
Thiel shows why tech billionaires are the new robber barons - petethomas
http://reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSKCN0YO09A
======
bko
> Litigation finance is typically a business venture. It doesn’t become
> charity because a wealthy person uses it as a template for a personal
> crusade and then insists he’s doing everyone else a favor.

Why? Many cases brought by individuals or groups on moral grounds have led the
way to better governance. A lot of good work has been done by groups such as
the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Why should individuals or groups not be
allowed to litigate moral changes? Who is supposed to do this?

What's lost in all of this is what the lawsuit was actually about. Gawker
wasn't speaking truth to power and criticizing individuals. Gawker posted an
illegally obtained sex-tape. These articles attacking Thiel framed as
billionaire versus journalists doesn't even mention this fact. The question
should be why you need a billionaire to fund a lawsuit to get some sort of
justice.

~~~
bduerst
The subject of the case is a red herring.

Typically in these situations, a settlement is reached or insurance covers the
damages.

That didn't happen. Thiel had an axe to grind against Gawker, invested $10m in
the litigation, and pushed the case past settlement offers - even _removing_ a
claim that allowed insurance to cover damages. It focused on maximizing the
damage _to_ Gawker, which isn't what civil court is typically supposed to do.

Thiel was out for blood, and he used his money in someone else's case to get
it.

~~~
csallen
Yes, Thiel was out for blood, but so what? There's nothing inherently wrong or
illegal about feeling vengeful. It's a natural human emotion experienced and
indulged by pretty much everyone at some point in time. It's not like we can
eradicate it or make it illegal, so complaining about Thiel's goals or
feelings seems like a waste of time to me.

The issue, as usual, should be with the system itself.

Is what happened here unjust? Is it wrong for Gawker to have had to pay the
$140M? If you believe so, then your complaint should lie with the court.
People should expect justice in court, rather than "typically" avoiding it via
settlements and insurance. Our judicial system should be robust enough to make
the motivations of a lawsuit's participants irrelevant. No matter how badly
Thiel wants to destroy Gawker, they should only be liable for an appropriate
amount of damages. If the court failed Gawker there, that's the court's fault.

On the flip side, if you believe the settlement was just, then it's Gawker's
fault for doing something so bad that it cost them $140M in the first place.

EDIT: At least 6 downvotes now, but no replies. If you disagree, can you
defend your reasoning at all?

~~~
bduerst
What you're outlining is what people are worried about here - that uninvolved
third parties with means can influence civil court cases they are biased
against.

You could argue that this has always been the case, where the U.S. justice
system has always been biased in favor of those with the wealth or the means,
but does that really justify not pushing back against it?

Keep in mind that I'm not defending Gawker or sex tapes. If it comes down to
deciding between a world where the sex tape with my best friend's wife can be
published, or a world where billionaires can use their wealth in court to take
out press organizations, I'm leaning more towards the latter.

~~~
csallen
There's nothing inherently wrong with third parties helping each other out. I
can't understand why anyone would be worried about that. In fact, a lawyer is
an uninvolved third party.

What _is_ wrong is the degree to which wealth influences the outcome of a
case. _That 's_ the real problem. In an ideal world, a person's case could be
presented with equal strength regardless of the money spent for or against
them. Obviously we don't live in this ideal world, but imo we should be laser
focused on moving in that direction.

What frustrates me is the utter lack of focus on that task. Almost nobody
seems to care about the broken legal system itself. All of the attention is
being diverted to Thiel, billionaires, etc, and it's maddening. How do we
expect to fix problems that we are willfully ignoring?

The media is acting in its own self-interest by framing this as a free speech
issue. The "99%ers" are acting in their own self-interest by framing this as a
billionaires-vs-the-rest-of-us issue. Where are the "good and just" people who
should be acting in their own self-interest by demanding improvements in
justice? Shouldn't that be all of us?

~~~
bduerst
It may reach the point of fixing the court process eventually, but
understanding _why_ it's an issue is also an important first step.

The _how_ this issue is going to be fixed will probably be a long time coming,
unfortunately. Give it time.

An interesting first step would be to include more transparent disclosure of
the third parties who speculate on these court cases. Thiel very obviously
knew this would backfire if it became public, which is why they kept it secret
for so long.

~~~
csallen
I hope you're right, but I'm not so confident. People as a whole are not
systems thinkers. We tend to take systems for granted, and assume they are
eternal and unchangeable. I think this case is a perfect example. It's hard to
mobilize the masses behind something boring and complex like court reform.
It's easy, however, to incite them to hate an individual person, especially if
he's a billionaire. Even on HN, it's mostly people attacking/defending Thiel
himself.

