Slashdot Mirror


BuzzFeed Unmasks Mastermind Who Urged Peter Thiel To Destroy Gawker (buzzfeed.com)

One day in 2011 a 26-year-old approached Peter Thiel and said "Look, I think if we datamined Gawker's history, we could find weak points that we could exploit in the court of law," according to the author of a new book. An anonymous reader quotes BuzzFeed News: Peter Thiel's campaign to ruin Gawker Media was conceived and orchestrated by a previously unknown associate who served as a middleman, allowing the billionaire to conceal his involvement in the bankrolling of lawsuits that eventually drove the New York media outlet into bankruptcy. BuzzFeed News has confirmed the identity of that mystery conspirator, known in Thiel's inner circle as "Mr. A," with multiple sources who said that he provided the venture capitalist and Facebook board member with a blueprint to covertly attack Gawker in court. That man, an Oxford-educated Australian citizen named Aron D'Souza, has few known connections to Thiel, but approached him in 2011 with an elaborate proposal to use a legal strategy to wipe out the media organization. That plot ultimately succeeded... D'Souza was aware of Thiel's public comments likening Valleywag to al-Qaeda, and presented a brazen idea: Pay someone or create a company to hire lawyers to go after Gawker.
TechCrunch reported earlier this month that Gawker's old posts "will be captured and saved by the non-profit Freedom of the Press Foundation," which was co-founded in 2012 by the late John Perry Barlow. But in addition, the Gawker estate "continues to threaten possible legal action against Thiel, and hopes to begin discovery to examine the billionaire's motivations for secretly funding his legal war," the article concludes. If a New York bankruptcy court approves, and if the process "unearths anything of meaning, the estate may have grounds to sue Thiel on the grounds of tortious interference, the use of legal means to purposely disrupt a business.

"To head that off, Thiel bid for the remaining Gawker assets -- including the flapship domain Gawker.com, its archive, and outstanding legal claims, like those against himself -- though Holden has made it known that he may block any sale to Thiel, no matter how much the venture capitalist is willing to bid."

9 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Same basic concern remains by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The same basic concerns are the same as at the beginning of this process. On the one hand, Gawker was terrible, and we haven't really lost much by losing them. On the other hand, a world where billionaires can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits is potentially incredibly chilling on free speech. And in the case of the Hulk Hogan lawsuit, the jury should at least have been made aware that Hogan was being bankrolled by Thiel (since it goes to Hogan's credibility and sincerity as a witness), although I imagine that that wouldn't have actually impacted that decision at all since Gawker's behavior was unambiguously terrible. But, a general rule that people should have to disclose in a lawsuit when they are being paid by someone else to run it isn't crazy.

    Also the idea that Gawker didn't know why Thiel doesn't like them( as sort of implied in the summary) is ridiculous. Thiel doesn't like Gawker because they wrote articles outing him as gay and then repeatedly writing more articles with it in the headline: http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people.

    1. Re:Same basic concern remains by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...and if Gawker didn't have a nasty habit of receiving stolen goods, Thiel wouldn't have been able to touch them. Fuck those guys.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Same basic concern remains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      You got it almost right. The reason Thiel hated Gawker was that they outed him as gay while he was on a business trip in Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. Gawker almost git him killed.

    3. Re:Same basic concern remains by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Thiel, who himself is gay, has supported gay rights causes such as the American Foundation for Equal Rights and GOProud. He invited conservative columnist Ann Coulter, who is a friend of his, to Homocon 2010 as a guest speaker. Coulter later dedicated her 2011 book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, to Thiel. Thiel is also mentioned in the acknowledgments of Coulter's "Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole". In 2012, Thiel donated $10,000 to Minnesotans United for All Families, in order to fight Minnesota Amendment 1.

      He's was anti gay marriage in 2012, but he's not anti gay. Wasn't Obama still denying he supported gay marriage back in 2008?

      http://time.com/3816952/obama-...

      2008: As a presidential candidate, Obama pledges to repeal DOMA and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which banned the service of openly gay troops in the U.S. military
      He also says, repeatedly, that he is against gay marriage. "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian - for me - for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix," he tells pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Presidential Forum in April.

      So Thiel's great sin was not coming round to supporting gay marriage as opposed to civil partnerships quickly enough. So clearly he has to be outed and shamed publicly. After all we can't have those filthy homos straying off the vote plantation and thinking they're allowed to not change their opinion when the Democrats tell them to.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Same basic concern remains by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's an interesting comparison Breitbart. I visit Breitbart from time to time (I consider myself independent/center-right), partly for fun partly to get the pulse of the far right. I wouldn't want it bankrupted. But I wouldn't want a far-left publication such as alternet or Vox to be bankrupted either.

      But I'm still glad Gawker went down. I think the difference is that Breitbart/alternet fight for what they see as better future by whatever means. Gawker on the other hand seemed to just want exploit misery for profit, and even worse, for the sake of it. It reminds me of the "ugly clinic" from the Judge Dredd comics.

    5. Re:Same basic concern remains by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gawker was just engaging in some low grade homophobia for cheap laughs and mud slinging against a guy they didn't like. Schoolyard stuff, and indefensible.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Exploit in court? Gawker was wrong by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Stop defending gawker. They were wrong and the courts agreed they were wrong. No one needed to "find weak points to exploit".

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  3. GOOD. by jcr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Gawker deserves to be utterly destroyed. They've been on my shit list ever since the stunt that got the gizmodouches banned from CES, and I really wish Apple had landed some of them in jail when they stole that iPhone prototype and tried to destroy the career of the guy they stole it from.

    Whatever else Thiel may do in his life, bringing an end to Gawker is something I will always thank him for.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  4. Yeah, they kinda did by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Show trials are a common thing in this world. They get the plaintiff publicity and sympathy to help them relaunch a career in show biz and the defendant sells papers/clicks. I suppose you could complain the courts shouldn't be used for this, but it's popular enough with the masses that it's allowed and it's mostly harmless. Gawker's mistake was not knowing Thiel was gunning for them. .

    I keep saying this, but Theil didn't hate Gawker for outing him (he's a billionaire, at his level there are no consequences actual crimes let alone legal behavior), he hated them for writing stories about his shady business dealings. Gawker did a lot of tabloid journalism but they used it to fund a lot of real journalism; a tradition as old as journalism itself. What we old folk used to call muckracking.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/