this comment is ridiculous - what could you possibly have to back that up ? just because you do not agree with his political view doesn't mean everything he does is with bad intentions and "scummy".

Personally, I find Palantir pretty scummy. I don't see how what they are doing is much different than what China is doing. It's the tech that empowers the modern day police state. They might even be using Palintir there. We can't even find out where it's deployed in the USA. This is the type of tech that we can do without, imho.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-peter-thiels-secretive-data-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17054740/palantir-predict...

This is somewhat tangential, but what exactly does Palantir do? From what I understand, they're a glorified consulting company that does data visualization, so why do they get so much attention?

One of their primary functions is helping governments track people [1]. They market their suite as aiding the fight against crime/terrorism, but many argue that they're providing tools to governments to track their own citizens (see GP's Bloomberg link). I fall into the latter camp.

There are even some old (fairly unrevealing) demos on Youtube [2]

1 - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/joining-the-dots

2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51YYljuz4u4

It's not that clearcut. Did you know Thiel is a libertarian and hates the police state?

So why is he working with the government then? Well, a combination of something he wants to change and business opportunity. Sometimes to change something, it's best to work within the system and help steer it another way. The government has been invading people's privacy for a long time and increasingly so, with or without Palantir. At least this way he has influence over the direction. But who knows in reality how much is driven by trying to improve it vs making money and how that calculus works out.

On the other hand, maybe he's a hypocrite when it comes to making money. Or maybe he's a libertarian who values making money more than enforcing the NAP. Or maybe he's just really gung ho about arming the night-watchman state.

the entire saga with gawker media, for one thing.

just so we are clear, you do not like that fact that he paid hogans legal costs ?

Just so we are clear:

Hogan and Gawker had arranged to settle. Hogan was even going to be offered part ownership of Gawker, and had agreed to that. Until his (I mean Thiel's) lawyers met with him again.

And then he withdrew that offer.

And then after winning the lawsuit, withdrawing the only claim that would allow Gawker's insurance to allow Hogan to recoup some of his claimed damages (including an "estimated $50M loss of _future_ earnings, for a man who has only made $25M in his career and retirement so far).

Let's be very clear, Thiel's involvement in this was much more than "paid legal costs".

Regardless of the right or wrongs of thing, it is a generally accepted concept in modern societies and legal systems that you should have the right to face your opponent, not for them to have a legal 'proxy' or puppet acting at their behest.

Was Hogan wronged? Absolutely. But, as noted above, he'd agreed to settle until Thiel (and/or his lawyers) stepped in (again). He'd also settled with the person who _made_ the nonconsensual recording _and_ sold it... for _1/55,000th_ what he claimed in damages from Gawker.

let's also not forget that the reason Thiel had a vendetta against Gawker is that they outed him publicly. They were a horrible gossip rag and I have very little sympathy for them given their actions (which extend far beyond what they did to Thiel and Hogan).

No they didn't. He was out to a wide circle of people already, let alone that publishing that fact is in no way libelous or defamatory.

Feelings about Gawker aside, if they had really outed him and caused him damage because of it, he would have sued them for that instead of searching for another case he could latch onto and bankroll.

I don't think it has to be about damage. I can understand how such an imposition might make him want revenge on a personal level.

At the end of the day it's important to let people come out in a way they choose. He may well have already been out to friends and family but that doesn't mean all is done and dusted, especially for a public figure.

Hogan earned $13 million from just the WCW for a 5 year contract. There's zero chance his total lifetime earnings is $25 million. Probably add a 0 to that.

Those were the golden years. Not that I'm a wrestling expert (quite the opposite), but the WWF was not quite so grandiose - Hogan reported that headlining in Wrestlemania would get you about $150K.

I think the truth lies between. "After rumors of Hulk's infidelity, Linda filed for divorce in 2007. At the time it was revealed that Hogan's personal net worth was $30-40 million."

I don't see it hitting $250M.

And I don't see his future retirement income taking a $50M hit because of the video. He's still entitled to royalties and residuals. His multitude of racist remarks, perhaps, however...

Wrestlemania is a one day event.

Anyways, straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2043389/Hulk-H...

So 5 years with the WCW netted him $13M, but 10 in the WWF was $220M+?

"Wrestler exaggerates."

