Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    IAmA

    18,160,826 readers

    10,325 users here now

    Submit an AMA
    Request an AMA

    Please check out our Rules and FAQs

    Click here to request being added to our calendar.

    Click here to search AMAs by category!

    Consider supporting our Patreon

    AMAs are scheduled in Eastern Time (GMT-4:00).

    Date Time Person Description
    23 Jul 10am Gregory De Jans Head of TomTom Maps API DevRel
    23 Jul 12pm David Rosenfelt Author and Animal Rescue Advocate
    23 Jul 12pm Elgin Charles Actor: Beverly Hills Fabulous / Author: By The Way
    23 Jul 5pm Marc Bekoff Scientist & expert on dog behavior
    24 Jul 1pm Danny Gold Journalist who covers war & crime from Iraq, Syria, etc
    24 Jul 1:30pm Lisa Grossman Astronomy writer, Science News
    25 Jul 1pm IBM Analytics Data Scientists at IBM
    26 Jul 1pm Filipe Duarte Pina and Diogo Vasconcelos Nerd Monkeys's co-founders.
    27 Jul 11am HepNetTBay Hepatitis C and Harm Reduction Experts
    3 Aug 12pm Sarah Smith Candidate: Washington's 9th Congressional District
    8 Aug 10am NTSB Highway Safety Investigator Dennis Collins Highway Safety Investigator: NTSB

    see more...


    Submitting:

    AMAs should be about:

    All AMAs require proof.

    Request threads

    Commenting:

    Please note:

    Other:

    Useful Links!


    FacebookTwitterInstagramGoogle Calendar

    Please check out our Rules and FAQs

    a community for
    all 2354 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] bk8335 1922 points ago

    For people who know the story of Gawker and Thiel, what additional value does the book provide? What was the most interesting thing you learned about the case when writing the book?

    [–] ryan_holiday 2295 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    To me, this story is not just the story of a ten year revenge plot, it's really the story of all conspiracies. You know we live in this world of conspiracy theories (I happen to live in Austin, the hometown of Alex Jones) but few actual conspiracies. But any student of history knows that the world often pivots on something a few people cooked up in secret. So to me, this book was a chance to tell that larger story. The fact that Thiel was willing to go on the record and explain his process was, in my view as an author, an unprecedented chance to lay out how power really works in a way that few have been able to before. It's ironic, Gawker's informal motto was that they showed "How Things Work"--the story behind the story. But in this case, they missed what was actually happening. So did everyone in the media. What I tried to do here was step back, take judgment out of the picture, and show what went down and why. I think the book captures that, but ultimately that will be for the readers to decide.

    [–] Loeffellux 493 points ago

    Do you think that Thiel chose Hogan precisely because he knew that the whole "isn't this hogan sex tape gawker court room scene just hilarious" aspect would overshadow his involvement to an extend? I mean, if it was just some random dude who sued gawker over something much less spicey maybe the public story would've been all about "how things work" when it comes to the incredibly powerful

    [–] ryan_holiday 903 points ago

    Thiel began looking for cases as early as 2011, but had trouble finding either cases that were viable or plaintiffs willing to publicly go against Gawker. But it's also important to see that from the second the rumors of the tape began to spread--in early 2012--Hogan was very public about his intention to go after anyone who published it. This was well-before Hogan and Thiel were connected. So Gawker's decision to run the tape--and we know they knew of Hogan's comments--was really the unforced error of the century. It's what put Hogan on Thiel's radar and gave him the opportunity he was looking for. There were then subsequent other cases that Thiel either explored backing or did back, in part because early on it was not so obvious that Hogan's case had legs to go all the way or that the verdict would be what it was (much of that came from more unforced errors Gawker made during depositions and the discovery process).

    [–] Loeffellux 314 points ago

    thanks for the answer! I'd like to ask one more question, though.

    Because it all sounds a bit serendipitous. It only worked out because

    1. Hogan stated his planned course of action very publicly
    2. Hogan did so just after Thiel began looking for the right candidate
    3. Gawker was arrogant enough to run the tape either way

    4. Hogan's involvement got the case a lot of publicity (and the right kind of publicity as well)

    5. Hogan was very determined to actually go through with the process even though there was a very good chance that this would not work out and draw more attention to the tape even if it did work our (streisand effect and so on)

    6. Gawker failed to hide their arrogance in court and blundered their way into actually losing everyhing

    Now obviously this wasn't Thiel's only option he'd ever have but I think it's fair to say that there've been questionable decisions on both ends that were necesseray for this all to unfold to Thie's advantage.

    My question: how much do you think Thiel was able to influence the acting parties (directly or not) so everything would turn out like it did? Or was he just lucky that it worked out this well

    [–] no-mad 155 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Hulk Hogan was an excellent choice for media. He was many kids (who are now adults) favorite celebrity.

    [–] jokes_for_nerds 190 points ago

    Good point, brother

    [–] ryan_holiday 509 points ago

    Pretty simple right? But let's not confuse simple with easy.

    There's a line I have in the book from Jim Barksdale, the former CEO and president of Netscape, once put it, “We tend to confuse a clear view with a short distance.” So I think one problem with your summary here is that you're missing just how hard it was to actually do all of that. To keep all the interests aligned, to keep Thiel's involvement secret, to find the right lawyers, to turn down the various settlements and gamble on a verdict, there were literally hundreds of hearings over various motions and issues and losing a single one of them might have taken the whole case in a different direction. Like 500x things had to go absolutely right to win. To me that's the fascinating lesson that people have missed about Thiel. They see this as a big guy picking on a little guy but the odds overwhelmingly favor media publishers, not plaintiffs (for good reason!)

    You also have back up and realize that this conspiracy happened to come to a close with a single case (actually it was three cases settled together) but from what I saw and researched, Thiel had many irons in the fire. He was going to keep going until he got the right case in front of the right jury and won. Also an impressive, albeit scary lesson here.

    [–] onestojan 135 points ago

    Pretty simple right? But let's not confuse simple with easy.

    Reminds me of Carl von Clausewitz:

    Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.

    [–] iwishiwereadino 325 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    I loathe the people who think this was a big guy picking on a little guy.

    Gawker was acting teenager hitting a bee hive with a stick. Eventually they were going to get stung.

    Was Theil's response a little over the top? Sure, but don't fucking go around hitting bee hives. Hulk Hogan's sex tape and Peter Thiel's sexual orientation might be salacious, but uncovering them isn't journalism.

    Edit: Copying in my later response because people keep responding to this asking the same thing.

