They were recorded having sex via hidden camera, without their knowledge or consent. That's a sex crime that they treated like it was leaked nude selfies.
This time, I guess it’s that conspiracies to destroy your opponents might actually be a good thing because they represent action over inaction (he more or less says as much about two thirds of the way through the interview). That seems a weird quasi-fascistic stance (Marinetti and other proto-fascists argued in favor of the same bias towards any action, regardless of its morality), but not one that’s out of fashion in our era.
If you (as a stoic) want more substance I can recommend Massimo Pigliucci's "How to be a stoic" site (and book) instead.
Check out any of the econtalk episodes with Nassim Taleb or the ones with Cesar Hidalgo or Pedro Domingos.
EDIT: Hidalgo episode: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/10/cesar_hidalgo_o.htm...
[0] 40:52 for anyone interested. I’m not exaggerating, this is pretty much verbatim.
http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2018/Holidayconspirac...
If you want to write stories that might anger a billionaire, you need to work for another billionaire yourself, or for a billion-dollar corporation. The law will not protect you. There is no freedom in this world but power and money.
- Tom Scocca, "Gawker Was Murdered by Gaslight"
* Gawker ignored a court order to take down a post
* Gawker's legal defense had a poor strategy of attacking Hogan's character
* Gawker either didn't coach their witnesses, or they just ignored any coaching:
* You have the author of the post saying he didn't consider any of the reasons Gawker's legal team said made the sex tape newsworthy
* In a trial by jury, the author also said he'd only hold back a sex tape if the subject was under four years old
Yeah, the lawsuit was bankrolled by a billionaire, but it would have been a slam dunk for any lawyer. The fact that they sought $100 Million but were awarded $140 Million by a jury should be telling about how poorly Gawker handled this situation.
They published a video of a young lady having sex in a bar bathroom, and despite both the lady and her father pleading with Nick Denton to remove the video, he only said "These things pass". The family could not sure, and the outcome was unsure, and Gawker has insurance against these things, so Gawker felt they could get away with it as long as they got the pageviews.
Should you need to be a billionaire to have a non-newsworthy video of you removed?
I highly doubt Thiel would have been able to do that had it not been for Gawker's general being shitty. Outing Thiel was shitty, publishing the sex tape of a private individual was shitty, and saying that they would publish kiddie porn if they felt it was "newsworthy" was shitty.
Gawker was able to be taken out due to their own actions.
This podcast made me read the book. The book is interesting, but this podcast is somehow better because of the way Roberts questions Holiday down a few logical paths.
