a picture of me on a public profile page, then I would be entirely disingenuous to say "you have no right to know this!".

Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises.

"Like" it doesn't come into it. I don't have a right to stop people doing what I don't "like".

Who gets to determine if you're a public figure? Nick Denton? You might not approve of his standards or discretion. I hope you haven't posted any 'racy' pictures, or that you don't become dangerously successful.

I am all for free speech, but if we are going to have libel and defamation laws (which I have mixed feelings about), everyone should be allowed to avail themselves of the opportunity to obtain compensation from those who have 'wronged' them.

Your right to privacy is essentially a right to determine what private moments get shared and which do not. It is not a decision you make once (at the time you become a public figure, or when you first post a private picture publicly.) It is a decision you are allowed to make with every private moment.

So this:

"Just like in Gawker's case, decisions have consequences. Don't claim your sex life is private and no-one's business (and I have zero interest) whilst posting pictures of yourself on gay cruises."

...is not saying that decisions have consequences. It is saying that people who make decisions you don't agree with have no right to privacy. You are arguing that a perceived moment of hypocrisy should somehow revoke a person's ability to make decisions.

Can you show us where Thiel posted a picture of himself?

> Shouldn't it be up to Theil when and where he outs himself instead of blog like Valleywag doing it for him?

Agree, but it isn't illegal.

Apparently posting a sex tape is though.

Not illegal. However Liberace gave Thiel legal precedence when Liberace himself successfully sued the Daily Mirror for hinting he was a homosexual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberace_v_Daily_Mirror

http://www.theargus.co.uk/magazine/nostalgia/pastpresent/445...

But it is wrong. And Theil got revenge by backing a lawsuit which stood on its own merit - which also isn't illegal.

People keep saying things like that. But I keep wondering if they have considered the flip side of that, which is are we really comfortable saying that the personal relationships of rich and famous people shouldn't be in the media?

When I go to the supermarket I see 500 headlines about famous people dating and breaking up and cheating on their partners, etc.

Sure it's a little lowbrow but do we really feel that rumors about Brad Pitt and Carrie Underwood's dating life are ok to publish but his aren't? Are Peter Thiel's relationships specifically somehow exempt from this aspect of the culture?

I don't feel that celebrity dating life is ok to publish, actually. It's very seedy and not in the public interest in the average case. Celebrites are fairly open about their disgust for the constant filming of their private life. I would relish it if Brad Pitt or someone else got a similar judgement from the courts.

> I don't feel that celebrity dating life is ok to publish, actually. It's very seedy and not in the public interest in the average case.

Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not about evaluating everything said and determining if something is "in the public interest" in the United States. I think that focus on the "public interest" aligns more with European or Chinese cultural values.

If we are talking about personal values, I am glad we don't have censors in the US. Even if you and I can agree celebrity gossip probably has no value, what get defined as "not in the public interest" is too easy to be politically determined.

Two things. Both Gawker and Thiel are in the wrong here.

1) It feels obviously wrong to me to have someone publicly outed like that. [like you say, the evidence doesn't matter]

2) It feels sketchy for a wronged person to retaliate by having a nontrivial player in written media shut down.

Thiel was well within his legal rights. "Both sides are wrong" is a common cop out. False equivalency isn't helping

I wouldn't say they're equivalent.

I find a private, rich entity shutting down a media company much scarier than a media company publishing facts.

How about a wealthy media company acting in a way that exposes them to liability, relying the inability of those they have victimized to seek redress?

I'm not saying Gawker is a martyr here.

But if you haven't, you really ought to read Benedict Evans piece on this:

> Again, though, Thiel has already won. He is fabulously wealthy and extremely influential, and say what you will about Gawker, the liberal democracy that made it possible for the companies Thiel has built and invested in to emerge depends on a free press; driving a publication to bankruptcy via lawyer fees may be legal by the letter of the law, and even deserved on a personal level, but it is in absolute violation of the spirit of the law and, I might add, a rather hypocritical — or is it ironic? — use of government by the avowed libertarian Thiel. What are more concerning, though — and implicit in this concern is a critique of libertarianism — are the second and third-order effects of Thiel’s approach.

> The most obvious second-order effect is that, as Felix Salmon writes, Thiel is providing a blueprint for the suppression of the press by the wealthy. But what concerns me — and what ought to concern Thiel, and all of the Silicon Valley elites celebrating his actions — are the third order effects. Specifically, Thiel’s actions are bringing into stark relief the fundamental weakness of old analog businesses like journalism relative to the incredible power and strength of the technology sector, and if companies follow Thiel’s example, the freedom that makes the emergence of said companies possible could quickly come under threat — and deservedly so.

https://stratechery.com/2016/peter-thiel-comic-book-hero/

I see and understand where the author is coming from.

I just don't fully agree. I see a powerful person doing what nobody else was willing to do - hold a powerful and abusive media organization to account for their actions. It's far from ideal. However, no ideal answer was on offer. In an ideal world, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.

To me, it is a stepwise improvement over the previous state of affairs. This reminds powerful people and organizations of something important - they are not the only ones with power.

Wrong Ben -- that's Ben Thompson, not Benedict Evans.

Oh geeze. Yup. I even read the Twitter follow-up. Too late to edit, though

The judge shut down the company, not Thiel. Or are you saying the court was Thiel's sock puppet? Then you have a much bigger problem.

Just out of interest - insurance may not have saved them. I have liability insurance etc but it's capped at £2 million. I doubt any corporate insurance plan for Gawker would be uncapped, so they may well have still gone under.

Also a good point, true. But it does put the lie to their claim, under oath, in court, that there was emotional damage suffered and that compensation was sought.

Actually, it could be construed as evidence of real emotional damage. That is, they'd rather see Gawker go under than get more money, because one would make them feel a lot better than the other.

Spinning things as much as you're legally allowed to make as much noise and money as possible is the basis of the whole industry Gawker and Hogan are part of.

There is zero morality in showbiz, it's all dares, counter-dares, lawyers and technicalities.

You fight fire with fire. I don't think it's unfair Gawker lost at their own game. Another one will fill the void anyway.

They did have insurance, and when that became clear the claims were changed so that their insurancr wouldnt cover it.

This is: you hit me with a car, i find out what your insurance covers, and then make sure that your insurance wont cover it.

I don't understand how this is even possible. It seems to me that the plaintiff should have no say in how you pay for damages save perhaps being able to ask for a public apology.