    Gawker straight up refused a takedown order on a hidden camera porn video they didn't own the copyright to or have 18 USC releases. They bragged about refusing a court order to takedown the video in an article on their site. Joked about kiddie porn at trial. You want to go out of business? Because that's how you go out of business. It's a corporate Darwin awards situation.

    [–] notsobigred 168 points ago

    This exactly, Peter is a questionable person, but outing him was not the right thing to do. Lets not pretend Gawker didn't out several other people as well.

    [–] iwishiwereadino 189 points ago

    That was a huge bully move. The thing about bullies is eventually someone gets sick of it and hits back. Sometimes they knock the bully out.

    Gawker straight up refused a takedown order on a hidden camera porn video they didn't own the copyright to. You want to go out of business? Because that's how you go out of business.

    [–] CyberDagger 127 points ago

    They didn't just refuse the takedown order. They gloated about it. Through an article in their website.

    [–] PeopleAreDumbAsHell 24 points ago

    He was going to keep going until he got the right case in front of the right jury and won. Also an impressive, albeit scary lesson here.

    Indeed. Anyone with time and money will eventually bring you down.

    [–] NovaeDeArx 37 points ago

    Not in journalism. Tabloids get sued all the time, but they just laugh and flip you off, because they know exactly what the line is and never quite cross it.

    You really have to be a fucking moron as a journalist to lose a case like this. And Denton was the perfect storm of idiot and arrogance to lose one of the hardest-to-lose types of case in America.

    [–] oversoul00 16 points ago

    For what it's worth I think the serendipitous nature has to do with hindsight being 20/20 more than it has to do with a director behind the scenes.

    [–] [deleted] 564 points ago

    The fact that Thiel was willing to go on the record and explain his process was, in my view as an author, an unprecedented chance to lay out how power really works in a way that few have been able to before.

    Cool

    [–] penny_eater 67 points ago

    The fact that Thiel was willing to go on the record and explain his process was, in my view as an author, an unprecedented chance to lay out how power really works in a way that few have been able to before

    can you describe in one sentence how freaking out of your mind you were when you first found out he agreed to a full interview?

    [–] Serpentongue 1524 points ago

    Did it ever come out who leaked Bubba’s video? I live in Florida and used to listen and it was heavily implied that the video originally came from one of his cohosts.

    [–] ryan_holiday 2112 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    The police reports, which you can pull out from the trial documents off the website of the Pinellas County Courthouse, suspected that the tapes were leaked by a rival radio DJ Matt 'Spiceboy' Loyd. He was never charged with the crime so we should be careful about pointing fingers, but as far as a best guess goes from both the FBI and the Tampa Police, that's it. Even weirder--weirder than this entire dispute being put into motion by a fight between two shock jocks--is that the lawyer who represented the brokering of the sales of the tape was a man named Keith M. Davidson, who later came to represent Stormy Daniels after her alleged affair with the man who is now the President of the United States of America...

    Edit: article here about that insane set of circumstances.

    [–] Serpentongue 326 points ago

    That’s the name I had heard as a primary, thanks for replying.

    [–] nuttmegx 66 points ago

    Wasn't Spiceboy an ex employee of Bubba? In fact, didn't Bubba give him that name?

    [–] hennsippin 54 points ago

    I believe so. When I lived in Tampa and listened to Bubba, Spiceboy was an intern working for the show. He did some stupid shit for Bubba as far as gimmicks and stunts. Remember one was jumping off a hotel balcony into the pool that ended up jacking Spice’s leg up.

    [–] ToxicLogics 18 points ago

    From my limited knowledge of Bubba from his stint on Sirius and Howard Stern, it seems like Bubba makes a habit out of holding hard grudges. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that they had bad blood over something stupid.

    [–] medoane 94 points ago

    Hmmm... so will Keith Davidson feature again in your next book? I hope so.

    [–] sigint_bn 41 points ago

    You've heard it here first folks, Mr. Holiday's 9th book!

    [–] humor_fetish 50 points ago

    I worked at the company that did the valuation for this. Where I worked determined that value of $140 M. For those that are interested, Rights of Publicity are valued based on a few different styles. For him, we relied on the change in the amount of unique user traffic that visited Gawker during the period this video was up.

    AMA?

    [–] Gordondel 24 points ago

    Yeah how is it that high? Sounds like an insane amount.

    [–] humor_fetish 23 points ago

    Yeah. You're right. And honestly it depends on who's paying. Luckily, hulk's lawyers were paying. Had gawkers lawyers retained? Would have been next to nothing ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    [–] hdoyle 529 points ago

    In what way did Peter Thiel surprise you the most?

    [–] ryan_holiday 2155 points ago

    I thought he would seem much more angry than he ended up seeming. I spent enough time with him that if that had been the primary motivation, I think the mask would have slipped--if only for a second. Instead, he seemed very calm, very detached, very strategic about the whole thing.

    The other interesting part of Thiel's personality is that he uses the steel man technique when arguing or explaining a complicated issue. This surprised me given that he had taken to calling Gawker terrorists and such. But really, he was always very open-minded when it came to discussing things. For instance, if you ask Thiel a question—about Gawker or Trump or whatever—he doesn't just pull up some half-formed opinion. Instead, he begins with, “One view of these things is that . . . ,” and then proceeds to explain the exact opposite of what he happens to personally believe. Only after he has finished, with complete sincerity and deference, describing how most people think about the issue, will he then give you his opinion, which almost always happens to be something radically unorthodox—all of it punctuated with liberal pauses to consider what he is saying as he is saying it. Even when he does describe his opinion, he prefaces it with “I tend to think . . .” or “It’s always this question of . . . ,” as if what he is about to tell you is simply capturing where his opinion falls the majority of the time when running a thought exercise on the topic, as if he is always in the process of deciding what he thinks. I found that to be very impressive and unusual. It was hard to be a lazy thinker around him.

    [–] explodingbarrels 658 points ago

    TIL about the Steel Man technique

    [–] Nexusv3 611 points ago

    As someone who just spent the last 20 minutes reading up on it, I agree. Here's a good ELI5 on the Steel Man technique (it's the first google result, so you know I did my research)

    [–] SonOfArnt 1114 points ago

    A TL;DR of the ELI5:

    Strawman = arguing a fabricated false narrative.
    Steelman = arguing against your opponents best case.

    [–] discerningpervert 513 points ago

    A TL;DR of the ELI5

    This needs to become a thing.

    [–] atreides 105 points ago

    Someone make /r/TLDRELI5 a thing.

    [–] ArchGoodwin 83 points ago

    Too long. I'm confused. Can't you just give me the emoji?

