This is not a business venture," he said. “I would underscore that I don’t expect to make any money from this. And though he said he's spent about $10 million on Hogan's case alone, he said he does not expect to profit financially. ![]() Thiel, a pledged delegate for Donald Trump in California, also said that it was "safe to say" he funded other lawsuits against Gawker, though he declined to say which ones. "One of my friends convinced me that if I didn’t do something, nobody would," he added. "Even someone like Terry Bollea who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone.” ![]() They usually attack less prominent, far less wealthy people that simply can’t defend themselves," he said, according to the Times. Most of the people they attack are not people in my category. He felt the need to protect those who have been affected by Gawker's stories, and who may not have the means to seek justice, he said. The tech entrepreneur, 48, told the Times that he decided years ago to fund multiple cases in an effort to destroy the media company. “I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest.” “It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence,” he told the newspaper. Thiel, one of the earliest investors in Facebook, has had problems with Gawker that go back nearly a decade, when Valleywag, a Gawker-owned site that has since been shuttered, published a story entitled, "Peter Thiel Is Totally Gay, People." At that time, Thiel had not publicly spoken about his sexuality. In a new interview with The New York Times, Thiel explained why he acted as a benefactor to Hogan, who won $140 million in damages after suing the media company for publishing a sex tape that featured him. (I can say this because I am a writer.)Īnd yes, I’m probably also talking about you.— - PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel admitted to financially backing Hulk Hogan's invasion of privacy lawsuit against Gawker. Here is my final word on this depressing, but admittedly titillating, tale and the absolute tsunami it has unleashed among those who fancy themselves quill-drivers: Writers are so annoying. Oh, and Dorland, it must be noted, was apparently the one to pitch this whole saga to reporter Robert Kolker, who ended up writing about it for the Times.īy now, you may have already clicked over to Twitter and searched for “ bad art friend” and/or “ kidney” and seen every shade of opinion out there: declarations of which person to side with (writers are, surprise surprise, overwhelmingly siding with Larson), armchair diagnoses of mental health conditions (narcissistic personality disorder seems to be the winning one), and philosophical ruminations on art, the muse, and the creator (ugh). ![]() Larson accused Dorland of harassing a writer of color (herself). Dorland, upset by both the inspiration/plagiarism as well as what she likely perceived to be a betrayal of friendship (which was, again, pretty much one-sided), attempted to get Larson to pay damages via a lawsuit against a book festival. Not only that, but Larson - in an original version of her story - used words that Dorland wrote, almost verbatim, in the form of a letter to the recipient of the kidney. Sonya Larson, a more successful writer whom Dorland one-sidedly considered a “friend,” wrote a short story that was inspired (not in an admiring way) by Dorland’s kidney donation and subsequent frequent posts about her act of altruism. But if you insist on exercising your right to persist, here is a brief (for a nearly 10,000-word story, at least) summary of the whole sorry affair:ĭawn Dorland, an unpublished author, donated a kidney via a nondirected donation, in which the organ goes to a stranger in need, and added her friends and acquaintances to a Facebook group she created about the fact. If you’re unfamiliar with the story, I might recommend that you find something better to do with your time rather than get sucked into this black hole of mid-level literary beef and all its accompanying commentary. ![]() The particular intersection of writers and online freaks that make up Media Twitter is still aflutter in the wake of “ Who Is the Bad Art Friend?”, a wild and ultimately soul-crushing New York Times Magazine feature about an interpersonal, interprofessional, and litigious dispute between two writers that was published yesterday.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |