they went out of business for grossly violating someone's privacy. it's true that we have a culture where corporations can violate the law with impunity but I think that's a bad culture. everyone crying that a company actually faced consequences is disgusting.
-
I see broad agreement here. I don't begrudge the media for commenting on Peter Thiel's involvement/motivations. I *do* take great issue with the completely unjustifiable claim that the suit was frivolous & the missed opportunity in pointing out how finances rule civil proceedings
In the end, the story the media wanted was "bad guy does bad thing for bad reasons," and that story was completely unjustified by the facts. But of course, journalists also had their own reasons for wanting to reject the very concept of this sort of liability for their industry
-
-
Peter Thiel had both Gawker & the commentariat-left dead to rights on this one. The mainstream story should have been "this rich troll is annoyingly right, and hey guys, maybe we should have a system that serves everyone instead of just the people he decides to help for the lulz"
-
“Nuisance” was bad word choice imo because it implies a meritless case. Thiel’s involvement was absolutely strategic and designed to discourage bad Thiel-related press, so from that angle it has a lot in common with SLAPP. But that should be the story. Why do we need him?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.