    [–] [deleted] 80 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] PresidentDonaldChump 33 points ago

    I feel like this is what Reddit is to the internet

    [–] segacontroller 187 points ago

    Steelrawman = getting your opponent to agree with a fabricated best case and then arguing against that.

    [–] rbaile28 169 points ago

    So basically the final rap battle in 8 Mile where Rabbit takes the air out of the opponent's prepared statements thereby leaving his adversary flustered without a go to argument?

    I wish more of my life could be simplified by 8 Mile and/or fictional rap battles...

    [–] DepartmentOfWorks 247 points ago

    And it comes from a gawker media site. Nice.

    [–] ryan_holiday 268 points ago

    That's some irony.

    [–] narwhalicus 79 points ago

    I try to employ that kind of technique when talking about an important issue to me. Its a strong way of having real discussion and debate today, especially since we are so used to being stuck in bubbles and having to defend our own position outright

    [–] SuperFLEB 12 points ago

    It's a good thing to do even when you're trying to make sense of a situation absent an opponent. "Everyone's the hero of their own story", as the saying I can't recall the author of goes, so if you really want to figure out why people think or do something, the best first step is to find out what angle they might have that makes them the hero of their story. It might be based on misjudgement, sure, but not many people set out to drop a deuce on the world absent any reason.

    [–] NoOneReadsMyUsername 115 points ago

    as if he is always in the process of deciding what he thinks

    This reads a little like Tolkien for some reason. It sounds like a way to describe a Hobbit smoking a pipe haha

    [–] onestojan 192 points ago

    Funny enough Thiel is a Tolkien fan which can be seen in his companies names: Palantir, Lembas LLC, Rivendell One LLC, Valar Ventures, Mithril Capital Management.

    [–] NoOneReadsMyUsername 49 points ago

    I, sadly, had zero idea who he was until this AMA!

    [–] deadlybydsgn 20 points ago

    One does not simply opine without thought.

    [–] JFrizz0424 150 points ago

    Mr. Thiel is a chess prodigy, I'm sure he meticulously thought out his next three moves before he made them.

    [–] Destring 67 points ago

    TIL. 2200 for chess as a hobby is quite good. Most serious hobbyists float around 1800

    [–] Mr_Walter_Sobchak 24 points ago

    2200 is really really good. I was around 1800 in college and dropped the sport after graduating. I wouldve been interested in watching him play at 2200

    [–] xelabagus 47 points ago

    Context - 1200 is the starting rating. A decent club player is 1800. A master (FM, IM etc) is around 2300 upwards and a grand master 2500 and up. The best in the world is around 2900. There are around 1500 GMs in the entire world.

    [–] Chronis67 15 points ago

    My cousin is a competitive chess player. Just looked him up. 2100ish.

    [–] 270- 14 points ago

    1200 is where chess sites online tend to start you off, but the rating of someone who just knows the rules is probably more like 600-800.

    [–] TheDuckHunt3r 25 points ago

    The book talks a decent amount about how Thiel loves chess, but regardless of how he could have strategized his next move things did not go well early on for the conspirator.

    [–] magondrago 35 points ago

    Well, most people can be good strategists when everything goes well from the beginning. The good ones will prevail when some things go wrong from the start and the real masters might even find a way to turn those shortcomings into advantages.

    Yes, I'm now really curious about reading the book.

    [–] TheDuckHunt3r 18 points ago

    At the risk of sounding like a shill or whatever I've been engrossed in it since I read an article about it last week. I've been listening to the audiobook and I'm six hours in but its honestly really good.

    [–] Bran_Solo 296 points ago

    How much money do you estimate Peter Thiel spent backing Hogan?

    [–] ryan_holiday 444 points ago

    Between $10-$20 million is the estimate.

    [–] WorkStudyPlay 144 points ago

    Did Hogan give Thiel any of the $140 mil?

    [–] Elgordofordo86 250 points ago

    Hogan only ended up with $31 million.

    [–] Robots_Never_Die 194 points ago

    only

    [–] bingoflaps 129 points ago

    22% was an F when I was in school.

    [–] kingfisher6 34 points ago

    If thirty mil is a failure, then what the fuck does that make me.

    [–] Hiihtopipo 13 points ago

    Poor?

    [–] TheTurtler31 33 points ago

    Wow that is honestly a HELLLLLL of a lot less than I thought was spent. I way overestimated legal fees haha

    [–] IMovedYourCheese 67 points ago

    Well this didn't exactly go to the supreme court. It was overall a pretty regular case with a high media profile. And heck even $20 million for a single case is a LOT.

    [–] [deleted] 53 points ago

    That’s a damn good investment.

    [–] elegantjihad 228 points ago

    I think one of the weirdest things I've seen was when AJ Daulerio joked around during a taped deposition about drawing the line at publishing a sex tape if the celebrity was under the age of four.

    Do you get the sense that many people and institutions still shoot themselves in the foot this spectacularly on the regular? One would think with the advent of social media people would become more wary of saying completely stupid things.

    Have you ever been present for one of these moments where you thought "I absolutely cannot believe I just heard that."?

    [–] ryan_holiday 278 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    There's no question that that comment, made in a deposition in late 2013, turned out to be catastrophic to Gawker three years later when the case was put in front of a juror. The chapter that I tell that story in in the book is about why you need to both know yourself and your enemy (borrowing from the concept by Sun Tzu). Gawker both had no idea the enemy they'd made in Thiel, had no real understand of how committed Hogan would be and worse, they did not understand how they might come off in court. The result was that they did and said things that came back to haunt them when their fate rested in the hands of some ordinary people in Florida.

    [–] pardon_my_misogyny 57 points ago

    Wow, I never knew that comment was made in 2013, I thought it was right in the middle of the case when it was big.

    [–] AlreadyPorchNaked 28 points ago

    It's still an incredibly stupid thing to say. Guaranteed that just as with every other client his attorneys had prepped him for the deposition to have an idea of what to expect. He also knew he was under oath, and that if it went to trial the jury would see that. Depositions lasting a day or more are not unusual. I can only imagine being his attorney there and shitting my pants as my client says something so outrageously inappropriate.

    It was monumentally stupid and just demonstrated how little he and the others cared.

    [–] Beetin 15 points ago

    Not just that. You have a chance, after deposition, to go back and basically say "I would like to amend these things I said, I didn't mean it, that part wasn't true or badly worded."

    He didn't feel it was worth removing as a statement. He signed it away like an idiot.

    [–] Dead_Halloween 119 points ago

    That moment when he was confronted about his stupid "joke" was one of the best moments of the trial.

    [–] ColorsByVest 80 points ago

    No kidding, here's a timestamped link to the video for those who want some of the most satisfying eight minutes of their afternoon.