Also, for what it's worth, the fact that something backfires in the court of
public opinion doesn't mean that it's bad. It could just mean the public is
under-informed or easily deceived.

------
grellas
Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that they
come in all shapes and sizes.

Here, one very wealthy individual used his money to fund someone else's
lawsuit. He did so secretly. He did so against an organization that had harmed
him and against which he presumably wanted payback but that also had done a
gratuitously damaging and sleazy act as part of a pattern of sleazy acts upon
which it had built its erstwhile presumably profitable venture, hence
presumably deserving payback.

So what does this say about Silicon Valley? Well, nothing at all, really. Both
before and after this incident, Silicon Valley was, is and remains a place
where multiple tech entrepreneurs and those who back them financially have
built amazing ventures (and fortunes) that have reshaped all of world commerce
even while many others failed. The thing that is new and different is the tech
and the ways of using it to disrupt old-style business models. What is not
different is the people. As with people everywhere, some are great, others
sleazy, still others ravenously greedy, still others amazingly kind and
gracious - in short, people who come in all shapes and sizes. I guess they are
on average more educated and accomplished than average folks but the personal
traits that define them, both good and bad, are pretty much the same as with
people everywhere.

I don't know Mr. Thiel and don't know any more about him than what the
headlines say. He may be fully justified in taking this action (it is a
perfectly legal thing to do) or he may be displaying traits deserving our
opprobrium. What I am sure of is that his actions here, good or bad, have
little or nothing to do with what other prominent tech entrepreneurs do or how
they think or how they run their companies.

So the logic of this piece - Mr. Thiel did x as a private act in his life,
therefore all Silicon Valley tech billionaires stand indicted, therefore the
public will now see them as no different than robber barons - seems to rest on
multiple _non sequiturs_ that really need to be more carefully thought
through.

I guess we are conditioned to accept this sort of sloppy reasoning when it
comes to discussing the very rich but this seems like a way-over-the-top
overreaction to an individual episode that is what it is but that reflects
very little on the broader environment surrounding it (or, if it does, not in
ways that can be generalized in the crazy ways the author does here).

~~~
CPLX
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's hopelessly naive. It
takes time for people who have been suddenly vaulted into the position of
being the ruling class to realize that they are regarded as such.

Silicon Valley as a culture still sees itself as a scrappy underdog. They see
startups as small underfunded rebels trying to disrupt rich and powerful
corporate interests. They see themselves as unstylish and unpopular "geeks"
outside the social power of the attractive and successful. Silicon Valley
doesn't perceive itself as a center of wealth, power, and social control. But
the rest of the world has no trouble whatsoever figuring it out, and they are
scared of this power.

 _As they should be._ Concentrations of wealth and power without
accountability are dangerous.

The meta-discussion around Peter Thiel and Gawker is fundamentally about
_power_ and who wields it in society. When you see someone on your playground
who is clearly far stronger than a normal person walk over and punch someone
in the face with no accountability and no real ability to seek redress you
don't actually care much what the person did to deserve it. You suddenly start
getting very nervous about who he's going to punch in the face next, as you're
keenly aware that it's not you who gets to decide.

This backlash is going to get louder not softer. The "Who me? What are you
talking about we're all just private ordinary citizens pay us no mind" type
arguments like this one I am replying to are not going to help.

Stanford has the number one business school in the country. Apple, Google, and
Microsoft are the top three most valuable companies in the world. Peter Thiel
has almost three billion dollars.

To an outsider watching this movie, the tech sector isn't Hoth, it's the Death
Star.

Extremely wealthy people are not at all like any other group of people. They
are far, far, more powerful.

~~~
leereeves
Peter Thiel funding a lawsuit is far from the center of power and social
control.

In this, he's merely a petitioner, hoping the true center of power and social
control (the courts and lawmakers) will act in his favor.

~~~
xenadu02
Again, that's depressingly naive. If journalists call out Billionaire X for
some bad behavior... Just buy the paper and fire those people. Or fund an
endless stream of lawsuits to silence them.

That's the bigger picture here: Theil is trying to put a news outlet he
doesn't like out of business. Even if he's totally justified the next 10 cases
may not be but you can bet people will get the picture: don't piss off the SV
billionaire club.

~~~
leereeves
You know that calling a different opinion naive _isn 't_ actually an argument,
right?

The mere possibility of a slippery slope doesn't show that Peter Thiel did
anything wrong here.

I hope other websites should learn not to publish something they don't have
the legal right to publish.

~~~
bduerst
The argument behind why it's a naive perspective was made in the parent
comment.

~~~
leereeves
Am I alone in thinking insults like _naive_ don't belong in discussions on
Hacker News?

No one's denying that wealthy people are powerful, but that's so well known
that it's hardly worth discussing.

