Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts The Media

BuzzFeed Unmasks Mastermind Who Urged Peter Thiel To Destroy Gawker (buzzfeed.com) 156

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BuzzFeed Unmasks Mastermind Who Urged Peter Thiel To Destroy Gawker

Comments Filter:
  • by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:11AM (#56180943) Homepage

    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 [gawker.com].

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:18AM (#56180975)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • ...and if Gawker didn't have a nasty habit of receiving stolen goods,

        You mean like Wikileaks?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:25AM (#56180999)

      As far as we know, Hogan filed and continued the suit because he wanted to, and not due to any coercion or renumeration. Thiel merely allowed him to do what he wanted to do anyway.

      If Thiel hadn't, it may be that Gawker would have forced Hogan to settle because Hogan couldn't afford to continue the suit - but that would be Gawker using financial advantage to prevent justice, not Thiel or Hogan...

      All in all, the tactic of funding poor applicants to achieve a verdict is common and used by all civil rights organizations - and trying to limit it because this time the loser was a well connected media-liberal organization (which richly deserved it) is regressive and will backfire.

      • by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:30AM (#56181027) Homepage
        When civil rights organizations, or for that matter, political organizations throughout the political spectrum help fund a lawsuit, they are completely above board about doing so. It wasn't until very late in the process that it became at all apparent that Thiel was involved and it seems like the jury was never made aware. That's very different. If you want example, consider DC v. Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [wikipedia.org] where the Cato Institute (which is right-leaning libertarian group) openly supported the lawsuit against the DC gun control regulations. That's the norm, not doing so hidden behind proxies. Gawker being a "well connected media-liberal organization" isn't an issue here. Heck, I'd be just as concerned if some billionaire bankrupted Breitbart this way.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          IMHO, the issue here isn't disclosure. The supposed problem here is "[some rich entity] can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits". Disclosure won't do anything here to stop it - they can just keeping funding lawsuits. Obviously, the endgame is either declaring this to be a non-problem (which I support - the courts and existing SLAPP laws can handle this), or apply actual remedies to prevent external funding - the latter will hit poor people and civil rights organizations too.

          B

        • Re: (Score:3, 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

        • by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
          Its funny how so many people here who stood by as the Gawker people cheered this very same tactic of suing others into oblivion for revealing sexual videos are suddenly finding their conscience when this dirty outfit that makes TMZ look like the washington post gets a taste of their own medicine. "Heck, I'd be just as concerned if some billionaire bankrupted Breitbart this way." Yeah its easy to just say that. I bet you wouldn't give a shit.
      • All in all, the tactic of funding poor applicants to achieve a verdict is common and used by all civil rights organizations

        The only civil right Peter Thiel cares about is his right to inject himself with the blood of teenage boys..

        https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]

        And no, that story has not been debunked.

        https://gizmodo.com/someone-is... [gizmodo.com]

        • Assuming arguendo that the rumors are true there's pretty convincing science that it has a rejuvenating effect on the mind in studies on mice. Nothing concrete on humans yet, but as he's rich as Croesus and can afford to pay healthy teenagers for their blood, why the fuck wouldn't he be doing it? I sure as fuck know that I would if I had that sort of spare cash lying around. Worst case scenario all that he gets is a placebo effect while a couple of healthy young people get some spending cash they wouldn't o

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Luthair ( 847766 )

        Consider the lawsuit in the context of anti-SLAPP [wikipedia.org] laws. We an individual whose net worth is an order of magnitude many times that of his target secretly bankrolling lawsuits intended to bankrupt an entity who said something he didn't like.

    • Gawker outed Thiel as gay and refused a court order to take down the Hogan sex tape because it was "public interest". Meanwhile they ran stories that viewing stolen nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence was the equivalent as sexual assault.

    • by Hal_Porter ( 817932 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:34AM (#56181041)

      We haven't lost Gawker though. Nick Denton got bankrupted. Gawker Media got sold to Univision. Univision shut down Gawker.com but the other verticals are still running.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media#Univision_Communications_acquisition_and_subsidiary_era_(2016-present) [wikipedia.org]

      On August 16, 2016, Univision Communications paid $135 million at auction to acquire all of Gawker Media and its brands. This ends Gawker Media's fourteen years of independence, as going forward it will become a unit of Univision.

      On August 18, 2016, it was announced that Gawker Media's flagship site Gawker would be ceasing operations the week after. Univision continues to operate Gawker Media's six other websites, Deadspin, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku, and Lifehacker. Gawker's article archive remains online, and its employees were transferred to the remaining six websites or elsewhere in Univision. On August 22, 2016, at 22:33 GMT, Denton posted Gawker's final article.

      And as people are fond of telling me here when conservatives get silenced : "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Also if it's not the government censoring you it's not a violation of the First Amendment".

      Nick Denton could start a site and put up all the stolen sex tapes he likes. And if, like The Daily Stormer, he gets his site pulled by his ISP for doing it, that's also not a First Amendment violation.

      • "And as people are fond of telling me here when conservatives get silenced : "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Also if it's not the government censoring you it's not a violation of the First Amendment"." Yeah, and when people on the left say that they are wrong. Concern about free speech in general should apply regardless of whose speech it is, or who is doing the effective censoring.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Well, Gawker didn't get shut down for their speech, they got shut down for disobeying a court order.

          They have nobody but themselves to blame for that. It's hard to see how being subject to court orders creates a chilling effect on speech here. There are SLAPP suits available to protect against truly frivolous uses of lawsuits to silence speech.

          Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about those who use physical violence to prevent people from speaking, like Antifa.

      • by Luthair ( 847766 )
        Last I heard Peter Thiel was suing in order to be allowed to buy Gawker's assets....
      • when a lawsuit was used to accomplish the deed? The fact remains that the American legal system was engaged to crush someone's speech. Yes, there's lots of extenuating circumstances here, but ultimately the sex tape isn't what got Gawker shut down, Peter Thiel did.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's not really a freedom of speech issue, it's a transparency in law and justice issue. It's an issue with the rich having greater access to the legal system, and being able to use it in ways that others cannot, e.g. bankrupting their victims regardless of the legal merits.

        As JoshuaZ says (and was modded a troll for), it probably wouldn't have made much difference in the end, but that's not the point.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          True that, but in this case the issue goes the other way. Gawker's entire argument is that without Thiel, they'd have forced Hogan into a settlement because Hogan would have trouble paying for his lawsuit. i.e. It was Gawker that planned to use their financial might to twist the legal system.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Kohath ( 38547 )

      ... a world where billionaires can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits is potentially incredibly chilling on free speech...

      That might be a problem it it starts happening to media sources that don't deserve to be shut down. Right now, the only speech being "chilled" is publishing celebrity sex videos — and then only in combination with many years of other various bad behavior.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        ... might be a problem it it starts happening to media sources that don't deserve to be shut down. Right now, the only speech being "chilled" is publishing celebrity sex videos — and then only in combination with many years of other various bad behavior.

        Which media sources "deserve to be shut down"? Which don't? What constitutes "bad behaviour"? Those decisions must be made ONLY by those charged with enforcing laws currently in effect - not by you, me, or some random politician or billionaire who feels that his or her moral sense, common sense, taste, or whatever, can or should be substituted for the law.

        • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @11:47AM (#56181319)

          ...Those decisions must be made ONLY by those charged with enforcing laws currently in effect...

          Like a court and a jury?

        • Had the shit for brains Daulerio taken the lawsuit seriously in the first place it is likely that even if he lost, the amount of money that the payout would have consisted of would have been well within the ability of Gawker to pay. But when you say in a legal deposition that you are willing to publish a child sex tape in a flat, bored tone, people are not going to look upon you kindly.

    • 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 if they stuck to issues that pertained to free speech then said billionaire would never have had a chance.

  • by iamhassi ( 659463 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:12AM (#56180947) Journal
    Stop defending gawker. They were wrong and the courts agreed they were wrong. No one needed to "find weak points to exploit".
    • Yeah, they kinda did (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:33AM (#56181037)
      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.
      • 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)

        When the outed him he was on a business trip to Saudi Arabia where there most definitely can be consequences for being outed. Those camel shaggers could have arrested him, threatened him with prosecution and locked him up in a hell hole until he paid them off.

        I can see why he was pissed at Gawker.

        • the Saudis would have moved against an American billionaire? You're simply not allowed to be that naive about how the world works. Laws apply differently to the ultra rich.
          • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

            Speaking of naivete, this is the same country known for kidnapping sitting prime ministers of other nations and forcing them into signing confessions. If you were gay and outed while in Saudi Arabia, you'd be shitting your pants no matter how many billions you had.

        • When the outed him he was on a business trip to Saudi Arabia where there most definitely can be consequences for being outed. Those camel shaggers could have arrested him, threatened him with prosecution and locked him up in a hell hole until he paid them off.

          If it was such a risk putting out such a rumour (he hadn't confirmed it then) then how come back after it was no longer a rumour but a fact confirmed by Thiel himself.

          Thiels own actions show your reasoning to be false.

      • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:47AM (#56181091)

        Gawker's mistake was not knowing Thiel was gunning for them.

        Or you could say that their mistake was refusing to take down a sex tape after being ordered to by the court. It doesn't matter how much someone is gunning for you if you don't do stupid shit to piss off a judge.

