What I find interesting is that the author of this piece attacks Peter Thiel as some opponent of press freedom because he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit that a jury found in favor of Terry Bolea.
The same author in 2012 wrote an article wrote an article defending Venezuela's Chavez in his treatment of the press [0]. In 2012, Reporters without borders, gave Venezuala a 117/177 in terms of press freedom[1].
With regards to articles about Peter Thiel, it seems like the media hand wringing over Gawker, may be in part because it strikes close to home to a lot of media members. They want the power of the media without the responsibility. In addition, I suspect a lot of media members have close friends and relatives that work for Gawker and this conflict of interest is hardly ever disclosed.
wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result. He's funded maybe over a dozen other suits, secretly, some of which were pretty dubious. His stated goal is to destroy a news agency because they reported on his personal life. I hate that kind of journalism, but I don't think billionaires should be able to use money and the courts to shut down speech they don't like.
>>They want the power of the media without the responsibility
What do you mean by that? "The Media" is not one single thing, but the precedent Thiel is setting could affect all types of media.
Frankly, I find Thiel's anti-democratic tendencies to be troubling. What I mean is that is his attempt to hijack the legal process to stifle speech vis a vis paying for a decade of continuous legal proceedings.
> wouldn't normally care to weigh in on Thiel, but his supporters keep using the phrase "he helped fund a legitimate lawsuit" as though that has anything to do with Thiel's motivation or the end result.
Probably part of it is because the judge agreed with Thiel's motivation. It was also appealed and thrown out of court. The fine was surely intended to bankrupt the company. Something judges do have the power to do.
To be honest I don't think even Thiel thought Gawker would fuck up its own defense this badly. They were pressing all the wrong buttons. I'm sure you've heard how the trial went.
> I don't think billionaires should be able to use money and the courts to shut down speech they don't like.
In this specific court case the speech was outright illegal even before they defied a court order.
In the general case that is up for a far ranging debate. My two cents are that it is extremely likely Gawker was/is working for a covert political organization (like how Salon* is also), as such it is a PR firm masquerading as journalism. The only question I have in my mind is whether Denton is aware of being co-opted. He must surely have realized something was up recently. I won't spell it out here but if you do some google searches you shall see some interesting things.
If you are a popular media organization with a poor or non-existent profit stream but readily available capital from nowhere for many years then you might find yourself in a spot of political trouble.
* From their wiki: Salon has been unprofitable through its entire history. Since 2007, the company has been dependent on ongoing cash injections from board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht.
If you mean him in particular, probably that he has strong moral convictions about right and wrong. I don't know the man personally but I've been examining his ideas with their percolations (e.g. mimesis, exits) and their interesting offshoots for several years now and although some people may suppose him contradictory this would be a very superficial reading. Being idiosyncratic is not the same thing as being a hypocrite. He is not about to stomp on people's freedom of speech merely because he disagrees with those people and/or their politics. That would be in fact an antipathy to him. That he considers aiding the takedown of Gawker as a philanthropic move is unsurprising to me and not a form of sarcasm as some suppose.
As for billionaires subverting the media generally, let's just say that if we assume Thiel did subvert the media for nefarious purposes he would be but a minnow in an ocean packed to the gills with sharks already eating each other. Eons before, you know, that minnow was hatched or whatever. I mean there are people literally killing each other out there over nothing. Perspective!
I'm curious at whether or not Gawker would have any legal standing for a retaliatory lawsuit against Thiel for damages. It seems like a stretch, but then again, if someone has dragged you through the courts at considerable legal cost and publicly stated that it was to drain you of money, how exactly is that not a perfectly legitimate damages complaint. Or at the very least contempt of court.
Oh, and as though it's not obvious, I have less than zero professional legal experience.
The US legal system doesn't really let you do that. If he was bankrolling a bunch of cases that got thrown out, they might be able to counter sue, but that's not the way it shook out.
I think it's more that Thiel's lawyers dropped claims that would have gotten Bollea more money in order to cause more pain to Gawker. And refused various settlement offers.
And that Thiel is also funding the anti-Gawker lawsuit by the guy who claims he invented email.
"Ayyadurai says his case has no financial connection to Thiel. 'To be absolutely clear,' Ayyadurai said, 'my relationship with [Harder] is direct. There is no third party involved.'"
And:
"'To the best of my knowledge, I’m not seeing any money in my account coming from Peter Thiel,' he says."
This is, however, inconclusive. Forbes reported that Harder didn't know Thiel was behind the Hogan lawsuit until May. I believe that Ayyadurai isn't seeing any money from Thiel, but that's not the same thing as Harder not seeing money from Thiel. And "to the best of my knowledge" leaves plenty of wiggle room for Harder to be the cut-out man.
But, you know, maybe it's just a coincidence and only one of Harder's many cases against Gawker is backed by Thiel. Can I say for sure? Absolutely not!
I do, however, think it's a bit more likely than, say, "My two cents are that it is extremely likely Gawker was/is working for a covert political organization." I mean, if you're gonna demand that I provide cites (which is fair) you probably ought to steer away from that kind of random accusation.
Privately it has been talked about by my friends for years. It's also a bit dangerous to talk about in the public realm for a number of reasons which is why some discretion is a good idea. Look up Gawkers sources of funding, really look properly.
Of course I could be wrong, but that would require a chain of coincidences worthy of Lemony Snicket. Who also lives in the Bay Area!
There is a list of people who want to sue Gawker a mile long so there's no reason to suspect Ayyadurai is/was indirectly funded by Thiel. As ch4s3 pointed out, this would actually make the objective less likely because of laws against frivolous lawsuits. Regardless of how valid Ayyadurai's lawsuit is, Thiel would have been selective, using his training as a lawyer to choose the case(s) he thinks are certain to win.
Interesting read. I am neutral on the Gawker issue (or more accurately, I just don't care) but the bits about Trump, future governance past democracy, etc. were good.
I live in the USA, and I have a difficult time thinking of our political system as being a democracy or a representative democracy. The financial nobility own the government on most issues that matter. I don't even think we have class warfare because the elites have won, game over.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the future, a pleasant waste of time! I expect some form of meritocracy with huge wealth disparity and some form of guaranteed minimum income to keep society functioning. My field (since the early 1980s) is artificial intelligence and machine learning, and I expect to see continued rapid progress in practical automated systems that will replace blue and white collar labor. Society will need to adjust.
Edit: I have read Thiel's book "Zero to One" twice.
The authors guess: Thiel is interested in a Nietzschean transfiguration of politics.
Pretty fair article on the alt-right, given the source. They even noticed the post-libertarian aspect of it, which I think is the biggest political story of the last eight years.
The same author in 2012 wrote an article wrote an article defending Venezuela's Chavez in his treatment of the press [0]. In 2012, Reporters without borders, gave Venezuala a 117/177 in terms of press freedom[1].
0. http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/chavez-versus-the-press/
1. https://rsf.org/en/venezuela
With regards to articles about Peter Thiel, it seems like the media hand wringing over Gawker, may be in part because it strikes close to home to a lot of media members. They want the power of the media without the responsibility. In addition, I suspect a lot of media members have close friends and relatives that work for Gawker and this conflict of interest is hardly ever disclosed.