How did you get a refund when their premium plan comes with the first 30 days free? I signed up for the premium plan too, without having paid anything for the first 30 days. https://www.spotify.com/in/premium/?checkout=false#PLANS
It's unethical because (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge, (b) he appears to be behind the decision to drop a certain charge from the lawsuit only so that Gawker wouldn't have insurance cover - it shows vindictiveness, (c) Thiel's goal seems to be to bankrupt and shut down Gawker.
Most of all, if this was indeed above board and ethical, why did Thiel feel the need to do this surreptitiously until outed by the NYT (is he going to fund someone to sue them too?).
> (a) Thiel was funding an unrelated case merely to exact a personal revenge
That would be unethical if the case were frivolous, or designed to bankrupt Gawker through "court fees" defending themselves against unreasonable complaints, or so on.
Gawker's going bankrupt, if they do, because they lost the case, for what I think were correct reasons. It can not be unethical to help someone get justice they were owed. If there are more cases like this one, I hope the plaintiffs win those cases too.
Would Gawker go bankrupt if the damages were set at $10 million? What about $20 million? $100 million? Why not $1 billion.
Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair?
Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?
> Hulk Hogan is already a very wealthy man. Did he truly need many many millions more? Is that just and fair?
Yes, it is. Much of the damages were economic. He lost his job with WWE due to Gawker's publication. That's how much his job was paying him. It is a good thing that people can get economic damages from courts, even if they are rich. (Though it would be much better if everyone could receive the same level of justice as Hogan did, regardless of how rich they are.)
> Let's say you do something, ANYTHING, that someone takes issue with and brings you to court with a fully staffed legal team. You lose the case. You have to pay millions in damages. Would you keep true to your word that you hope more cases like this happen and that the plaintiffs win those cases too?
I'm so confused by this argument. The reason I hope more people in Hogan's situation win their cases is that I think the jury verdict was correct, and achieved justice for him, as it would for them too.
I expect I would be personally unhappy about losing millions, as anyone would. But it would only be wrong if it was for an unjust reason. That's not the case here. There is no hypocrisy in wanting just cases to succeed and unjust cases to fail.
Wealthy people tend to have a lot of income. He lost a lot of income due to Gawker. Yes, it's just and fair. Bollea was making millions and millions a year in roles and endorsements, and that dried up after Gawker went after him. Gawker makes millions too. What Gawker did in the Bollea case has nothing to do with journalism. They wanted to create a sensationalist tabloid story with stolen footage of a private and embarrassing encounter to make money. Like any business endeavor, there's the possibility that you lose money. When you're a non-essential business that costs someone millions, be expected to pay millions.
The #2 and #3 stories are both links to ttip-leaks.org. The only difference b/w them seems to be the presence of a "www" in one case. Doesn't HN dupe detection handle something as basic?
>> ...giving it to the Indian government which ( at least theoretically ) have the responsibility to defend my interests.
That's an assumption not borne out by facts. The Indian govt. has denied that citizens even have a right to privacy [1]. And there is no recourse (or even disclosure requirements) if a citizen's data is lost, stolen or misused under the Aadhaar ID system [2].
This is not say Aadhaar or the Indian govt. are bad, but I'm just contesting your point Indians "should not be so uneasy" about giving up their biometrics and other data to the govt. There are massive, valid concerns.
From users accidentally supporting [1] Free Basics; to Facebook asking American and Canadian users to email India's telecom regulator in "error" [2]; to even dead people supporting Free Basics [3], it's all part of Facebook's philanthropic efforts in India.
Sorry about the paid link, but here's the relevant portion:
>> Apple has approved a piece of software for its digital store that enables iPhone users to block advertisements from appearing in mobile apps such as those of Facebook, Yahoo and The New York Times.
>> Been Choice was launched in the US this month and is more powerful than other types of adblocking software on the market, which are only able to eliminate ads from web pages. The service even prevents Apple delivering ads to its own News app
...
>> David Yoon, co-founder of Been Choice, said he created the company to give consumers “a choice about who gets their data, how it gets used, and who benefits from its value”.
>> To make money, Been Choice plans to allow users to sell their data through the app. The company is offering to pay people $20 a month if they consent to being shown ads and allow Been Choice to collect information about how they use their devices.
>> Mr Yoon said the company gives users “a clear choice” about whether they want to block ads or share in the value created by their data.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/what-s-in-a-name-ofte...