>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007
I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
It's fine for the free press. Free press shouldn't be outing people or thumbing their nose at revenge porn victims while ignoring court orders. They got used to being untouchable millionaires since they could just bury anyone in legal fees.
> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
I stole that from somewhere and had it saved as it sums up my thoughts better than I can write. If I had a legit civil lawsuit against a large misbehaving company you bet your last dollar I'd love to have a Thiel in my corner funding it. I see absolutely zero moral problem with that. If there is a moral problem or anything needs fixing - perhaps fix the court system that enables constant perversion of justice unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at attorney fees for even midrange lawsuits.
Free press is the wrong term to use here. Gawker was a corporation that was fragrantly skirting the law. If they were only in business because they targeted people who didn't have the funds to sue them then they're better off gone.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :]
SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take things from the person who wronged you, by force. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-syste...
But the issue is maybe you're not a great fighter, or you're old. You might not be comfortable taking things from someone by force. That's okay, because medieval iceland allowed you to sell the lawsuit/conviction to another party, and allow them to collect.
It resulted in a system that actually had a most valid lawsuits being pursued, because there were people willing to carry them out themselves. Kinda cool, and it feels similar to how Peter Thiel supported Hulk Hogan. And I'm pretty okay with it!
Why did Thiel not just bring a lawsuit himself if he was truly being defamed? I don't see the how he is justified in hiding behind someone else's lawsuit. Seems cowardly to me; not a crime but speaks to his character.
So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.
If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business".
Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.
What precedent is that? That if you skirt the law somebody might do something about it? That having a good legal team does not give you freedom from your legal responsibilities as a media outlet?
The travesty is that Gawker probably would have gotten away with it based on the fact that Hogan didn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit. It really has nothing to do with Thiel.
Gawker was also getting away with using personal wealth as a way to defer justice. Gawker also buried people suing them with legal fees.
I agree we should move towards a costless or more efficient legal system, but in the meantime, the Hogan vs. Gawker lawsuit was a victory for the good guys.
Being in or out is kind of like a trade secret. You have to protect the trade secret. You can't tell it to your friends who are cool and have it remain a trade secret. Nor can you be semi out.
Thiel didn't like a story about him. Now if Gawker had invaded his privacy he'd have had legal recourse for that. But Gawker didn't invade his privacy and so he took his revenge elseways. And the article wasn't even critical.
>>Regardless of what you think of the Koch brothers, this appears to be a mundane deal sensationalized by the specter of the Koch brothers.
Of course, until 5 years from now, they simply frown their faces about an article and editors get the message.
Maybe it is like you said, maybe it will end like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/12/newscorporatio..."I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots," Campaign Middle East magazine quoted the prince as saying.
"He investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from 'Muslim riots' to 'civil riots'."
That's what keeps Zuck awake, I'm sure (sarcasm.) Buy ads if you want to get your point across. The fact that "everyone" uses FB is a badge of honor, a goal everyone tries to reach.
>>He did achieved financial independence years before he was blogging.
He is selling shovels and jeans to gold rush miners. "Financial independence" when supplemented by the $$ he makes while telling people how he got rich surely makes a huge difference.
That isn't an argument for why his advice is bad or why he's a bad person, though. That's just an explanation of why people are jealous of him and an argument that people can't reliably repeat the success he's had with financial blogging.
He's not saying people can, though. He's giving financial advice based on something he achieved following a plan when he was making $67k/year, years before he ever even had the blog.
Also, shovels and jeans to gold rush miners?? Pretty sure people can still make $67k/year. Pretty sure people can also still make simple investments, live frugally, pay off their mortgage and retire early. It's simple math. Comparing that to taking advantage of gold rush miners is quite a stretch.
"I'm retired" while you're blogging /making a lot of money by saying you're retired, is profitable but fishy. Like getting rich by writing a book about how you got rich.
Yeah, a Google /FB /x employee can sacrifice for 10 years and then retire, at least outside USA. Live like immigrants that send all their money back to their home country, do.
He does a breakdown of his household spending each year and it's around $30,000. His house had been paid for in full and he had ~$800,000 invested at the time of retirement. The math works out without income from blogging and handiwork.
If his system would work without it, what does it matter whether he has $1 or $1M of supplemental income? I really don't understand this objection.
It's like if Rich Hickey gave simple programming tips, and you said, "He's a genius, of course this works for him." Yes, and? If the advice works, what does it matter how the giver is positioned relative to you?
Not enough, and I have a feeling that he should've been one of the dozens, if not hundreds.
Fraud in the case is commuted upon the buyers and everyone that breathes that air (cancers, asthma...etc). You're talking tens of billions. Go rob a store and you get a lot more jail time. Yeah the store owner and 3 customer were traumatized but so were the thousands or millions of people that suffered (directly or indirectly) from your fraud.
Complicated. UK for example claims to have gotten permission from the Ottoman Turks to take a lot of stuff from Greece. At that time, Turks were the legit rulers, as Greece didn;t exist, so are they stolen?
Also, many time the Nazis officially or unofficially (ruling elites in city) "bought" them from Jewish owners. We can guess the price "agreed" to in those times.
What's brutal is their salary, £8.2 an hour, but 55 hours in the busiest season is called brutal? Please.