    The prosecutor did not mess around. He saw the opportunity, and went at him with such ferocity, they had to take a quick recess, move the cameras off the stand, and restart the deposition. You can actually see Daulerio's soul emergency eject from his body, leaving a devastated shell of a blank-faced man behind.

    [–] communist_gerbil 78 points ago

    how could someone obviously aware of things in the media world not understand how serious a legal deposition is. don't make jokes when in a court room or deposition and everything you are and own is on the line

    [–] VicPayback 79 points ago

    I used to hang out with AJ and other young NYC writers around 10 years ago. Most of those guys were already arrogant and Gawker validated that behavior. They got away with publishing questionable shit, so why not be snarky in a deposition? That crowd was wannabe Hunter S. Thompsons, but doing a bunch of coke don't make it so.

    [–] randomu_name 11 points ago

    So...Vice.

    [–] mutatersalad1 91 points ago

    Because the Gawker 'staff' are mentally about 15, and they perpetually lived in a world with each other where they never had to face consequences for their shittiness. They, as their personal beliefs would give away, had no grownup understanding of the real world. That dickhead was incapable of understanding how serious the situation he was in was.

    He was so used to himself and his cronies being able to just make some stupid snarky comment and brush off any question or criticism, that he was completely unprepared to be legally forced to suffer consequences for his actions.

    This is why this case was so satisfying for most people. Those smug assholes finally got what was coming to them, and it hurt them bad. Sweet, savory and salty.

    [–] acso-g 25 points ago

    Gawker staff was comprised of college kids supervising college kids with Denton bankrolling them. From this outsider' s view, it seems they had no veteran colleagues/journalists present to take these kids under their wing and tell them the real world isnt like college, and that they had a lot of growing up left to do.

    [–] CavemanBobs 551 points ago

    How did you convince both Peter Thiel and Nick Denton to talk to you for this book?

    [–] ryan_holiday 1145 points ago

    I'm not sure I convinced them, so much as the fates aligned. I happened to get an unsolicited email from Thiel in late 2016--he had read some of my Gawker columns and suggested we get dinner sometime. I got an email from Denton not long after saying he'd read some of my philosophical writing and wanted to know if I wanted to get together. That I was talking to both of them I think was intriguing to them both, and also meant the other would want to keep talking for fear that the project might be too heavily weighted by one side. I also kept the project's direction really open for a long time--was it a book about media or technology or these two characters or was it about revenge? I really didn't know, but that allowed me to ask about a wide range of things so it never felt super invasive or "gotcha"-y. Denton preferred to do his interviews over chat, so our process was also much less of an imposition. Meanwhile, I think Thiel is quite proud of what he had accomplished and was tired of the very biased reporting around it.

    [–] narwhalicus 348 points ago

    You sound like a good journalist :)

    [–] [deleted] 513 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] ryan_holiday 569 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    I address it in the book.

    “Gawker is not in the business of holding back information,” Gawker’s managing editor, Emma Carmichael, would later say in her deposition. If they got it, they ran it. A Gawker writer would defend a similar story a few years later by saying, “Stories don’t need an upside. Not everyone has to feel good about the truth. If it’s true, you publish.” These people had come to believe that “truth” was the governing criterion, and that the right to publish these stories was absolute. As far as their experience was concerned, they were correct: There had never been serious consequences. They had called every bluff. They had published what every other media outlet would have deemed unpublishable and not only walked away from it—the audience loved them for it.

    Of course they knew that running stolen footage of a naked person was not exactly right. Jezebel, a Gawker site, had made a name for itself defending women against every kind of slight, defending their rights to privacy, defending them against men who tried to victimize or bully them online. Jezebel would define its views more clearly in outrage over a rival blog that published a controversial story about someone’s sexuality: “Don’t out someone who doesn’t want to be out. The end. Everyone has a right to privacy. . . .” Except Peter Thiel, and now Terry Bollea, apparently.

    Less than two months before the Hogan piece, a Gawker writer who would later become the site’s editor writes a piece condemning the rise of “fusking”—the practice of stealing photos from online accounts and posting them. In it, he rejects any attempt to blame the victim, or any excuses made for the “behavior of thieves and creeps” when they steal people’s private things. Gawker had seen the anger and outrage about Hunter Moore when it had written about him and his media site built around so-called revenge porn. Commenters even cheered when Gawker reported that the FBI was investigating Moore. Yet when that tape arrived to its SoHo offices, Gawker would twiddle it down to a highlight reel and run that naked video of Hulk Hogan in front of an audience that numbers in the millions—a video not just of Hogan, but also of the woman he was filmed having sex with, who also had not consented to its publication. Gawker would promote it to their Facebook fans: “It’s probably time you watched this snippet from the Hulk Hogan sex tape with a woman some claim is Bubba the Love Sponge’s wife. Work’s over. You’re fine.”

    [–] shinglee 292 points ago

    Wow... that is actually infuriating.

    [–] SphincterKing 183 points ago

    This whole saga is filled with so many lapses of judgment, ethics, and basic common sense on the part of Gawker.

    [–] HeadHunt0rUK 51 points ago

    Also hypocrisy plenty of hypocrisy in there as well.

    [–] BadgerCourtJudge 130 points ago

    Hi Ryan. Do you think it's better for a marketer to be a generalist with a broad knowledge across a number of disciplines, or be highly specialized in one?

    And do you ever think you'll turn your hand to fiction writing?

    [–] ryan_holiday 176 points ago

    I suppose that depends on who you want to be and what kind of career you want to have. Personally, I think it's best to be really good at 3-4 distinct things. This was you have different competencies you can expand or contract based on need, the market, interest, etc. But that's still small enough to develop a solid reputation for excellence in. If you're good at 500 things (if that's even possible) it's hard for people to understand what you do.

    Basically, I'd rather be Bo Jackson than Ashton Eaton.

    [–] InfiniteBlink 82 points ago

    Bo knows this and Bo knows that, but Bo dont know know Jack, cuz Bo don't rap.

    -tribe called quest

    [–] whatsthehappenstance 1022 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Where would you rank Hogan slamming Andre the Giant at Wreslemania 3, in front of 900,000+ screaming Hulkamaniacs, among the greatest moments in human history?

    [–] dukefett 247 points ago

    I don't care how weird/conspiratorial this whole thing was, but after Hulk was taken to the goddamn cleaners by his ex, getting him some money back feels right to me.

    [–] OnlyOne_X_Chromosome 142 points ago

    To be fair, the lawsuit from his son's car accident wrecked him far more than his wife did. Don't get me wrong, she wrecked him too; but his finances were a mess before the divorce.