Not all power is equal. Thiel is powerful; Gawker was powerful; neither comes
close to the power of the government, or the established media, or the old
money that quietly dominates most everything outside SV.

~~~
bduerst
Ad hom attacks aren't fallacious when relating to the credibility of
statements and when they are backed up by reasoning.

Blatant name calling isn't welcome, but saying something is naive and then
taking the time to explain why and without malice shouldn't be censored.

~~~
leereeves
The reasoning is valuable, the ad hom attack is not.

~~~
CPLX
I wrote the post you are criticizing as _ad hominem_. It is not that, because
it doesn't have any _hominem_ in it.

My post leads with "The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's
hopelessly naive."

The problem with [THE ARGUED POINT] is that [CRITICISM], because of
[SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIVE METAPHOR] is the opposite of an ad hom
attack.

Ad hom attacks say the problem with [PERSON] is [INSULT] or similar.

~~~
leereeves
Naive means:

> (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.

Perhaps you didn't mean to, but you implied that grellas lacked experience or
wisdom. It could reasonably be taken as ad hom.

~~~
CPLX
I have no idea if the internet commenter I replied to is naive.

I will however stand by my opinion that "extremely wealthy people are just
like any other group of people" is a hopelessly naive statement.

There is a difference. I do admire and respect the civil tone of discussion on
HN very much, and am pretty sure I am contributing to it here.

~~~
leereeves
That's only a portion of the statement. The full quote was:

> Extremely wealthy people are just like any other group of people in that
> they come in all shapes and sizes.

------
supergirl
I wonder what's the connection, if any, between the author of the article and
Gawker. If he's the same guy I found on Linkedin, he seems to be working for
some kind of PR company for hire; also confirmed by the article footnote. I
hope nobody takes this article only for what it is but also questions why it
is.

~~~
further_tech
Even if so, I'd rather move beyond the Ad hominem.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
Pointing out that a source is likely not impartial because they are a
professional PR specialist is hardly an ad hominem.

From the author's page: "Keith uses the power of strategic communications
along with his experience as a lawyer and company co-founder to secure maximum
leverage for his clients. His individual and team recognitions include the PR
News Award for Outstanding Media Exposure (Business Development); The
International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences Webby Award Official
Honoree; and the American Bar Association Award of Excellence (for writing).
Keith is based in New York City."

Granted, correlation is not causation and it's theoretically possible for the
good Mr. Emmer to have a long standing interest in journalistic freedom. (A
cursory Googling of his name and the obvious keywords shows no evidence of
such history.) But would anyone here care to bet much money on it?

~~~
evanpw
Ad hominem is when "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character,
motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons
associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the
argument itself." [1]. This clearly seems to fit. Ad hominem is not always a
fallacy: if there were some new facts presented, or if the argument was so
complicated that you couldn't evaluate its validity yourself (like happens
often in science and other technical fields), then the source of the argument
would be relevant. Neither of those is true in this case. The article's
argument isn't very convincing to me on its own merits, but I don't see how
it's made worse by the fact that the author may have been paid to write it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

------
plehoux
This is totally BS. Litigation finance has been around for years, and has been
done by all kind of people and organizations for all kind of purposes.

Thiel is rich, he does things, there is no causality with 'tech' here.

> Maybe it’s time for Silicon Valley to tone things down. To admit that, no,
> the Valley can’t solve all human problems -- not even close -- and never
> will.

W _T_ F.

~~~
further_tech
> WTF

I don't understand your indignation. Is it that obvious to you the Valley can
solve ALL human problems?

~~~
bionsuba
No one ever said it would.

There's a term for this (I forget it now), but what this person is doing is
setting up an easy target to be torn down by creating a ridiculous opinion no
one has. Then the author can be seen as the victor; it's really dishonest, and
it should make everyone question the veracity of the whole article.

~~~
actsasbuffoon
I believe you're looking for "Straw Man Argument":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument)

------
JustSomeNobody
Wait a minute. Gawker is no righteous hero here.

Let's see if I understand correctly. Gawker outs Thiel (which is nobody's
business, yet Gawker decided to make it people's business). Gawker at some
point later posts an illegal SEX tape (again, nobody's business).

Now, we're supposed to feel sorry for Gawker because Thiel wants to help out
another person who was WRONGED by Gawker?

Wow. Just wow.

~~~
devishard
I don't feel bad for Gawker at all.