        • normally around that time the case is withdrawn, the two settle out of court and problem solved. Gawker knew what they were doing. It was a huge part of their job. Again, what they _didn't_ know is that Thiel was out for blood. If they had they would have shut the whole thing down and played nice with the judge.

          Again, they thought it was a standard show trial. It wasn't. It was a well planned hit piece against one of the largest muckrackers in the business. Those muckrackers are generally the only ones
          • Gawker knew what they were doing. It was a huge part of their job. Again, what they _didn't_ know is that Thiel was out for blood.

            They didn't even know what the opposition wanted? Sounds to me like they didn't know what they were doing.

            • because the opposition was actively hiding itself. Did you even RTFS much less TFA?
              • by Marful ( 861873 )
                I don't recall the judge hiding at all. I even recall him openly telling gawker to cut their shit out and take down the video.

                All gawker had to do was follow what the judge ordered.

                Thiel bankrolling the whole thing has nothing to do with why they lost; it was their hubris and arrogance is why.
      • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @11:30AM (#56181235) Homepage

        That is a hell of a lame dodge. You don't even have the guts to make the (risible) claim that Gawker faced a show trial. They faced a fair trial, dug their own grave, jumped it in, and dared the court not to bury them.

        If Gakwer did not commit serious torts, then aggravate those by defying legitimate court orders, they would not have faced the damages verdict that bankrupted them. Instead, they made it clear they didn't care who they wronged or what they got wrong as long as they got clicks.

        • That is a hell of a lame dodge. You don't even have the guts to make the (risible) claim that Gawker faced a show trial. They faced a fair trial, dug their own grave, jumped it in, and dared the court not to bury them.

          You ignore the fact that Gawker was effectively denied the opportunity to appeal.

          • by Entrope ( 68843 )

            So what? If they could have put up a bond for the damages, they could spend the rest of their money on appeals. How many parties get to spend money on an appeal without putting anything away to pay the damages they already owe?

      • a tradition as old as journalism itself. What we old folk used to call muckracking.

        Indeed. And a tradition which has rightfully downed many journalists in the process.
        No tears shed.

  • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dirk ( 87083 )

      Well, except your version of events never happened. Gizmodo didn't steal an iPhone prototype from anyone. Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it. They didn't steal it and they didn't try to destroy the career of the guy who lost it.

      I wasn't a fan of them purchasing it at the time and I'm still not. But what happened is a far cry from your description of what happened. But don't let the facts get in the way.

      • Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it.

        For most people, not returning lost goods is called dishonorable. Lack of honor and integrity is what makes those "buzz" media so despised.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It is sad that this got modded up as informative.

        Well, except your version of events never happened. Gizmodo didn't steal an iPhone prototype from anyone. Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it. They didn't steal it and they didn't try to destroy the career of the guy who lost it.

        I wasn't a fan of them purchasing it at the time and I'm still not. But what happened is a far cry from your description of what happened. But don't let the facts get in the way.

        Point of fact, one finding lost property doesn't make one the true owner of said property.

        Looking at California law, http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/pe... [findlaw.com], it is clear that in this case the person who found the iPhone and didn't return it is guilty of theft, and consequently Gawker was handling stolen property.

        On this point, jcr is 100% correct, and dirk is 0% correct.

  • is there any link with a certain "Dinesh D'Souza" ?

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

    • by Anonymous Coward

      In February 2018, D'Souza was widely criticized for a series of tweets which mocked the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[56][57] In response to a photo of survivors reacting to Florida lawmakers voting down a proposed ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the shooting, D'Souza tweeted "worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs".[57] D'Souza's comments were condemned by both liberal and conservative commentators. Jonathan M. Katz wrote "Let it never be said that

  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:36AM (#56181049)

    A tortious interference claim is for wrongful and improper actions. Funding a lawsuit can hardly be considered wrongful or improper. Close all the courthouses forever if it is.

    Gawker's conduct was wrongful and improper. That's why they lost.

    Also, in a bankruptcy you can't just decide not to sell to someone you’re prejudiced against. There's are legal responsibilities. If he bid the highest and has the most credible plan for the assets, it will be very hard to justify (in court) not selling them to him.

  • We've seen this play out before. Cult Awareness Network was legally "slapped" into bankruptcy by Scientology, which did not like the group's open explanations of Scientology's inner secrets to new members, or the exposure of the secrets about the god Xenu and how all your bad thoughts and inner demons are the rejoined souls or "thetans" of slaughtered citizens of the Galactic Federation, killed by a thermonuke dropped on Hawaii millions of years ago. So Scientology sued them to death with money from Lisa Ma

  • Apparently there are people who want to make sure he keeps spending. And spending.

    So it's all good. He has lots of money, they should be able to keep him at it for years.

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Working...