Granted, this strategy is very high risk unless you're one of the richest people in the world.
One thought did occur to me is that he is basically daring AMI to release the pictures. What if he knows the providence of these pictures, knows how they got into AMI hands, and knows that if AMI publish them he can sue them, Gawker (not Buzzfeed) style, into the ground?
Bezos is reasonably safe in airing this, because AMI will only dig itself a deeper hole if they post them. AMI botched the crud out of this operation by leaving a paper trail: They made accepting their offer completely unnecessary; I don't think there's any chance the pictures get posted now.
It's something in the way people would look at you, talk about you, etc ...
If you combine that with the Streisand effect, there's no way a public figure can take this kind of hit and walk away unphased. It's very much human nature, and that's why Jeff's move is bold.
The only thing missing here is Bezos offering to up the ante with a newer dickpic.
In fact offering the full text of the extortion attempt shows true courage, and at the same time claims back all the power the items might have had.
It just makes me despise these dickheads even more and totally root (the Australian version) for Bezos - go get them!!
I'm super interested in what happens next.
AFAIK we are talking about a naked pic. If that was really so dangerous, people would never take naked selfies in the first place. I think it's hyperbole, even by american's puritan standards
I do of course realize that things can be very different for people in different positions, and of course sextortion of minors is a very different thing. But for someone reasonably secure both financially and emotionally, who cares? Only the sort of people I don't willingly spend time around anyway.
I don't know Bezos, but he's certainly OK financially, and this reaction seems to demonstrate emotional competence, too.
Given a choice between action X and action Y, and given all the facts and experience and self-knowledge currently at one's disposal, which option will you look back on in future with fewer/lesser regrets?
You then commit to the path that you currently judge minimises your future contrition.
The very literal minded will take this at face value and miss the point of the construct, which is that having committed to a given path you have minimised your regret even if it turns out to be the wrong choice. Because you can look back and say "given the information I had, it looked like the right one". Which is another way of saying, "if I had my time again, I'd do it the same way", only now with rational evidence of this claim.
Thus turning confirmation bias into an affirmative and effective decision tool, by preforming the outcome around it.
If you follow this procedure, you may still turn out unhappy, but you won't blame yourself. It is especially recommended for people who may otherwise experience chronic decision paralysis comorbidly with crippling imposter syndrome.
One practical issue with this advice is that it can lead to the "death of a thousand cuts" where any single binary event can be weighed one way but over the course of thousands of iterations, the aggregate would be weighed the opposite.
Sure, in theory one would take into account all possible futures where this could happen but in practical terms that is a tough thing to do and there is seldom a good point to stop.
On the other hand I tend only to apply it for substantial life decisions. Quitting my job to launch a startup; getting married; moving to another country (x4); not eating the entire cheesecake; choosing Vim over Emacs etc.
<spoilers>
Where at the end once the mc has the new ability, she can see her painful future, and yet she accepts it because, well, what can you do about predestination? Had me thinking, if an individual could perceive time non-linearly, would they see their future folly, and yet perform the same mistakes, at peace with their actions?
</spoilers>
Taken from the point of view of the divorce court, this is a LOT more ammo for his soon-to-be-ex-wife and her side. These photos are very soon to hit the greater web/papers and WILL be used against him in the proceedings.
You are correct, this decision by him to speak out is likely to cost him Billions.
He has demonstrated a certain level of integrity, but that doesn't make him a Good Man.
Sounds like precisely why he felt the buck had to stop somewhere.
And in the current world[+] there's so much exposure that such pictures will be drowned out by the sheer volume of stuff. Yes, we're still at a point where politicians can lose their jobs because of racialist photos or certain indiscretions, but at least the "indiscretions" have less and less power over non-politicians (actual bad deeds still do, but that's not an issue here).
And these pictures are all about consensual behavior that isn't extraordinary. There's not even a scandal.
[+] or in what I can imagine is a linear projection of today's world forward only a few years from now
For anyone else, going bankrupt in an attempt to fight blackmail would be a pyrrhic victory in the best-case scenario.
Morality aside, I don't have any sympathy for tabloids like these. What bothers me is I don't think much will change, even if Bezos wins here. As long as the public has voracious appetite for celebrity juicy stories, someone will find a way to feed it.
Can you clarify what makes one of these different from a racist photo?
Racialism -- pretending or willfully wanting to believe that there are actual meaningful racial distinctions differences -- you can see in the photos of lynchings, slave era laws in the slave states etc. I think most of the people in those photos knew they were wrong, just as I believe some of those old laws I've read were written by people who knew they were wrong. Likewise modern laws that happen to "coincidentally" exclude some sections of the population from voting.
I believe some racist comments and representations can be innocent (though in this day and age, quite few IMHO) and they can also be intended to send a message (e.g. neither Alexander Hamilton nor Aaron Burr were black; you could purposefully either neuter or hyper-extend the portrayal of Shylock to make a point).
The racialists have no excuse.
/s