I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy
litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. He's using that power for
good in this case, but I doubt he always will.

~~~
basseq
> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy
> litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability.

Welcome to the legal system. Money allows you to mount lawsuit (frivolous or
not) and mount effective defenses against them.

The _problem_ is when there's an imbalance: when a tech giant sues a small
start-up (e.g., Zynga suing over the "Saga" trademark) or when an individual
elects _not_ to sue a large organization because the costs are too high.

Thiel (and Newegg re: patent trolls, and EFF, and ALCU, and others) are
evening that money balance _so justice can actually be served_.

Can they use this power for evil instead? Of course: and it happens every day
already. _That 's the point._

The anti-Thiel arguments come down to: "Even though Gawker was proven guilty
in a court of law, it's not fair because Hogan never should have been able to
mount the lawsuit in the first place." In other words, _Gawker should have won
because Hogan has less money_. All Thiel did is even the playing field.

If this was about freedom of the press, they would have won the lawsuit. They
didn't. End of story.

~~~
basseq
Follow up: the other argument here is that the damages awarded from the Hogan
verdict shouldn't bankrupt Gawker. And that's a fair point: if total corporate
annihilation is a possible outcome from publishing a story, then would the
press be more leery of posting important, controversial news. Thus impacting
the value of a free press.

Again, valid argument (though this case is a bad example). But your quibble is
with the legal system, not with Hogan or Thiel.

You will also need to weigh fairness in tying damages to "ability to pay", as
well as "news-worthiness" (e.g., _not_ a sex tape).

~~~
devishard
In a larger context, I think corporate annihilation is something corporations
_should_ live in constant fear of.

------
nickpinkston
FYI - this was written by a PR person, not a journalist, and is designed to
make Thiel look bad. Perhaps from someone hired by Gawker?

The author, Keith Emmer, is "the founder and managing partner of this
strategic communications consultancy helping our clients... manage
reputations... through editorial media"

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/keithemmer](https://www.linkedin.com/in/keithemmer)

------
tomelders
What a hack piece. It would have a modicum of legitimacy if it wasn't
criticising the status quo of modern media that Reuters has deemed unworthy of
coverage for the past forty years. Why the sudden self righteous moral
indignation? I smell a rat.

I get the sense that "they" simply don't like Thiel his powers for good, when
everyone knows you should only use the powers that come with been knee-
tremblingly rich for evil.

And It would be a good thing if Gawker ceased to be. It's a blight.

------
vinceguidry
> That may actually help rebuild some of the lost trust between it and the
> public.

Oh please. This is the sort of thing journalists say that has no bearing on
anything real, they just say it to make themselves the center of conversation.
Lost trust my ass. Nobody trusts big American business, or big business
everywhere. Commerce has always had a large element of adversarial conflict to
it, the tug of war between the public will, exercised through politics and
legislation, and markets is what produces social progress, not any kind of
altruism.

This is really just the press industry rallying behind their own. They think
they should just be able to say whatever the hell they want about whoever they
want with no consequences whatsoever. They're the ones that want a legal
advantage. You know why nobody sues the tabloids? They all have humongous
legal teams, going up against them is like shooting peas at a brick wall. But
they've created a business model around saying vicious, wrong things about
people who did nothing to deserve such treatment.

So forgive me if I'm a tad bit skeptical.

------
_Codemonkeyism
(Not taking sides or condemning/supporting Thiel)

Publications destroy people all the time - at least tabloids here in Germany.
Most of those people have no money and can't sue. Journalism is fine when the
800pound Gorilla is on their side. Now once a person aims to destroy the
magazine, journalists with pitchforks claim the end is near (aka censorship).

At least this is how it looks from the sideline.

~~~
twinkletwinkle
Ever heard the phrase "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? Hard to feel
sympathy for tabloid writers feeling unfairly targeted.

------
droithomme
Distributing a private sex video was unethical and not an act of journalistic
integrity. I view the Hulk Hogan case as justified and supporting it as a
beneficial act.

------
danso
FWIW, David Simon, one of the biggest living romantics about the American
press, has been ripping Gawker and defending Thiel for the past week. Probably
the most prominent of journalists who I've yet seen defend Thiel:
[https://twitter.com/aodespair/status/736536875498770432](https://twitter.com/aodespair/status/736536875498770432)

~~~
arprocter
See Generation Kill and s5 of the Wire to feel more of his press opinions

Thanks - I didn't know he was on twitter

------
devishard
The fundamental issue here is that rich people can buy the law. It's not as
simple as bribery, but it's nearly as effective. The only defense we have
against that is when voters and jurors are educated and deeply suspicious of
laws and litigation that are bought.

Of course what Gawker did was reprehensible, but I don't need a million-dollar
lawyer to tell me that. And when suddenly there _is_ a million-dollar lawyer
telling me that, I have to guess there's some other endgame here. My guess is
that Thiel is building a template for future litigation. And while it happens
to be good for justice in this case, I doubt it will always be so. That is
definitely a bad thing.

