[throwaway724]

Ehhhhhhhh. Auren ran one of the shadiest companies in recent history (Rapleaf) and he's discussing Thiel, who in my opinion was completely in the wrong w/r/t Gawker and is incredibly thin skinned and petty for someone who talks about the things that he does.

The core point is correct: you want (for lack of better phrasing) "out of the box" thinkers in your leadership roles, particularly in the early stages. But I would take either of those two as a model with the biggest grain of salt possible; you can be courageous and out of the box without being insanely unethical or a vampire-like dick, respectively.

[prepend]

> who in my opinion was completely in the wrong w/r/t Gawker

I have a different opinion for four reasons.

I appreciate Thiel’s long term thinking and just the effectiveness of the plot. That’s rare and neat, I think.

But I also think it’s right because Gawker was a plague on society with its gossipy, trash journalism. We are better off as a society without the type of articles that out people because editors don’t like them or don’t like their politics.

Specifically, they were in the wrong with Hogan and what they did was heartless.

Finally, Gawker died legally. No laws were broken. Thiel had beef, for whatever reason and he used the law. While I don’t think Gawker is anywhere near more useful and professional news outlets (eg, NYT or Post) I think if other newsmakers break the law in such a way, they should be treated exactly the same way.

[DuskStar]

> Finally, Gawker died legally. No laws were broken. Thiel had beef, for whatever reason and he used the law.

Not to mention the fact that Gawker probably didn't have to die but instead basically committed suicide. Going into court and saying that you'd happily publish a toddler's sex tape isn't exactly sound legal strategy.

[kick]

I personally agree with the 'idlewords view on Gawker.

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Apinboard%20gawker&src=ty...

They did call out that Clinton and Dershowitz went on the jet that Epstein used to let powerful men have sex with underage women in 2015, and that alone is worth quite a bit. Probably more than any slight against Thiel.

Thiel being poked in a way that paints him as a hypocrite is constructive, all things considered. Seeing billionaires as "regular Joes" is something that probably needs to stop for the long-term viability of the American experiment.

Thiel, a conservative who's been donating thousands a year to Republican politicians since at least 2000 (this is all public record; it's worth a glance if you're interested), who recognize the people in the sexual demographic that Thiel belongs to as degenerate, is in fact one of the people they hate.

This is important for the public to know for a few reasons.

An obvious reason, of course, is "Hey look, you don't matter at all to the types that have millions of dollars!" is an important thing for LGBT people who don't have that. Highlighting Thiel as a man who adheres to "Got mine" philosophy is really good, because it allows everyone else to know that once you get to a certain level of protection, solidarity doesn't really exist.

Politics are war, and when you have a person regularly dropping $4,000,000 a year on political donations to causes that are directly harmful to you, it makes sense to combat them.

I'm close to the same side as Thiel politically, but even I can't say that Gawker doing that was a bad thing. That Thiel doesn't believe in freedom of speech is ridiculous, given the views he claims to espouse. But if you see it for what it is (a billionaire wanting free speech for himself, but not caring whether it's a thing for others), it makes sense.

[femiagbabiaka]

Gawker reported on Weinstein at a time when other publications wouldn’t for fear of reprisal. We are not better off as a society when billionaires with histories of poor morality can arbitrarily destroy media companies. Get a grip.

[dang]

Please make your substantive points without personal swipes like "Get a grip". Those aren't allowed here, because of the degree to which they poison discussion. Your comment would be fine without that bit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ALittleLight]

Thiel didn't destroy Gawker with a mercenary army. He financed a lawsuit which was found to be meritorious. This is not an "arbitrary" thing at all.

Whatever Thiel's beliefs or motives, Gawker published a private sex tape for no legitimate reason. When a judge ruled they had to take it down, they disobeyed the injunction.

As Thiel points out, one social problem that this exposes is that even a single digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan didn't have access to the legal system. Hogan should have been able to get the result himself, but needed a billionaire to finance him.

[anonymousab]

>Gawker reported on Weinstein at a time when other publications wouldn’t for fear of reprisal

They also created, hosted and pushed a "celebrity stalker map" for the express purposes of stalking people. There is a laundry list of reasons to have no sympathy for Gawker, and enough for many people to have wanted to see some comeuppance.

>We are not better off as a society when billionaires with histories of poor morality can arbitrarily destroy media companies.

We are better off when a company that goes too far, legally, faces ramifications for their actions. Even if the cause for those ramifications was less than pure; The motivations of the person who caused the action are kind of irrelevant to the action and result that occurred.

The worst part of this situation is not that Thiel funded someone else's lawsuit, but that access to justice required and requires that kind of funding. Not that Terry Bollea had his case handled without worry, but that everyone else does not.

[CrazyStat]

He didn't arbitrarily destroy it, and other media companies are generally not in danger of the same fate as Gawker.

Gawker was exceptionally stupid both in their reporting and in court, joking (so they say) that they would post a sex tape of a child as long as it was over the age of four. That doesn't play well with jurors. They had no respect for any concept of personal privacy. We are absolutely better off as a society without them, and without any other media companies that behave in a similar shitty manner.

Being a media company is not and should not be a shield from civil lawsuits or prosecution. Media companies should be in danger of being sued to death if they behave as badly as Gawker did.

[kick]

Everything Gawker did fell under the First Amendment, and so they should not be in danger of being sued to death if they behave as badly as Gawker did. The entire point of the Constitution is to protect essential liberties. Get rid of the Constitution, and we descend into an authoritarian state.

[esyir]

They violated his right to privacy. You don't get to use one right to violate another without consequences.

[kick]

The First Amendment comes before all others, which is why it's first.

"Oh no, a politician said behind closed doors he's going to nuke COUNTRY! We can't write about that, though, we'll get sued!"

Anything that restricts the first breaks democracy, your claim is Step One for any fascist uprising.

[_vertigo]

Not that I agree or disagree, but he didn't say that, he said we're better off without Gawker, or rather, the type of articles that it published. There's a difference.

[femiagbabiaka]

We are not better off without Gawker.

[_vertigo]

Well, okay. Again, I'm not taking a position on this one, just saying that you two were arguing different points.

[belorn]

Out of curiosity, I wonder how Gawker compares Breitbart News. They sits at the opposite side of the political table, both claims to be media companies, and both got targeted by activism by people who want to shut them down. Both also seems to have walked a rather thin line between legal and illegal.

[natalyarostova]

Arbitrarily? Either you don’t know the history of this case, or you’re misusing this word.