
Peter Thiel Is Said to Bankroll Hulk Hogan’s Suit Against Gawker - zdean
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/business/dealbook/peter-thiel-is-said-to-bankroll-hulk-hogans-suit-against-gawker.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=33C4F8AEF6CD394FBFE3854A7855B67B&gwt=pay
======
detaro
dupe, earlier and still active discussion here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766621](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11766621)

~~~
egwynn
No clue why you’re getting downvoted. I’ve seen at least two other (now-
closed) posts about this that linked back to the original you pointed to.

------
mc32
So? What's wrong with that?

Gawker is predatory in terms of how they approach "news". I'm glad they got
hit back in kind (someone with resources took on their legal resources). I'm
not sure they have enough redeeming qualities to overcome their bottomfeeding
approach.

~~~
RankingMember
It just feels shady, an "anonymous benefactor" who's actually funding a legal
assault he'd otherwise have no involvement in simply because he has an axe to
grind. I agree with your feelings re: Gawker Media though- they're basically
on par with Buzzfeed in my mind.

~~~
rospaya
Buzzfeed has a lot of excellent reporting and long form articles.

I'm surprised that they're shamed on HN of all places, when they've found a
great business model where they take money from clickbait to finance good
journalism.

~~~
RankingMember
The "tak[ing] money from clickbait" is precisely the problem. Reputation
matters.

------
6stringmerc
I dropped this on another comment thread but think it'll apply here on the NYT
take as well: 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.

------
RankingMember
So Peter's basically choke-slamming Gawker because they outed him as gay
earlier on. I'm conflicted because I think Gawker is a click-bait cesspool,
but at the same time feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for
vengeance fueling a legal offensive.

~~~
kbenson
How does the fuel matter? The case has legal merit or it doesn't. If you are
assessing worth based on who is funding it, then you are looking at it the
wrong way.

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
That's a very naive and optimistic assessment of how our adversarial legal
system works. The $$$ you bring to bear on a case matters just as much as the
legal merit. Poor folks are put in jail because their overworked public
defender was sleeping when they should have objected. A billion dollar company
can bury a mom and pop shop with patent litigation, etc.

~~~
kbenson
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. The original commenter
expressed that they "feel uncomfortable with someone else's desire for
vengeance fueling a legal offensive." If the legal offensive has merit, why
does it matter who is behind it?

It's one thing to express discomfort that someone if funding a _frivolous_
lawsuit, but without some opinion on the merit of the case, I'm not sure how
the involvement of money should be seen as a good thing or a bad thing.

------
mfringel
The primary issue I have is that it's.... small.

Of all the things that he could use his money and power on, it's garden-
variety petty vengeance.

Of course, it's his money and time. He can do whatever he wants with them. It
just seems like poor prioritization.

------
grandalf
If part of Gawker's strategy was that it could break the law because its
victims lacked the financial resources to properly fund legal action, then
Thiel is simply correcting a market failure. Ideally this would happen much
more often.

However Gawker has also shown some mettle in resisting DMCA takedowns for
stories that I do not consider frivolous mischief. Considering how pliant and
officious the mainstream press is, Gawker's overall attitude is refreshing.
But it's in poor taste to out someone's private business when doing so
accomplishes nothing other than embarrassing that person.

The key ingredient for a respectable and effective press is a public that
demands it.

------
jkot
Gawker sites advocated harsh punishment for nude leaks of other celebrities.
This is just holding them to their own standards.

------
IgorPartola
Somewhat OT, but while I am not a reader of Gawker at all, I do enjoy posts on
Jalopnic and Gizmodo quite a bit. It would be a shame if those sites got
dragged down with Gawker.

------
mchanson
Very mixed feelings on this.