~~~
st3v3r
He didn't buy the law, though. Gawker completely and totally did the things
they were accused of. Would the world be better off if Hogan did not have the
resources to fight back against what they did?

~~~
devishard
No. But the world _would_ be better off it litigation were not buyable by
either Thiel _or_ Gawker.

------
protomyth
So, news companies (owned by rich people) which have been able to print untrue
or private things with impunity are mad because someone richer than them
decided to retaliate. Rich people mad at richer people for threatening their
power.

This is basically why I find most money in politics stories to be laughable
since these publishers sure spend a lot of money on ink.

Reuters is just mad they might actually step on the wrong person and be held
accountable.

------
tonetheman
Man interesting how all this happens, a few weeks ago when the verdict came
out and no one knew of Thiel there was no large outcry.

Now to find out that the lawsuit was funded directly by someone who was hurt
by the high shittery from gawker. It is not a surprise.

Tech billionaires are people, gawker pushed him and he is pushing back. Not
sure there is much more to this.

------
sparkzilla
Let's just stop the name calling. Theil is not a "robber-baron". He created
his wealth by providing services in the free market for others' benefit. He
neither robbed, nor did he gain his money through inheritance.

He did not use government funds to finance the Gawker case. He used his own
money on a cause he believed in. If you don't like it, give your money in
Gawker's defence, or work to a better solution: limiting the amount of damages
a jury can award in such cases.

------
bedhead
It's evident that this was not only an isolated incident but one that seems to
have more than a decent amount of justification. How so many people have
managed to extrapolate this into tech robber barons taking over the galaxy is
hyperbole at best. I think there is a part of this that admittedly has an ick-
factor to it in general and people aren't sure how to articulate that. (Full
disclosure, I utterly despise Gawker, have for years and have made prior
vitriolic comments - quite proudly - about how awful Gawker and its associates
are)

As for the financing specifically, is it really materially different than
lawyers taking cases on contingency? They are in effect self-financing cases
on behalf of their clients...same basic thing is going on here, the plaintiff
has a "backer" to float the case for them.

------
geomark
From the article: "Many are growing disillusioned because they bought what
Silicon Valley sold them: an idealistic and almost utopian vision in which the
technological advances of the Information Age would change the world -- or at
least the Western world -- for the universal good."

Maybe it's just me, but I only occoasionally even heard of that idea, much
less bought into it. Am I that far out of the echo chamber?

~~~
rimunroe
I've heard that idea a LOT, especially from people 10-15 years ago. I think
most people abandon that thinking pretty quickly, but it persists with a
smaller but still significant number.

~~~
theoh
It was very much the stance of Wired magazine in the 90s, I think, and may
still be. One major critique of that position is the "Californian Ideology"
theory.

Isn't the quoted passage essentially what Mark Zuckerberg claims to believe?
What about Google's "don't be evil"?

------
CookieMon
Fascinating to watch Gawker's quarter-billion dollar public manipulation
machine kick into gear.

Linked-In just emailed me to ensure I was aware of another one of these
articles.

Thiel better hope he can manage a death blow, or that people become bored of
the manufactured controversy - there's nothing Gawker doesn't stoop to, it's
going to be vicious.

------
DeusExMachina
For the record, Scott Adams also believes in the philanthropic nature of
Thiel's actions: [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145205211401/billionaire-
brandi...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145205211401/billionaire-branding-
mistakes)

~~~
byuu
"I can't believe Scott Adams holds such a crazy opinion!" \-- said nobody
ever.

I see no reason to take sides on this debacle. Both Nick Denton and Peter
Thiel are guilty of absolutely awful behavior. Denton for outing people and
publishing private videos; Thiel for Paypal (and its horrible practices) and
using his wealth to bankroll personal vendettas. Both are happy to exploit
others for their own personal gain. They deserve each other.

~~~
NhanH
What exactly is the difference between "bankroll personal vendettas" and
"fight against what you believe is bad"? The latter has to be broke and the
former isn't?

~~~
byuu
Funding a secret lawsuit against a company to try and destroy them for outing
you as being gay is not good behavior. This has dangerous precedent for
freedom of speech in journalism. If what Gawker did was illegal in outing him,
he should have sued for that. If it were just morally objectionable, he should
have called them on it and let the public decide how to respond.

What this lawsuit says is, "say something about a rich person that they don't
like (even if it's perfectly legal or maybe even in the public's best interest
to know), and they'll fund covert lawsuits against you to destroy your entire
business." That's not a world I want to live in, regardless of what I think of
Gawker (they're the internet equivalent of The National Enquirer in my eyes.)

