Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Votes To Keep Peter Thiel On Facebook Board (gizmodo.com)
Mark Zuckerberg has decided to keep billionaire VC Peter Thiel on Facebook's board of directors. The decision comes after weeks of controversy over whether it was appropriate for billionaire Thiel, who recently admitted to secretly funding a campaign of third-party lawsuits to bankrupt Gawker Media (more relevant but paywalled link, to remain on the board of a company that now plays such a powerful role in publishing. From a Gizmodo report: At Facebook's annual shareholders meeting today, every board member was up for re-election. The decision was made by shareholder vote, but ultimately fell to Zuckerberg, who controls more than 60 percent of the total voting power on the Facebook board.
Well then, it wasn't really up to a vote then was it?
Captcha: Approval
Am I the only one who thinks it's wrong to scrutinize what people do during their own time, and then use that information to decide how they are to be treated on company time? If the shareholders are fine with the way Thiel is performing in his official Facebook role, that should be the only criteria. If he is doing a bad job and damaging Facebook in any way, he should be fired for that reason and only that reason.
I didn't like the way that prior Mozilla executive was treated either. His performance at Mozilla should have been his only employment criteria. What he did to be active in politics during his own time was no one else's business.
Anything else, and you get a very nasty "snitch" culture where conformity is everything and a tremendous chilling effect is applied to what really should be free expression.
So now we begin the purge of everyone with politics someone doesn't like? Is that how this is going to be? Decades of tolerance, but now we just throw that out the window for modern day purges?
The lawsuit only bankrupted Gawker because THEY DID WRONG AND IGNORED A COURT ORDER. They also basically admitted to being pedophiles that would publish sex tapes of anyone over FOUR. If they'd faced meritless suits, it'd be Thiel that would run out of money because yes, you can be declared a vexatious litigant and you can be liable for both court costs and reasonable attorneys fees depending on the judge's ruling and the specific type of lawsuit.
And... let's just ignore that this is exactly what the ACLU, etc. does. I don't see why "help the victims of Gawker" isn't a worthy cause as it fights to protect our privacy rights. But noooo, various scumbags in the media who love to sell out our privacy can't possibly support the idea that they might have to pay for their wrongdoing.
I hope he sues and bankrupts more scumbag, pedophile media outlets. The world would be a better place if more of them were in the unemployment line.
It was a valid lawsuit. I could see hating on someone if they were funding a long, drug out, suit with lots of delay tactics over nothing to try and force a settlement or bankrupt the other side. However the Hogan suit went to trial, and Hogan won in short order.
I don't see anything bad with someone funding a legitimate suit.
When one person controls most of the shares, being self serving IS serving the shareholders. At least the one that matters.
Of course, this means people with non-voting shares or minority stakes had better be on board with whatever the person in charge wants to do.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
FYI, he did come out as the financier for that lawsuit, which did bankrupt Gawker. Whether or not that was his specific intention, I couldn't say, but he did have an ax to grind and subsequently bury in Gawker. Non-gawker related source below:
http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/...
It's an article from a Gawker site (Gizmodo). ALL the Gawker sites are heavily Anti-Thiel, and they're playing up the whole "We're just a news organization who did no wrong but this big bad evil billionaire wants to bankrupt us to silence the press!" aspect.
They never acknowledge that it was a valid lawsuit, that they were found guilty, that they purposefully ignored court orders, etc. Just "First Amendment!" and "We're innocent!".
Always playing up to the "Evil billionaire wants to silence news organization" card. Ignoring their own transgressions.
The Hogan lawsuit was just as much as seeking revenge as slapping Gawker with the reality that no, news organizations are NOT above the law
It's really the only thing Gawker is writing about daily - and they're the only organization claiming this - everyone else has pretty much filed it away and isn't even taking sides, preferring a more balanced view.