
Peter Thiel Has Been Funding Hulk Hogan's Lawsuits Against Gawker - dogecoinbase
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#fa8140778057
======
bronz
gawker put tesla on a death watch. they exploited their struggle and
heartbreak, their endeavour to make the world a better place, for clicks. they
hosted a video of hulk hogan having sex on their website despite him not
wanting them to. maybe people dont realize just how fucked up that is because
people tend to dehumanize celebrities. these are not journalists. these people
are fucking scum. good riddance. the fact that a billionaire funded hogans
case doesnt bother me at all. it reminds me more of bill gates funding malaria
research than anything. another parasite wiped out for the betterment of
humanity.

all the people saying this is creepy because its a billionaire shutting down
journalism -- dont make me laugh. these werent journalists. and they sealed
their own doom by doing things that were not only mean and cruel but super
illegal. they did this to themselves. hogan was going to win that case no
matter what.

i would have donated to his case given the opportunity.

~~~
chatmasta
Is Gawker the root of the problem, or a symptom of a larger one? Perhaps the
problem is that people will ingest and internalize information from anywhere,
without putting it through any sort of critical-thinking funnel. They let
themselves become so convinced of something they read on gawker, that they
actually try to convince other people it's true.

To put it another way: sure, good riddance to gawker. But what's to stop its
successor? You may not like gawker, and your reasons may be valid, rational,
or even altruistic. But you cannot dictate the will of its audience. What
gives anyone, government or otherwise, the right to stop information at its
source?

If you want to lessen the power of information, regardless of how "right" you
think it is, the best way to invest your time or money is into teaching people
how to think critically, and also _why_ to think critically. Unfortunately
it's quite difficult to teach on that subject when you're silencing an opinion
from one side of your mouth, and preaching critical thinking from the other.

~~~
analognoise
I think you can silence the opinion of fuckwits like Gawker without losing the
ability to teach critical thinking.

In fact, the silence might be better for studying.

~~~
chatmasta
The central tenet of critical thinking is to question everything. Why bother
questioning anything, if you just saw your teacher shut down a source of
information without giving you the opportunity to ask your own questions about
its motives?

~~~
analognoise
Gawker is a "source of information" like chlamydia is to the common cold.

Nothing is lost in the destruction of a source of bile about individuals and
their private lives, it was zero-information content in the first place. To
posit Gawker as a "worthwhile source" indicates a lack of critical thinking to
begin with.

Or, I reject one of your primary premises and think you're drawing a
connection to "information being stifled" that is tenuous at best given the
nature of the information and the behavior of Gawker as an organization. I
also disagree with the implied slippery slope on the grounds that the content
being "stifled" was bile about individuals in their personal lives and devoid
of artistic, journalistic, or any other praise or protection.

tldr: Fuck Gawker.

------
Analemma_
(Reposting here since I'm not sure which submission on new is going to "win")

Sure does make this line in Thiel's Wikipedia page a bit awkward: "The Thiel
Foundation is also a supporter of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which
promotes the right of journalists to report the news freely without fear of
reprisal" Oh, but I'm sure this wasn't reprisal against Gawker (and
specifically Valleywag, which was always extremely critical of libertarian VC
techbros in general and Thiel in particular), he was just so moved by the
plight of a pro wrestler suffering immensely from a leaked sex tape.

Look, I'll get out in front of people accusing me of bias and just say it:
I've always hated Thiel. I hate his politics, the behavior of _several_ of the
companies he founded, and his smarmy "drop out of college!" advice. But even
if you don't share my bile, you should be deeply disturbed by the fact that at
least one Silicon Valley billionaire is talking about freedom and innovation
with one side of his mouth, while using his money to try and destroy
insufficiently sycophantic press outlets. We're moving ever-closer to a world
where our industry leaders are not very distinguishable from 19th century
robber barons (maybe not to you, but increasingly to the general public)

~~~
DKnoll
Please do not equate publishing the sex tape of an unwitting victim with
freedom of the press... or Gawker bloggers with journalists, for that matter.

I don't agree or disagree with your statements about Thiel as I don't know
enough about him to form an opinion, but Gawker seems to very clearly be in
the wrong here. If Thiel in any way helped justice to be served here, for
whatever motive, good on him.