We're taught this as children, "two wrongs don't make a right."

~~~
yummyfajitas
Do you believe it was wrong for rich people to fund (via the Southern Poverty
Law Center intermediary) Keenan vs Aryan Nations, on the basis of hating Aryan
Nations?

[https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-
docket/keenan...](https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-
docket/keenan-v-aryan-nations)

If not, why not?

~~~
maxerickson
I bet it would be way less controversial if it came out that Thiel was openly
funding an independent group that was focused on ethics in web journalism.

~~~
soundwave106
The problem is more the reverse scenario.

EG: A more legitimate media outlet runs some investigative reporting that
exposes legitimate wrongdoing of company run by billionaire. Billionaire
responds by funding tons of frivolous lawsuits in attempt to bankrupt /
silence the media outlet.

The way the justice system in too many countries works these days, it's
possible that if the outlet doesn't have deep pockets, they're in trouble.

This scenario is not out of the question. One past example that comes to mind
immediately is Silvio Berlusconi, who was really fond of the libel lawsuit to
quell any little bit of criticism.

Now, I personally have no problems with the Gawker outcome, but I can also see
the reason for concern behind Thiel's methodologies.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Thiel didn't fund tons of frivolous lawsuits (nor did the SPLC). Thiel and
SPLC both funded solid lawsuits where the verdict - not litigation costs - is
what bankrupts the other party. (A lawsuit is by definition not frivolous if
you win.)

~~~
627467
"Mr. Thiel was covertly backing Mr. Bollea’s case as well as others"[1]. I
don't know how much it's tons, but certainly not only one, and so far seems
like the only non-frivolous by that definition.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-
billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html)

~~~
yummyfajitas
Do you have evidence that the others are frivolous?

Suppose SPLC filed other lawsuits (besides the winning one) against Aryan
Nations, not all of which were successful. Would you be similarly concerned?

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
If Gawker were something other than tabloid trash, maybe it'd get more support
from us non-robber-barons.

Do you think Gawker would spare you, if they thought humiliating you would be
popular? Could you do anything about it?

Well, apparently they were stupid enough to humiliate someone who could do
something about it. And I'm fine with the results we're seeing.

------
DickingAround
Saying all the tech titans are just like Thiel is a pretty obvious fallacy.

------
jgalt212
What I don't get is if Peter truly feels he was doing a public good by
shutting down Gawker, why must he do so in secret?

Would the mission be impaired if the sponsor were revealed or is Peter an
underhanded snake?

~~~
Kristine1975
Maybe he doesn't want to be in the spotlight. "Do good without bragging about
it."

~~~
k__
Also, even if it was a good thing to do, it doesn't mean that the public has
the same opinion.

------
EddieSpeaks
Gawker is utter shite and it's a dangerous tabloid. I have no idea why anyone
with a sane mind would be on their side in this issue. this is just a revenge
story, let it go!

~~~
venomsnake
Because I am free speech absolutist which means defending speech that I don't
like.

There were other ways to nail gawker - copyright infringement comes to mind.

~~~
frankc
Gawker was allowed to say whatever they wanted about the sex tape. No one has
ever questioned that. They were not allowed to publish it. That is what they
were sued over. I'm pretty absolutionist about free speech myself, which is
why it's pretty disappointing that a lot of people are missing this key point.

~~~
whatok
Exactly. The story and "news" surrounding this incident still exists without
publication of the stolen video. Coverage without the video does not deliver
as many clicks so they rolled the dice with that one and have so far lost.

------
srj
Money alone doesn't win a lawsuit. The reporter who wrote this probably
doesn't agree with the court's decision, but that decision wasn't written by
Thiel or Silicon Valley. Also, people have crowd-funded legal fees previously.
That isn't new. That Thiel chose to fund a lawsuit against a publication that
outed him as gay doesn't seem very surprising or devious. They still had to
convince the court they had a claim in this case.

------
arprocter
The media backlash feels more like a disingenuous and thinly veiled attack on
Thiel's political views.

Ask yourself - would there be all this hand-wringing if Soros had funded the
case?

------
emblem21
Gawker Media is a Cayman Island corporation founded by a foreign national. It
does not engage in journalism. It is a blog designed to shift the Overton
Window for Jon Stewart's fanbase into normalizing extreme political agendas.

Are there any cases that show foreign companies that exist 100% as a tax
shelter, founded by a foreign national, have first amendment rights?

~~~
lotso
>It is a blog designed to shift the Overton Window for Jon Stewart's fanbase
into normalizing extreme political agendas.

Like Jezebel being pro-feminism. What an extreme political agenda!

~~~
emblem21
Only privileged white people think Jezebel represents feminism. Let me know
when they give full-time coverage of the challenges of poverty that routinely
face WoC instead of hyperventilating about how sexist a handful of pixels are.

Or are feminists only those who have minable consumer behavior?

