
Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump - myrrh
http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/06/peter-thiel.html
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
What I find interesting is that the author of this piece attacks Peter Thiel
as some opponent of press freedom because he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit
that a jury found in favor of Terry Bolea.

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/](http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/chavez-versus-the-press/)

1\. [https://rsf.org/en/venezuela](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.

~~~
ch4s3
wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the
phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do
with Thiel's motivation or the end result. He's funded maybe over a dozen
other suits, secretly, some of which were pretty dubious. His stated goal is
to destroy a news agency because they reported on his personal life. I hate
that kind of journalism, but I don't think billionaires should be able to use
money and the courts to shut down speech they don't like.

>>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.

~~~
internaut
> wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using
> the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything
> to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result.

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.

~~~
ch4s3
>In the general case that is up for a far ranging debate

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?

~~~
internaut
If you mean him in particular, probably that he has strong moral convictions
about right and wrong. I don't know the man personally but I've been examining
his ideas with their percolations (e.g. mimesis, exits) and their interesting
offshoots for several years now and although some people may suppose him
contradictory this would be a very superficial reading. Being idiosyncratic is
not the same thing as being a hypocrite. He is not about to stomp on people's
freedom of speech merely because he disagrees with those people and/or their
politics. That would be in fact an antipathy to him. That he considers aiding
the takedown of Gawker as a philanthropic move is unsurprising to me and not a
form of sarcasm as some suppose.

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!

------
mark_l_watson
Interesting read. I am neutral on the Gawker issue (or more accurately, I just
don't care) but the bits about Trump, future governance past democracy, etc.
were good.

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.

------
mindslight
Based on the title, I guess I expected this article to have some shred of
input directly from Thiel. Shame on me.

------
carsongross
The authors guess: Thiel is interested in a Nietzschean transfiguration of
politics.

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.

------
mordant
I generally like Peter Thiel, and can't stand Gawker and their ilk - but I
despise barratry and maintenance more than I like Thiel and dislike Gawker.