~~~
Analemma_
> but Gawker seems to very clearly be in the wrong here

That's not really relevant to my point. Even if Gawker was completely wrong to
do what they did, why did Thiel pick that case to donate to? Plenty of people
file lawsuits just as valid as Hulk Hogan's every day. Or why didn't he file
an amicus curiae? This is clearly an attempt to destroy press he has a grudge
against, which is alarming even if the specific lawsuit he picked was a valid
one and the defendants were "Gawker bloggers". Look at the bigger picture.

~~~
MichaelBurge
It doesn't matter. You don't need logical certainty("If you violate the law,
you will be punished"), just some statistical possibility("If you violate the
law, there's a small chance you might be punished").

The small chance that someone somewhere might file a lawsuit against you could
be enough to frighten future Gawkers, which protects even the small-time
people who can't afford their own lawsuits.

And if some Gawker executive says to himself, "Let's do a risk assessment on
this person to see if he's likely to get outside support to fight back." Well,
there's now the risk of leaving a paper trail demonstrating intent.

~~~
Buge
You're right that this lawsuit will have the positive effect of causing people
to be less likely to publish sex tapes.

But it will also have the negative effect of causing news companies to be
constantly afraid of publish anything negative about a rich person, because
that person might secretly fund lawsuits against them. Gawker is being sued
for 2 other things besides this.

~~~
FireBeyond
Especially when you consider that Hogan dropped the part of the suit that
would have allowed Gawker to use their insurance to pay some of the liability
claim.

Odd, when you consider it shrunk dramatically the ability for Gawker to be
able to pay the claim ($144M... Gawker only had $35M in revenue) - is the goal
to be recompensed for damages, or to destroy Gawker? The latter seems much
more likely, and chilling. Especially if you have a billionaire secret backer.

------
untog
This is another one of those situations you can excuse away through specific
context (Valleywag did plenty of crappy things) but the broader play here is
worrying: billionaire finances lawsuits he has nothing to do with, in order to
take down media entity that he dislikes.

I try not to think about the specifics and look at the broader precedent
something like this sets and... erk.

EDIT: all specifics aside, I think what bothers me most is that he can do this
in secret. We only found out because of, wait for it, the media. Maybe he'll
fund cases against Forbes next?

~~~
RickS
Devil's Advocate: If the court system is presumed to be functional here,
billionaire is funding a just outcome that could not otherwise come to pass.

~~~
untog
That feels like a big presumption. The court system often seems to operate on
a "biggest pockets wins" basis.

~~~
adventured
Bigger pockets than Gawker Media? Gawker was very easily able to afford its
own defense - it's the damages they couldn't afford.

Can you explain how the bigger pockets dictated the Bollea outcome? It looked
like the just outcome to me.

~~~
untog
> Bigger pockets than Gawker Media?

Er, yes. Billionaire Peter Thiel has considerably bigger pockets than Gawker
Media.

But that's not really my point, I was talking in general terms. The court
system is not reliable enough that it will always find the right outcome no
matter what.

~~~
waterhouse
If one side can afford a decent lawyer and the other can't, sure, the money
probably makes a big difference. If one side can afford a great lawyer and the
other can only afford a decent lawyer, maybe. If both sides can afford great
lawyers... are there amazing lawyers who are _that_ much better than great
lawyers? It seems to me like, beyond a certain point, having deeper pockets
wouldn't really make a difference, and the case would be determined on ... its
merits, and the choice of judge, and the choice of jury, and possibly other
considerations. Well, the point is, it wouldn't be the money.

~~~
tomc1985
Idunno, with the law as complex as it is, and with civil procedure being as
complex as it is, it seems like there is so much room to grow as a lawyer that
I'm sure they have a similar 10x distinction, as in programming

------
whyenot
Setting aside the specifics of this particular publisher (Valleywag) and their
criticisms of Thiel, it's very disturbing that someone with deep pockets can
work to _secretly_ take out critical media like this.