From another Hogan lawsuit: "Belzer sued Hogan for $5 million and later settled out of court. On October 20, 2006, on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show, it was claimed (with Hogan in the studio) that the settlement totaled $5 million, half from Hogan and half from Vince McMahon. During his June 23, 2008, appearance on Sirius Satellite Radio's The Howard Stern Show, Belzer suggested that the real settlement amount was actually closer to $400,000."

Regardless of this, the point still stands, Thiel was very much more involved in the Gawker lawsuit than "paying legal costs" and that, regardless of the validity of Hogan's claims, or the trashiness of Gawker, troubles me. "Billionaire bankrolls lawsuit against someone he has a beef with, but could not himself sue, and appears to stage manage case."

How could he win his case if his claimed damages wern't at least somewhat realistic?

Because the decision, and the damages are separate. You can win a case and have "damages reduced on appeal". Or a judge can be involved (depending on state). It can even be a separate hearing entirely.

And there's a litany of court cases where you can find 'unrealistic damages' due to a jury "sending a message".

I get your point, I guess my opinion on this is

1) gawker was trash and probably got what was coming to them. outing someone to get clicks is much more scummy in my opinion than what PT did. the world is a better place now that Gawker is not in it.

2) regarding "legal proxy's acting on someone behest,", I'm not a lawyer but what is the difference between this and HSBS acting as a "proxy" and paying the legal costs of mexican employees (executives actually) [1] who got caught illegal laundry money for the cartels. It is basically the same thing, someone or something with a lot of money throwing around money and affecting legal outcomes (Deferred prosecution agreements)

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ba...

i wonder if the original offer (aka ownership of gawker) was worth more than the actual settlement, because the founder filed for bankruptcy and presumably he did not get 100M

I think that's taking the teeth out of it a little bit. I believe that he began working for Hogan in secret seeking revenge for being outed.

Yeah, there was a lot more to it than that.

And while I personally found Gawker trashy and not worth a lot of respect, Thiel had profile pictures on open social media accounts of him shirtless on gay cruises. Short of a formal press release saying "I am gay", this wasn't any particular revelation.

(As to the "well, it's still noone's business" - while I agree, the courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" "by virtue of the undue or oversized influence they wield or are capable of wielding" - so Thiel had little legal claim to his own situation, so used someone else as a proxy for his own grievances).

The courts have also held that gawker should not exist anymore

That's... obtuse. They held that Gawker should not exist anymore because they became insolvent/ bankrupt due to this.

Not because of the quality/moral fiber (or lack thereof) of their business model.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Hogan's case was a legitimate one, he just lacked the funding to see it through. AND you're forgetting that Gawker could've avoided the whole thing if they had obeyed the earlier court order to take the video down.

Hogan had agreed with Gawker to take part ownership of Gawker including revenues, and then that was reneged upon after meeting with Thiel's (his) lawyers again, and similar after multiple points of near settlement.

The damages were then upped to ridiculous amounts. Financial / economic (not emotional) damages were listed at $50M.

Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $30-40M (edit: from $25M), and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened.

I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, as is the punitive) - from what? Not from residuals on old WWF repeats - he would still be entitled to these. The occasional celebrity endorsement?

I can't see any realistic justification that his earning power for the rest of his life would total $50M, let alone that $50M only covers the fraction of his income that he _lost_ because of this.

Maybe a message needed to be sent that journalists aren't above disobeying court orders. Perhaps they should've done the right thing when they still had the chance. Everything else is just whining about how something that could happen (a judgement against them), did.

That's a matter for the court to decide, then. Not for a plaintiff to claim non-existent or dubious factual claims as to lost income.

It sounds like the court did think his claim was accurate, I'm pretty sure the judge has the ability to make decisions on what damages should be.

Well, not for nothing, the initial award was $140M. That has been reduced by over $100M to $31M...

> this comment is ridiculous - what could you possibly have to back that up ?

Let's start with Palantir?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies#Controve...

Any stories to back this up? Sounds interesting. Personally have a lot of respect for PT’s investment views

The one that jumps out at me is his association with James O'Keefe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Support_for_politi...). That seems most salient to this story.

I won't deny that he seems to be a very skilled investor though.

Skilled investor != Good person

Oh, for sure. Just agreeing with the above comment on that front.

This is like saying you like Stalin for his pragmatic approach to population control.

Nice, new account. Welcome.