[graeme]

>Bezos is going to get something ordinary mortals cannot, (redress) because of his money. So he isn't a champion for fundamental rights against press abuse, he's a champion for millionaires rights.

I never understand this kind of argument. Bezos says the enquirer used blackmail against many others who couldn't fight back because they had less power.

Bezos is fighting back, and will deprive the enquirer of their ability to blackmail. He also shows a public relations strategy that others can use, not simply a billionaire.

How does publicly punishing extortion fail to help others?

Likewise, legal precedents established by the rich can be used by the poor, more cheaply.

I feel this argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

[ggm]

I feel this argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

If as a result of what he does, the bar lowers for others to get redress. But, I did not see a surge in low-bar redress stem from Peter Theil's legal action. I saw him pony up significantly more lawyer points in a fight which the publisher couldn't win. He killed them. Every other publishers legal defence insurance went up, but none of them think this means they have to be sorry the next time they defame a small time player. If you can't even get in the door to complain, nothing Theil did helped.

OK nothing is maybe arguing to hard. There will be some redress for ordinary folk from this. Some.

To your side of the argument, the stuff in the UK taking on News Ltd over abuse of phone tapping went beyond simple famous people win: some famous people (Elle McPherson) settled privately, but others secured real redress for more ordinary people.

[graeme]

I would distinguish the thiel case. That wasn't what I was basing my argument on; you hadn't mentioned Thiel. The Thiel case was a two part process, with two lessons:

1. Don't make an enemy of a powerful person (Outing Peter Thiel as gay) 2. Don't publish a video of Hulk Hogan

The court case was about #2 but Gawker's real error was #1.

Whereas in the bezos case both the legal wrong and the enemy making involve the same person: Bezos

So any outcomes are more direct. Not everyone can afford private investigars like Bezos, but anyone will be able to see if legal precedent comes from it. And PR precedent.

That would change future negotiating leverages. Before, people feared the blackmail. After, they can more credibly know that the blackmailers risk legal jeopardy. The blackmailers will know this too and possibly refrain.

Finally, for PR, people's risk calculus may change. It Bezos comes out a hero, others too may be able to look heroic while publicly resisting blackmail, if their case parallels this one. (I.e. Bezos already is getting divorced, so the blackmailers only have public embarrassment as a tool)