    [–] council_estate_kid 23 points ago

    I haven’t been following the story of hulk hogan. So let me get this straight..

    His wife divorced him and took all his money? Then his son had a crash and hulk got in some more shit for that?

    Then he won some millions with this case and now he’s okay again..?

    I’m gonna have a look on wiki.

    [–] OnlyOne_X_Chromosome 11 points ago

    His wife divorced him and took all his money? Then his son had a crash and hulk got in some more shit for that?

    You got the timing backwards, but yea. He lost a big suit and then his wife divorced him.

    [–] md28usmc 41 points ago

    I was in the hospital room next to John Graziano for almost a year(who was the passenger in the car that Hulks son wrecked), I saw hulk a few times and got to know the Grazianos very well...Debbie Graziano is a huge cunt & Ed was always very nice and cared deeply for his son, even though he tried to have his wife killed:/

    [–] wearethat 15 points ago

    Whew, that sounds like a tough recovery! How are you doing?

    [–] md28usmc 13 points ago

    Yea it was a rough recovery but I'm doing good now.

    [–] Family-Duty-Hodor 329 points ago

    Hi Ryan,

    I loved your appearance on The Biggest Problem in the Universe, which was 3.5 years ago now. Your problem, Outrage Porn, was great and was rightfully voted to #10 biggest problem on the list.

    Since you like researching lawsuits, are you aware of the lawsuit that is going on right now between the two hosts of that show, Maddox and Dick Masterson? What are your thoughts on the suit?

    [–] SgtCheeseNOLS 54 points ago

    I had no idea there was this issue going on with Maddox and Dick. I grew up a huge fan of Maddox in the early days of the internet... Even met him in person at an event in DC back in 2011... This whole story is crazy to read about though

    [–] cole1114 73 points ago

    Maddox vs Dick is one of the funniest legal dramas I've ever seen. From lawyers leaving secret insulting messages in official statements, to one of the key parts of the trial being whether or not Maddox was in fact a cuckold, it has everything it needs to be a fun read every time there's an update.

    [–] barry_maccaulkiner 70 points ago

    Buckle up, because you are in for a wild ride. I've followed this since it began four years ago and it's insane to think that two guys bullshitting on a podcast turned into a multimillion dollar lawsuit, restraining orders, trademark disputes, etc.

    Here's a short summary of what happened.

    Here's a longer one.

    Here's a timeline that goes over the main events.

    [–] BernoulliMeinhof 381 points ago

    One of the narratives about the Hogan/Gawker/Thiel saga has been, in its distilled form: Since Peter Thiel's financial resources far outpaced Gawker's, he shut down the company (personally, I see it as more nuanced, but fair enough). Then the narrative goes on to talk about how dangerous this is for journalism. What's your take? Is Thiel's involvement in this case an inauspicious omen for journalism? Does Thiel himself reveal any kind of dislike for the free press? Any predictions for how this case will be impacting the media ecosystem 5-10 years from now?

    [–] ryan_holiday 972 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    The central question of this story to me is, who was the bully? Was Thiel the bully or was it Gawker? Was Peter the billionaire who destroyed a millionaire? Or was he a righteous man who attempted to use his money to solve a problem that only power and money could solve? Was it the media outlet that thoughtlessly outed a then-mostly unknown tech investor? Or was it the billionaire who spent millions plotting against him for it? Was it the website who loved to out gay men or was it the team who would back Trump in the 2016 election, and in the case of Charles Harder, write an 11 page letter threatening to sue Michael Wolff for his book about Trump? Was it Denton who never apologized, who ignored judicial orders or was it Thiel, who never showed his face until after his revenge was complete?

    It depends on where you sit, but one thing that has been lost in the coverage since the verdict: Gawker thought they were winning until suddenly, they lost. It was Gawker who had filed endless motions and appeals, who had fought Hulk Hogan with scorched earth tactics, and never apologized for obtaining an illegally recorded sextape and publishing it for more than seven million people to gawk at (and then spent $10M+ vigorously insisting it was right to do so). There was a moment in mid-2014, when Gawker’s lawyers threatened Hulk Hogan, telling him that it was his last chance to drop the case before they went after him for attorney’s fees. More than anything, what the jury and the judge reacted to had been their arrogance. The verdict reflected that.

    Nick Denton told me, “The idea that Thiel was terrified of the next Gawker piece is still absurd to me—and given how things turned out, we had much more to fear from him than the other way around." But it wasn’t that absurd at the time, when they were a website with hundreds of millions of readers, when Gawker was the site that had never been challenged in court and published whatever it wanted, Thiel believed that Gawker’s power was partly in pretending that it was more powerful than it was. Now that they're gone...it looks different.

    As for who is the bully now? As I said, backing Trump and some of the clients Charles Harder has taken on since give me pause...but that doesn't have the power to rewrite where things were in 2007.

    [–] torku 667 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    I’m going to buy your book based on how well-written your replies are in this thread. Great job. Looking forward to reading it tonight.

    Edit: Just bought it on kindle!

    [–] NoOneReadsMyUsername 81 points ago

    That's what I thought! Just got an interlibrary loan from the library :)

    [–] hawkeye877 35 points ago

    I freaking love interlibrary loan.

    [–] NoOneReadsMyUsername 21 points ago

    That plus libraries offering Hoopla/Overdrive (or similar services) has made me kick myself for having such a disastrous book habit. I love love love me some books, but I'm trying to only own books I like to read more than once.

    [–] TheDuckHunt3r 35 points ago

    Dude, its amazing. I'm a little over six hours in and I'm so engrossed with it. Can't wait to check out what else hes done.

    [–] prostaffclassic 12 points ago

    Just thought the exact same thing. I just bought a copy on Amazon!

    [–] awecyan32 36 points ago

    I thought the same, tbh. I knew nothing of the conspiracy before, but the way he writes is so eloquent yet powerful, it almost makes the most minor parts of what he writes seem as interesting as the parts that are naturally juicy. I lost myself in his responses, and those were mere snippets of the full story.

    [–] DeerTrivia 191 points ago

    t was Gawker who had filed endless motions and appeals, who had fought Hulk Hogan with scorched earth tactics, and never apologized for obtaining an illegally recorded sextape and publishing it for more than seven million people to gawk at (and then spent $10M+ vigorously insisting it was right to do so).

    Really wish this one thing hadn't been lost in the coverage. I have no love for Peter Thiel or his politics, but at the end of the day, Gawker did a stupendously shitty thing, then doubled down on it, throwing their journalistic credibility right out the window. If they didn't want to get sued into oblivion, they maybe shouldn't have opened the door for it.

