[try_the_bass]

Generally, when someone with money (Thiel) provides it to help someone with less money (Hogan) achieve a victory over those with more (Gawker), we celebrate it as a positive example of philanthropy.

What makes this case different?

[FireBeyond]

Hogan had a deal that was part-ownership of Gawker, entitlements to a share of revenue, and damages, prior to Thiel and his lawyers coming along.

How is that not a victory compared to after? "A fraction of the damages, in bankruptcy" doesn't seem quite comparable.

[try_the_bass]

Depends on what Hogan values, I guess?

[E] Put differently: if I were in Hogan's shoes, and was offered the choice between destroying a shitty publication that went out of their way to expose my personal life in an extremely embarrassing and entirely _not_ newsworthy way; or profiting off that same publication's continued existence? I would absolutely choose the former, because the publication's business model is the problem. Making money off the publication would be _morally_ wrong for me, once given the option of pursuing the destruction of the publication.