
Peter Thiel and Y Combinator fund a “litigation financing” startup - wiredfool
http://boingboing.net/2016/08/25/peter-thiel-y-combinator-fun.html
======
John23832
I totally understand why Peter Thiel felt the way he did about Gawker. Outing
someone is a HORRIBLE thing to do. I can't underscore that enough. Especially
in the way that they did. They engaged in yellow journalism and hid behind the
shield of reporting.

That being said, this idea that we can extinguish the flame of reporting with
a firehose of money is a horrible precedent. This is essentially saying that
the rich few can determine what is reported to the masses due to their wealth.
Allowing things like this endangers the important investigative reporting that
uncovers things like bad working conditions, corruption and other horrible
things that go on in society.

~~~
drspacemonkey
Don't understate the serious amount of wrongdoing on Gawker's part in that
lawsuit. After that giant, public "we're not going to obey the court order we
were just given" article, there's no way in hell Gawker was planning on wining
the lawsuit. My guess is they were planning on out-spending Hogan and pushing
a settlement on him when he ran out of money.

It wasn't until much later that they found out they wouldn't be able to buy
their way out of trouble.

~~~
John23832
I'm not saying that Gawker was right. They were very wrong. But this is not
the type of justice that should be doled out. It does more harm to us as a
society than good.

I do think that there should have been serious repercussions for Gawker. I
can't say what those should have been. But I know that this wasn't the right
route to take.

~~~
dilemma
What you're saying is that you would have preferred that Gawker's strategy of
outspending Hogan had worked, so that not only would he have had his privacy
violated and reputation ruined, but he should also be bankrupt.

That's your justice.

~~~
John23832
Where did I say any of that? I didn't.

------
jmount
Funding lawsuits for profit is a well-known society anti-pattern called
"champerty." It is no longer illegal (as blocking it interfered with access to
justice) but when used for profit or other agendas it is pretty damaging
(think patent trolls).

~~~
thrill
It's only a good thing when it's done with an agenda you agree with and not
when it's equally available to others?

~~~
jmount
I wasn't precise. Sorry about that.

By "other agendas" I meant any issue not claimed in the lawsuit at hand, not
agendas that differed from my own. It is a bit of a subjective point as one
could have a legitimate interest in funding somebody who has been harmed in
the same way you have in a different event (so you would not have standing,
but at least a related agenda). But funding a suit you have no real interest
in just "for the win" is a bit wild.

------
Shanea93
This article starts with facts and then quickly becomes a rather vicious
personal attack against Peter Thiel.

~~~
yeahyeah
The only attack is a single phrase, referring to him as a "sociopathic
billionaire". I don't think his status as a billionaire is questioned, so you
must object to the use of the one word "sociopathic". Let's check the DSM-IV:

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the
moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to
get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this
disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.

Well, not exactly clear-cut, but I think a reasonable set of people, perhaps
including Thiel, would agree that he has "a lack of regard for the moral or
legal standards in the local culture"

~~~
hartator
"Drinking young people blood"?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I recall that Thiel wants to get blood transfusions from people younger than
him to prolong his own life.

Many of the apparently absurd claims about Thiel are, well, absolutely true.
Indeed, this particular one was linked directly to a news article about it.

------
exratione
The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important
freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those
without. It is interesting that so many people who claim to champion the
rights of the powerless are vigorously opposed to the concept.

~~~
John23832
> The ability to sell portions of your right to justice is both an important
> freedom and a check on the ability of those with power to trample on those
> without.

How? If everyone has equal access to justice and the justice system, there is
no need to "sell portions of your right to justice".

~~~
toss1
Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would have <equal access to justice and the
justice system>.

But it does not work like that. Not even close.

Money equals access. Sure, technically, you can plead your own case, but it
will require you to give up literally everything else in your life and you'll
probably lose against the professionals (how well would you do against the
professionals in your favorite sport if you dedicated the next 10 months of
your life to it -- remember, they've been doing it for decades and make a
living at it?).

The fact is that you need serious funds to prosecute or even defend a case
bigger than small claims court. I'm in such a case right now and need funding
(which is how I got to this article); tho I won't post the details, the
requirements will run well into six figures just to pursue what I already had
in a written contract. Do you have that kind of pocket change lying around? I
don't, and I don't think most of the rest of us do either.

While I had a vague idea before, it has now become blindingly obvious that
money is required for access to proper justice. While I have much better
access than many people, it is also obvious that I also have much less access
than others.

So, yes, IFF everyone has equal access, there's no need. But we don't, so
there is a real need.

~~~
John23832
I agree that money equates to access in the real world.

I agree that a common tactic is "spend baby, spend".

But I still fail to see how "selling your access to justice", equates to
having a bankroll or how it is fundamental. That was all I was asking, how? In
the Peter Thiel case, Hogan didn't "sell" his access to justice, Peter was
just bankrolling him because he both didn't like Gawker. Peter wasn't
"selling" his access to justice, he used Hogan to accomplish a personal goal.

So I ask again, how is "selling your access to justice" fundamental? Or even
in your case, so that we have an example and I can understand, how would you,
or anyone else, sell their access to justice in order to benefit you in that
case? Imo you would need a bankroll, same as Hogan.

~~~
toss1
I guess I'm reading it as the plaintiff having to 'sell their access' to the
system, as part of the potential proceeds, in order to get justice.

If you don't have the requisite funds, you sell part of your potential
proceeds (which become profits to the investor) in order to get access to the
justice system. Or, in Hogan's case, sold his case (access to the justice
system) to Theil so they could both achieve their goals.

(so maybe, it's just a less-clear phrase than it should be?)

------
Overtonwindow
Absolutely biased and devolves rather quickly into an attack on Thiel
bordering on insulting.

~~~
mc32
It's basically a personal rant disguised as an article about a new startup. I
guess Cory has an axe to grind.