~~~
leohutson
Gawker took themselves out by putting a sex tape on their website without the
consent of the people appearing in it. Perhaps Theil helped the process along,
but he wouldn't have been able to do so if they hadn't been so reckless.

------
6stringmerc
My perspective is this won't have a chilling effect on _real_ journalism.

This, to me, simply re-iterates the ingrained expectations of conduct that
journalism attempts to envelop and embrace as a profession. There are
newsworthy stories, and there is muck raking. They are different, and on
completely different ends of the integrity scale. Personally I like that the
courts are a venue for recourse when there is perceived harm; sure, things
could be improved mechanics wise but at least there's an attempt at "checks
and balances" the way laws are written.

------
droopyEyelids
Here is something else Thiel financed

[http://twitter.com/italkyoubored/status/730470870360203265](http://twitter.com/italkyoubored/status/730470870360203265)

~~~
exolymph
My estimation of him just dropped to a new low. How cruel.

------
Pinatubo
Why would Thiel need to fund this lawsuit in the first place? Don't lawyers
usually take cases with the potential for a multi-million dollar payoff on a
contingency basis?

Edit: Apparently there's another rumor that the Hulkster refused a generous
settlement from Gawker in favor of taking his chances at trial. If true, the
Thiel rumor would make more sense.

~~~
akanet
Do good engineers take their salary entirely in equity? In both cases, despite
high payoffs, there is extreme variability in outcome. Running a serious
lawsuit is very expensive.

~~~
Pinatubo
Taking large cases on contingency is exactly the business model of many law
firms. They don't charge the client directly, and take about 50% of the
payout, plus legal fees if the court awards it. The firms take on multiple
cases at once so they can afford to lose some.

Accepting funding from an outside party reduces the risk of making nothing,
but eliminates the big payoff. Most serious law firms wouldn't take that deal.

Was the firm in this case very small? That's the only way this rumor would
make sense. Even then, why wouldn't Thiel just point the Hulkster to a big law
firm that could handle the case without help?

------
nibs
“Valleywag is the Silicon Valley equivalent of Al Qaeda,” - Peter Thiel, 2009.

Always playing the long game. Also nice 0-1 creative use of litigation court
as investment vehicle and vessel for cultural change and constitutional rights
all in one.

~~~
untog
Oh that we could all live in a world where the most terroristic organisation
in our lives is... Valleywag.

------
colinbartlett
Is there a non-Forbes source? I'm not turning off my ad blocker.

~~~
ParadoxOryx
It's on archive.is - [http://archive.is/JK6N7](http://archive.is/JK6N7)

------
jgalt212
Here's how it looks to me:

A very big bully (Thiel) beating up a medium sized bulley (Gawker).

I hate bullies.

------
leroy_masochist
I'm betting it was Thiel himself who called the tip into Sorkin.

------
zardgiv
Dude, your most recent comments on HN are defending Moldbug. This puts to lie
any free speech argument there, so just say you're happy because Gawker is a
bunch of SJWs and move on.

~~~
icebraining
I have no love for his political views (or even computing views, for the most
part), but has Yarvis/Moldbug ever defamed someone or published private
videos? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy.

~~~
zardgiv
Nah, he just talked about how some ethnic groups are genetically predisposed
to being good slaves. Seems to be a weird set of priorities where that is
deserving of free speech protection, but Gawker as an actual press
organization needs to be silenced.

------
guelo
Peter Thiel is a delegate for Trump. I for one welcome our new asshole
billionaire overlords. They've meritocratically proven that they're better
than us and they deserve it.

------
eugeneionesco
Good.

------
maxlybbert
When people say the signal to noise ratio is bad, articles like this are in
the "noise" side of the statement.

~~~
throwaway2048
So are posts like yours (and this one for that matter)