Looks like the Overton window shifting worked on you.

~~~
lotso
Definitely agree that Jezebel and many other publications in general don't
give provide enough perspective of feminism and LGBT issues from PoC (for what
its worth, I'm a PoC), but I disagree with the fact that Gawker does not
provide some legitimate journalism. Does Gawker have an issue here? Yes. Does
Gawker produce a bunch of drivel around issues that are probably trivial in
the grand scheme of things? Yes, but I think you could apply the same critique
to almost every major liberal news publication. The difference for me is that
Gawker has reach and is willing to take on very powerful people (for better or
for worse), unlike other publications.

~~~
emblem21
I'll meet you halfway and agree on the importance on taking on the powerful.
But I can't lionize Gawker for doing that. I can only criticize them for
lowering the bar on what taking on the powerful means.

Revealing a VC is gay isn't taking on the powerful. Revealing the low-
commitment racism of a wrestling has-been isn't taking on the powerful. This
is pandering to low information and low attention audiences to secure a buck
with TMZ-style gossip... and then dressing it up like you're doing God's work
because, somehow, everyone involved believes they are on _the right side of
history_ ™.

If you want to see an example of journalists taking on power, ask yourself
this: When is the last time a central bank called out Gawker?

If you want to see an example of data-driven journalism (ignore the election
year antics) that actually takes on the powerful, give Zerohedge a try. At
least they make the effort to back up their occasionally ridiculous
speculation with hard data.

------
tmaly
I have a feeling that these recent attacks on Thiel have more to do with who
he is backing politically rather than this lawsuit.

------
spinlock
Or, you could spin this as ethical investing. Presumably, Thiel backed Hogan
with an expectation of being compensated if Gawker lost the suit and had to
pay damages. So, from an investment perspective, this was a good deal that
paid off. It also punished a bad actor that invaded a celebrities private
life. Smells like a win-win to me.

------
lowbloodsugar
The conclusion of the article (I think) we are (still) discussing here,
however, appears to be "Thiel is a robber baron and we the poor public should
be wary of these new rich", when in fact the conclusion should be "Our system
of justice is broken because rich people can get different outcomes than poor
people."

Clearly, the author of the article does _not_ want the poor people to come to
the conclusion that the justice system is broken, presumably, because then the
rich and powerful establishment, would not be able to use it themselves.
Instead, they want to put upstart newcomers like Thiel in their place.

Are there any other areas where the establishment may need public backing to
take down the "robber barons of silicon valley"? Anyone having the nerve to
fight back on issues of privacy, national security, encryption, copyright,
basic human rights in general? No?

------
andy_ppp
In other news a rich person used the law to their advantage.

------
bakhy
perhaps this is off-topic, but what personally bugs me most, as a gay man, is
that Mr Thiel can hold such a huge grudge for so long about being outed. is it
so humiliating for you that other people know you're gay, Mr Thiel?

i must add a disclaimer, of course: i am strongly against outing people like
that (barring some exceptions, like anti-gay politicians). it is wrong, and
Gawker should be punished for it. but i would expect that Mr Thiel feels at
least some relief that the secret is out. and that this would enable some
degree of letting go, and that the whole thing would die down. but, no.
instead, 10 years of litigation...

alternatively, Mr Thiel could just be prone to extreme grudges, and just
generally can't let anything go (?)

------
mark_l_watson
What? People view Silicon Valley as idealistic and almost utopian?

Give me a break. Stupid article.

When I look at all the evil that the Economic Royalty have done to the world
since the beginning of the Enlightenment, the funding of a law suit seems like
nothing in comparison.

------
kazinator
The situation with Thiel and Hogan shows that _lawyers_ are are ever the
robber barons. Who grabs all that money from Thiels' funding of the lawsuit?
Follow the money, and that's where the barons are.

    
    
        And in this state she 'gallops night by night
        Through lovers' brains, and then they dream of love;
        O'er courtiers' knees, that dream on cursies straight;
        O'er lawyers' fingers, who straight dream on fees; [...]
             ^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    

\-- Mercutio's "Queen Mab" speech, _Romeo and Juliet_ , Act I, Scene IV.

------
juped
There's a deep tragedy in Thiel financing the lawsuit. The tragedy is that you
apparently need a billionaire's backing to get any sort of justice against
something like Gawker.

------
mk89
What do people expect? They are humans with a lot of money and power.

------
benbou09
Thiel get sniped by The Economist here:
[http://www.economist.com/news/business/21699954-tech-
billion...](http://www.economist.com/news/business/21699954-tech-billionaire-
has-morphed-libertarian-corporate-nietzschean-evolution)

------
mahyarm
The media industry sees this as a threat to their industry/tribe and does a
circle the bandwagons reaction using their convenient tool at hand. Writing
articles in widely published publications. On top of it, these people are
probably friends-of-friends publishing these articles.