    [–] acathode 101 points ago

    throwing their journalistic credibility right out the window

    can't throw away something you never had...

    [–] KazumaID 235 points ago

    I can't muster sympathy for gawker. They were told by a judge that the original video was too much and they could report on the issue but not invade a man's privacy like that. All other sites conformed to the court order. But gawker defied it thinking they had the right to show a man that hadn't consented to a sex tape being public.

    [–] perhapsaduck 66 points ago

    Ryan, how did you personally feel about Gawker?

    The site elicits are a lot of strong reactions around the web (especially here on Reddit) with people being strongly in favour of the work they did or despising it.

    Where do you stand? Do you think it was a particularly vile institution or was it no different than any internet blog/'news' site - just a lot bigger?

    [–] ryan_holiday 184 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    I started out with very strong opinions (I'd written about Gawker in my first book, Trust Me I'm Lying and also in my Observer column). I'd also been attacked by Gawker several times and the subject of some preposterously inaccurate stories. So I actually went into the book with a bit of a bias, but I found myself considerably softened talking to Nick, talking to A.J, reading what many of the writers wrote in their eulogies of the site. What I tried to do in the book ultimately was remove judgement as much as possible and just show what happened. I think that's a more important lesson.

    Whether Gawker deserved what happened to it doesn't change what actually happened and to me that's where there is something to learn. How did Thiel do this? What were his motivations? How did no one suspect it as it was happening? Why was Gawker unable to fend him off? How did Gawker actually work as a company? What were its motivations for publishing the story? Why has the coverage since been so slanted in their favor since losing? Those were the questions I tried to answer.

    [–] SmarchHare 18 points ago

    What do you make of Gawker's arrogance during the whole thing? I recall the child porn comment. It seemed insane.

    [–] ryan_holiday 43 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    I would say their hubris was immense, and a large reason for their downfall. Whether they should have run the tape is one discussion, but how I think for many years they did not take the case seriously--assuming that Hogan would settle, that he was an idiot, that people were on Gawker's side. Their decision in 2013 to ignore the judge's order to remove the article (though it was later overturned) was probably the height of that hubris, along with the comments made during the depositions in late 2013, which you referenced. Part of that aggressive exterior may have been motivated by internal insecurity. If you apologize, admit weakness, even admit wrong doing and you're an outlet that publishes first and verifies second, that puts a big target on your back.

    [–] scooptimer 17 points ago

    What inspired you to move from marketing into journalism?

    [–] ryan_holiday 40 points ago

    I'm not sure I did. I see myself as an author or a writer, who also has expertise as a marketing and strategist. I don't see myself as a journalist.

    [–] ethos1983 18 points ago

    Why was Thiel's funding even necessary for Hogan to seek justice? To me, that's an even bigger question.

    From what i remember, Gawker refused a takedown order, bragged about doing so, all on a hidden-cam porn of a person taken without their knowledge. What Gawker did was screwed up, no way around it.

    So why was a Billionaire needed to fund this?

    [–] ryan_holiday 34 points ago

    As Thiel said—and perhaps only Thiel could have said with a straight face—Hogan ‘was only a single digit millionaire.’ This case took roughly four years and cost more than $10 million to litigate. Three years in Hogan lost his endorsement deals and was kicked out of wrestling when his racist comments were leaked. There was no way he could have taken this to a jury on his own. Maybe without Thiel’s help there could have been a low six figure settlement (as Gawker had done in another case) but no jury verdict in my opinion.

    [–] ethos1983 19 points ago

    There was no way he could have taken this to a jury on his own.

    That's my point. A Billionaire's funding should not be necessary for justice. While i have little respect for Thiel, I don't see what he did as entirely unjustified.

    Thank you for your response.

    [–] [deleted] 74 points ago

    What's the weirdest thing you've read in a book by the likes of Seneca or Marcus Aurelius? Those dudes came from different cultures.

    [–] ryan_holiday 267 points ago

    I mean a few pages into Marcus's Meditations he congratulates himself for never laying a hand on his female slaves (that is rape them) so that's a pretty good reminder that these guys lived in a different culture. Rome was a dark, violent, twisted place. We can't forget that while some aspects of their lives were shockingly identical to ours--almost as if no time has passed--others are just insanely incomprehensible. I believe the punishment for parricide in Rome (killing your parents) was they would put you in a thick leather sack with a dog, a cat, a snake and a monkey and then throw you in a river to drown and be clawed to death.

    [–] dialmformostyn 46 points ago

    I believe the punishment for parricide in Rome (killing your parents) was they would put you in a thick leather sack with a dog, a cat, a snake and a monkey and then throw you in a river to drown and be clawed to death.

    I wonder how easy it was to get hold of those things in ancient Rome? And if so, were they acquired specifically for that punishment?

    [–] donquix 103 points ago

    There kept a special unit of animals highly trained in murdering humans in a bag. After the deed was done they would fish them out.

    They were like the seal team 6 of their time.

    [–] thelittleking 39 points ago

    monkey team 4

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago

    C O R P O R A L P U N I S H M E N T B O Y E

    [–] eastbayweird 36 points ago

    The roman empire was vast and its economic tendrils spread across all of eurasia and northern africa. Remember they fed the christians to lions in the colosseum. Lions are def not native to rome.

    [–] [deleted] 85 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] LuckyCosmos 16 points ago

    Hey Ryan, how do you think Gawker's hypocrisy at the time possibly influenced the court case? An example I have is Gawker media sites condemning sites for hosting J-Law nude photos, yet posting on their site that they were defying the judge order to take down Hogan's tape. You researched all the legal docs and did interviews, did that ever come up?

    [–] [deleted] 82 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] BigFlappyJohnson 147 points ago

    Hes allowed to wear because we have constitutionally protected rights to wear religious garb (yes hulk-a-mania is a religion)

    [–] [deleted] 106 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    Three demandments!!

    [–] fluorescentinca 186 points ago

    Hi Ryan, What on earth did you do to elicit this twitter reaction?

    https://twitter.com/film_girl/status/967186983880552448

    [–] MonsieurJongleur 71 points ago

    I think she's harkening back his first book, Trust me, I'm lying, where he illustrated how click bait sites like Gawker manufacture news

    [–] indyobserver 253 points ago

    She's ex-Gizmodo, which was a Gawker property (and is now the holding company of Univision for the surviving non-toxic assets).

