[mkawia]

Yeah ,There are no good guys here.

Criticizing Thiel shouldn't be confused with supporting Gawker , because we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next

[strangecasts]

Yeah, it scares me that people are accepting this as "philanthropy" uncritically.

[Kristine1975]

FWIW I would never have considered Thiel's actions to be philanthropy. Which is why I was so confused when reading the headline "Peter Thiel's dangerous blueprint for perverting philanthropy."

[TillE]

> we don't know who Thiel might choose to punish next

Thiel didn't "punish" anyone. Gawker broke the law, and he helped hold them to account via the legal system.

I don't like Thiel one tiny bit. He's a weirdo. But this is, like, the least bad thing a billionaire has ever done to infringe on "free speech". Hypothetically abusing the legal system (eg, many frivolous lawsuits) would be bad, but he hasn't actually done that.

[narrowrail]

>Gawker broke the law

This may seem pedantic, but Gawker didn't break the law. This is a civil case.

>He's a weirdo.

I don't know what to make of this, and it adds nothing to the discussion.

[dragonwriter]

Civil cases involve breaking the law, too. You seem to make the error of thinking the law is limited to criminal law; but this is incorrect.

So, the problem isn't that you're being pedantic, it's just that you're plain wrong.