That is why it gets more attention than many other instances of similar
behavior in similar situations.

------
frogpelt
Billionaires being in control and being somewhat held in check by regulations
and laws is infinitely better than regulators and lawmakers being in control
(read: having all the power and money) and being held in check by no one.

See North Korea.

------
geuis
How is it that weeks have gone by and the css on Reuters mobile site is still
broken?

------
pyoung
What Gawker did was disgusting, but what irks me about Thiel's actions is the
fact that most of his wealth was created by investing in businesses that have
significantly reduced consumer privacy (i.e. Facebook, Palantir, etc..). How
many people have been accidentally outed due to Facebook's poor privacy
practices?

Gawker is a by-product of the current ecosystem that Silicon Valley has
created. The rise of click bait journalism was a by product of incentives
created by social media companies like Facebook. And Thiel sits in the center
of this universe. If he really wants to be 'philanthropic' he should focus his
efforts at the root causes of these issues. But he won't, because that is
where his net worth comes from.

------
vixen99
How about one who really is dangerous - George Soros.

“I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-
importance—to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god” or “I
carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I
felt I had to control, otherwise I might end up in the loony bin.”

[http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-10-reasons-george-
soro...](http://humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-10-reasons-george-soros-is-
dangerous/)

------
hinkley
Oh are we figuring this out now? Is this a thing? I thought we knew this back
when Bill became the richest man.

------
Teeboo
This is why I find myself firmly on Team Thiel.

Gawker are using the historical precedent of freedom of the press in order to
exploit the private lives of people, illegally, for profit. It is this
corrupted pursuit of salacious gossip which led to the hacking of thousands
and thousands of voicemails in the United Kingdom by News International. Not
just celebrities but political figures and most chillingly, victims of crime.
Parents whose children had been abducted and/or murdered had their private
lives hacked by an international news agency to churn out sordid headlines.

So yeh, I am Team Thiel until the press learn to wield their authority with
respect and deference.

~~~
AlexandrB
> So yeh, I am Team Thiel until the press learn to wield their authority with
> respect and deference.

A good/free press does not and should not exhibit respect and deference to
those in power. For a counter-example, see the Russian press, which does show
a lot of respect and deference to the Russian ruling class.

~~~
Teeboo
Who said deference to those in power?

I would hope a free press has the respect not to invade the privacy of private
citizens.

Do you honestly think the videotape of the sexual exploits of a private
citizen is somehow worthy of protection under freedom of the press?

Not to mention the tape was illegally procured and Gawker continued to act in
flagrant violation of the court ordered redactions.

You hear deference and you immediately go to despot or dictator. The truth is,
the press is far more damaging to private citizens than it has ever been to
the establishment.

You show me one piece of great investigative journalism and I will show you 10
celebrity reporters lying in the gutters getting upskirt shots of a teen
celebrity.

Team Thiel until they learn not to hack voicemails and generally become decent
members of society.

~~~
AlexandrB
> Who said deference to those in power?

You didn't specify who the press is supposed to defer to. So the obvious
assumption is "everybody including those in power", especially since we're
talking about Peter Thiel who has a not insignificant amount of power due to
his wealth.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the News International voicemail
hack which has nothing to do with Gawker and was almost universally condemned
_because_ it targeted victims and those with almost no power.

The actions[1] of the Bollea legal team make it clear that this isn't about
getting justice for Hulk Hogan, but about destroying Gawker.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-
th...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-tech-
billionaire-reveals-secret-war-with-gawker.html)

"Speculation that a secret benefactor was backing Mr. Bollea’s case was
whispered during the trial but largely dismissed as a conspiracy theory. It
gained currency in large part as a result of an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s
legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed
Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages. The
move struck observers as odd because most plaintiffs seeking damages usually
hope to settle the case by leveraging the deep pockets of an insurer."

~~~
Teeboo
I raise News International as an example of the worst kinds of media
behaviour, an example mirrored by the Gawker illegality in publishing Hogan's
private videotape.

The two events are part of a larger narrative (for me) in which Thiel is
attempting to redress. That narrative is inspired by his own negative
treatment in outing his sexuality.

You also said something disturbing..."voicemail hack ...almost universally
condemned because it targeted victims and those with almost no power."

Why on earth do you think it becomes morally justified for for-profit media
entities to hack and invade the private lives of citizens simply because they
have achieved a fame or some power in some sphere?

That is mind-boggling. You are saying that if your father or mother or sister
or you became famous you would consent to the public destroying your private
life through illegal actions in order to sell papers or generate clickbait.

Seriously, how can you reconcile that?