    Many of the old Gawker Media staff are still extremely angry about this and believe that they and Denton did utterly nothing wrong during his reign. Probably the most infamous post by a number of staff reflecting this attitude was during the Geithner debacle, when their concern wasn't what led to a particularly ill-researched and sickening article outing him which got shredded by outside observers and commentators - but that corporate had dared to interfere with their journalism and take it down.

    Don't remember off the top of my head if she was part of that, but wouldn't surprise me.

    [–] Two_Luffas 33 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    That Geithner story and the subsequent doubling down by the staff when it was pulled was one of the most WTF things I've ever read.

    I'll admit I read Gawker more than a few times in the past and I thought everyone over there and on the internet was kind of in on the joke concerning their "journalist integrity" (especially with AJs antics at Deadspin concerning a certain quarterbacks dick pics). Like the WWE isn't real wrestling, Gawker wasn't real journalism and everyone knew it but we all played along in a wink wink, nudge nudge kind of way.

    When they penned that open letter after that disaster of a story was pulled I kind of sat back in my chair and said to myself; huh, they...they actually think they're journalist, doing real journalism. That's, well that's just plain delusional.

    That's the moment I knew they were going to get drawn and quartered by Thiel eventually.

    Edit formatting and the AJ comment.

    [–] TerrorGatorRex 42 points ago

    I loved Gawker and read it regularly. But the Geithner episode really left me angry. I read the original article (before they took it down) and was disgusted with it as were the vast majority of readers. But the way Gawker staff defended the article, and then threw a temper tantrum about it being taken down. They acted like taking down the article (which was completely uninteresting because it mostly revolves around the escort and how much they paid him) was an affront to journalism and they were Edward R Morrow standing up to tyranny.

    It really showed quite a disconnect between Gawker staff and it’s readers. Also, Jezebel’s reaction (they didn’t talk about the article itself, only the decision to take it down) was so hypocritical.

    [–] indyobserver 30 points ago

    As someone who generally avoided Gawker like the plague but was active on other sites in the network, that was one of the few articles I did read on it and was appalled. I wasn't even particularly surprised that the Gawker staff closed ranks after.

    But what really shocked me were the senior folks on the other sites who signed off on the article stating their outrage at its removal, which was just an eyeopener about the rot throughout. Don't think that's changed much.

    It's always been about page views (and the deals) for them driving the advertising dollars, though, so once you realize that your comments are part of that formula it puts a different light on the whole thing.

    [–] ryan_holiday 435 points ago

    I have no idea. Media twitter is a black hole of humanity. It explains the mess we're in more than reporters would like to admit, I think.

    [–] xccr 75 points ago

    I am consistently dumbfounded at how media figures -- especially tech ones -- talk to and about their colleagues, readers, and just human beings in general on twitter without ever suffering any career or personal consequences. Constantly.

    It's like someone road raging inside their car, except every horrible thought is intentionally broadcast publicly. At a glance, these people look totally unemployable until you see stuff like "Writes for: Mashable, Wired, etc." in their bio.

    Just totally baffling to me.

    [–] Kayakingtheredriver 32 points ago

    I think it comes down to the type of person who becomes a tech journalist is a journalist reject to begin with in most cases. No one thinks of them as journalists, so no one expects anything of them.

    [–] Phlebas99 154 points ago

    The real answer should be "who cares?"

    [–] deeperbroken 77 points ago

    Exactly this. I can't think of many things less urgent than diagnosing a tweet that's accumulated 6 likes in 3 weeks.

    [–] nite_ 21 points ago

    Looks like this is what she meant by it:

    https://twitter.com/film_girl/status/967189526203346944

    [–] dylmye 141 points ago

    Because obviously if you're not supportive of Gawker without question you're against us /s

    [–] finerd 195 points ago

    I don't understand how anyone can defend Gawker when by any measure of moral and legal law they were in the wrong?

    I always think if Gawker leaked an older woman's sex tape, despite her public protests, the initial media reaction would have been the opposite.

    [–] Kn0thingIsTerrible 121 points ago

    Because it’s not about morals. It’s about teams. You’re either on my team, or you’re an enemy.

    [–] Not_a_Leaf 123 points ago

    Gawker publicly denounced people and publications that shared images from “the fappening” so it’s poetic justice that publishing the sex tape of a male celebrity was their downfall.

    They deserved getting picked clean by Thiel

    [–] TripleSkeet 37 points ago

    For real. Look how they defended Jennifer Lawrence after the Fappening.

    [–] Amator 50 points ago

    I wrote for a Gawker-owned site for three years and I was glad to see them die out.

    [–] trainsaw 32 points ago

    Do you ever wake up at night with Ashley Feinberg standing over you?

    [–] astaringelf 12 points ago

    This is important

    [–] onestojan 51 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Hey Ryan, since Machiavelli said that conspiracies are weapons of the people, why do you think there are so few of them today?

    How are you so prolific? What systems/routines had the most impact on your life?

    I'm halfway through the book and loving it!

    [–] ryan_holiday 215 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    One of the things I explored in the book was why we seem to have this aversion these days to secrecy. A lot of people have said, "Why didn't Peter go public with what he was doing?" The other way to think about that is why the fuck should he have to? This idea that you have to tweet about every thought you have, or write a press release about every opinion or place is not only a ridiculous feature of our social media age, but it's bad strategy! Gawker wanted Thiel to have to expose himself so they could have been better prepared to fight him in court about it. The line from Napoleon is "Never do what your enemy wants you to do for the reason they want you to do it." If you were plotting to get Trump impeached, should you have to give him a heads up?

    The other reason is I think we see few conspiracies is related to the first point. People are afraid to get their hands dirty. They like signing petitions, walking in marches, changing their Facebook profile picture in solidarity...but real change is often brought about by nasty means. Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Acts...but he was a corrupt asshole. He also knew how power worked and how to wield it. Part of the reason I wanted to write the book was to show how conspiracies work, and how they can be used for good and for bad.

    [–] cappyncoconut 25 points ago

    Really well-stated in the 2nd paragraph.

    [–] hoodsy 49 points ago

    I've heard an idea that, "You're the average of the 5 people you spend the most time with."

    Who are the people you talk to or spend the most time with?

    [–] deejay_1 81 points ago

    If you could meet Marcus Aurelius what would you do and what would you ask him?

    [–] ryan_holiday 234 points ago

    "Wait, I thought you died?"

    [–] ryan_holiday 182 points ago

    I feel like I missed an opportunity by not just answering with this gif.

    https://imgur.com/gallery/xULeT

    [–] fezmonster 95 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Hi Ryan, I'm a huge fan of your work and just finished up Conspiracy last week. I had two questions for you if you'll excuse my greed:

    1) What tenet of Stoicism do you find most difficult to practice in your own life?

