Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump
nymag.com
nymag.com
The same author in 2012 wrote an article wrote an article defending Venezuela's Chavez in his treatment of the press [0]. In 2012, Reporters without borders, gave Venezuala a 117/177 in terms of press freedom[1].
0. http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/chavez-versus-the-press/
1. https://rsf.org/en/venezuela
With regards to articles about Peter Thiel, it seems like the media hand wringing over Gawker, may be in part because it strikes close to home to a lot of media members. They want the power of the media without the responsibility. In addition, I suspect a lot of media members have close friends and relatives that work for Gawker and this conflict of interest is hardly ever disclosed.
And that Thiel is also funding the anti-Gawker lawsuit by the guy who claims he invented email.
Your information is incorrect. By all means find a legitimate source for that claim but I recall the man saying he wasn't backed by Thiel.
"Ayyadurai says his case has no financial connection to Thiel. 'To be absolutely clear,' Ayyadurai said, 'my relationship with [Harder] is direct. There is no third party involved.'"
And:
"'To the best of my knowledge, I’m not seeing any money in my account coming from Peter Thiel,' he says."
This is, however, inconclusive. Forbes reported that Harder didn't know Thiel was behind the Hogan lawsuit until May. I believe that Ayyadurai isn't seeing any money from Thiel, but that's not the same thing as Harder not seeing money from Thiel. And "to the best of my knowledge" leaves plenty of wiggle room for Harder to be the cut-out man.
But, you know, maybe it's just a coincidence and only one of Harder's many cases against Gawker is backed by Thiel. Can I say for sure? Absolutely not!
I do, however, think it's a bit more likely than, say, "My two cents are that it is extremely likely Gawker was/is working for a covert political organization." I mean, if you're gonna demand that I provide cites (which is fair) you probably ought to steer away from that kind of random accusation.
Of course I could be wrong, but that would require a chain of coincidences worthy of Lemony Snicket. Who also lives in the Bay Area!
There is a list of people who want to sue Gawker a mile long so there's no reason to suspect Ayyadurai is/was indirectly funded by Thiel. As ch4s3 pointed out, this would actually make the objective less likely because of laws against frivolous lawsuits. Regardless of how valid Ayyadurai's lawsuit is, Thiel would have been selective, using his training as a lawyer to choose the case(s) he thinks are certain to win.
>>They want the power of the media without the responsibility What do you mean by that? "The Media" is not one single thing, but the precedent Thiel is setting could affect all types of media.
Frankly, I find Thiel's anti-democratic tendencies to be troubling. What I mean is that is his attempt to hijack the legal process to stifle speech vis a vis paying for a decade of continuous legal proceedings.
Oh, and as though it's not obvious, I have less than zero professional legal experience.
Probably part of it is because the judge agreed with Thiel's motivation. It was also appealed and thrown out of court. The fine was surely intended to bankrupt the company. Something judges do have the power to do.
To be honest I don't think even Thiel thought Gawker would fuck up its own defense this badly. They were pressing all the wrong buttons. I'm sure you've heard how the trial went.
> I don't think billionaires should be able to use money and the courts to shut down speech they don't like.
In this specific court case the speech was outright illegal even before they defied a court order.
In the general case that is up for a far ranging debate. My two cents are that it is extremely likely Gawker was/is working for a covert political organization (like how Salon* is also), as such it is a PR firm masquerading as journalism. The only question I have in my mind is whether Denton is aware of being co-opted. He must surely have realized something was up recently. I won't spell it out here but if you do some google searches you shall see some interesting things.
If you are a popular media organization with a poor or non-existent profit stream but readily available capital from nowhere for many years then you might find yourself in a spot of political trouble.
* From their wiki: Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history. Since 2007, the company has been dependent on ongoing cash injections from board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht.
That's my point basically. Even if Gawker isn't a "real" news organization, and they probably aren't, I still think this sets bad a precedent.
What's to stop him from targeting a real news organization next?
As for billionaires subverting the media generally, let's just say that if we assume Thiel did subvert the media for nefarious purposes he would be but a minnow in an ocean packed to the gills with sharks already eating each other. Eons before, you know, that minnow was hatched or whatever. I mean there are people literally killing each other out there over nothing. Perspective!
I live in the USA, and I have a difficult time thinking of our political system as being a democracy or a representative democracy. The financial nobility own the government on most issues that matter. I don't even think we have class warfare because the elites have won, game over.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the future, a pleasant waste of time! I expect some form of meritocracy with huge wealth disparity and some form of guaranteed minimum income to keep society functioning. My field (since the early 1980s) is artificial intelligence and machine learning, and I expect to see continued rapid progress in practical automated systems that will replace blue and white collar labor. Society will need to adjust.
Edit: I have read Thiel's book "Zero to One" twice.
Pretty fair article on the alt-right, given the source. They even noticed the post-libertarian aspect of it, which I think is the biggest political story of the last eight years.