Didn't Palmer Luckey literally pay people to defame Hilary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign? I guess he knows all about how 50-cent army works, especially US ones.
There's literally nothing in the article about defaming Hilary Clinton. The rest of the article is merely the newspaper complaining that Lucky doesn't share their politics.
Edit: glad you noticed the discrepancy. The second article you added doesn't show any defamation either.
If you're genuinely asking, Palmer Luckey gave $10k to a group that put up an anti-Hillary billboard in 2016 (with a cartoon caricature) [0]. This group was also publishing stupid pro-trump political memes.
He was subsequently found out and forced by Zuckerberg to publish a letter pretending he supported Gary Johnson (a lie that Zuckerberg thought was more palatable than Luckey's Trump support). He ended up being sort of fired later because nobody wanted him on their team anymore.
The best information I've read about this is in Steven Levy's new book Facebook: The Inside Story [1].
I don't think you're really asking in good faith and this is veering extremely off-topic and pedantic (and I am not a lawyer), but here:
"""
> Although laws vary by state, in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:
> 1. made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
> 2. shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and
Arguably all of these points are met by a "too big to jail" billboard facing the public. Though given the nature of a political candidate and free speech, I think this would be protected. Particularly because "Defenses to defamation that may defeat a lawsuit, including possible dismissal before trial, include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being 'fair comment and criticism'."
That said, even if it doesn't meet the technical level to convict I think it's a reasonable thing to refer to as defamation colloquially and I suspect you know that too.
For clarity on the specifics of a 'defamatory statement':
> A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade.
Hillary was found to have violated state secrets, but bizarrely not punished as she'd done so accidentally. Saying she's too big to jail seems accurate.