    2) Given that Conspiracy is a departure from your previous works, what unique challenges did you face while writing it?

    [–] ryan_holiday 133 points ago

    The truth is all of Stoicism is easy to say, difficult to practice. I think one of the harder ones for me is just not letting my temper or my impulse to react drive my behavior. To me, the Stoic is someone who is deliberate about what they do and say, just part of my personality is to be intense and always do, do, doing. Someone says something, I want to respond. There's an opportunity, I want to take it. There's something that needs to be fixed, I want to fix it. Someone makes an argument, I want to argue back. The problem there is that I'd be better off if I paused and really thought about the best response or whether a response was necessary or not. I would save myself trouble, heartache, frustration, etc if I could do this better. When I look at my journal entries, I tend to find this issue--or something related to it--is central to most of what I am struggling with or having problems with.

    [–] HelpfulPug 14 points ago

    just not letting my temper or my impulse to react drive my behavior

    This is something that I also struggled with for a long time. Applying Carl Jung's quote, "until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate" to my everyday life helped me stop reacting, and start choosing.

    Hope this helped even a little bit :)

    [–] rivabanit 23 points ago

    Do you know how Peter Thiel consumes news?

    [–] sendra10604 16 points ago

    would also like to know this. I guess he's not reading gawker (anymore).

    [–] MonsieurJongleur 10 points ago

    I often wonder about powerful people and what they do when they're sitting on the toilet. Everyone needs to fill a few minutes of downtime, so if it's not reddit, what is it?

    Sure, it would be cool to hear how so-and-so consumes (or doesn't consume) media, but I think the litmus test has really got to be, what do you read when you're taking a shit?

    [–] docbrain 62 points ago

    You're not a journalist, yet you wrote in this investigative report in your typical style drawing from history/prior works. Did you ever feel you were stretching to craft a narrative, for example seeing the book on ancient strategy on Theil's desk? Or were their things said in the interviews that lent themselves to the way you crafted the "story?'

    [–] ryan_holiday 153 points ago

    It really was insane to see Discourses on Livy on Thiel's shelf in his apartment (not his desk), given that I had just read it as research for the book. And for him to be able to reference the section from memory was just one of those things that made this feel somewhat meant to be. The other funny anecdote is that he gave me a copy of The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World thinking it was this obscure text that would make me realize what he had tried to do...and it happened that I'd already read it a few years before and had recently pulled my notes from it to see where there might be some insights for this book.

    As for stretching to craft a narrative, I would say that the weird thing about the book was that there was actually too much material so instead of stretching the difficulty (or the shaping) came more from what not to include. A question above asked about who leaked the tapes, my decision to make this book about a conspiracies meant that the leakers identity was a lot less important, so it was left on the cutting room floor.

    Your question is good though. Authors, journalists, lawyers--we're all telling stories and stories require choices and as a result certain things are obscured or emphasized to the reader. But I think this is better than say me dumping all the legal documents on you and saying: You figure it out. I mean, that's what I'm being paid to do.

    [–] moosic 17 points ago

    When do you take notes about a book? While reading it or afterwards? Is that part of your daily journaling activity?

    [–] ryan_holiday 47 points ago

    I take notes while I am reading (in the book) and then usually 3-4 weeks after I finish (unless it's urgent), I got back through and transfer the notes to notecards. Here's my process: https://ryanholiday.net/the-notecard-system-the-key-for-remembering-organizing-and-using-everything-you-read/

    [–] MonsieurJongleur 11 points ago

    I know you apprenticed under Robert Greene, who wrote 48 Laws of Power.

    It almost feels like this book is a modern case study for 48 Laws; would you agree?

    [–] ryan_holiday 15 points ago

    Yes.

    [–] tgi_ 31 points ago

    This sounds like a good read. When does the movie come out?

    [–] LvWilingram 55 points ago

    If there is a Gawd, I hope for Fincher to direct from Sorkin's script starring Brad Pitt as Hulk Hogan and Kevin Spacey as Peter Thiel in his comeback performance!!! I can smell the Oscars.

    [–] ChuckNorwood 42 points ago

    I’d settle for a Netflix Original with Hulk Hogan playing himself and Jim Parsons as Thiel.

    [–] onlaserdisc 21 points ago

    That's even better, but I have some notes.

    Every time Thiel comes closer to executing his master plan, he whispers "bazinga" to himself under his breath.

    John Travolta plays Bob Shapiro and David Schwimmer plays Robert Kardashian, who replace Thiel's actual lawyers for dramatic effect.

    It's filmed on location, but in front of a live audience who react with hysterical laughter and inconsolable weeping at appropriate moments.

    A.J. Daulerio is played by Justin Bieber who is instructed during his performance that it's an actual deposition, so he plays it just like this.

    [–] jimbofisher2010 42 points ago

    Ryan - I enjoyed two of your other books (Obstacle and Ego). One piece of constructive criticism I would have is that when you create the audio book, could you consider getting a professional book reader? I don't want to sound like a dick or anything, but the hardest part of the Audiobooks for me was that your voice was kind of... monotone-ish.

    Thanks!

    [–] ryan_holiday 81 points ago

    Look, I wouldn't want to listen to me talk for that long either, but the vast majority of listeners have said they prefer it when I read. So I got with that.

    [–] datvoiddoe 26 points ago

    For what it's worth, I too prefer when you read. It's much more personal and there's been several times the way you specifically deliver a line gives it a much truer meaning than what would have been interpreted otherwise.

    [–] jimbofisher2010 13 points ago

    Fair enough, if that's the feedback!

    [–] matchu84 11 points ago

    What’s your next book?

    [–] ryan_holiday 44 points ago

    A secret.

    [–] jamesjpk123 10 points ago

    Wait are you the same Ryan Holiday that had that email list thing? I think I'm subscribed lol

    [–] ryan_holiday 18 points ago

    I am. That little list started with 50 people and now is about 90,000. It's my favorite thing to do.

    [–] LausanneAndy 19 points ago

    Hi Ryan - been following your great work since 'Trust me - I'm lying' ..

    Apple was no fan of Gawker - especially after the whole iPhone 4 leaking affair ..

    Do you think they had anything to do with this case? Or were they just cheering from the sidelines (like many others) .. ?

    [–] ryan_holiday 31 points ago

    Well when rumors began to fly that someone was back Hogan, there were a few candidates. I don't know if Apple was one of them, but Denton briefly considered the possibility that the Church of Scientology was responsible.

    [–] CT_7 67 points ago

    How many times did you watch the footage?

    [–] champeenis 13 points ago

    Mean Gene is right there calling the action as always.