Sorry, but no. When the article was published, the only people for whom Thiel was a famous name were people in Silicon Valley and the tech industry, where his sexual orientation had been an open secret for years. The article noted this, praised him for his openness, and encouraged more gay entrepreneurs in the Valley. The article came out years before he became a sugar daddy to the bigots on the alt-right. This was not comparable to the reprehensible David Geithener blind item.
By all accounts, Theil’s vendetta was sparked more by Gawker’s coverage of his investment fund’s bad performance. No-one in the Valley cares about a tech mogul’s sexual orientation, but if he stops making money for them then watch out!
Ideology only figured into this situation tangentially. This was a personal vendetta by an individual billionaire who knew he didn’t have a winning case of his own against Gawker and, as the article indicates, structured his revenge to work through someone who did.
Contrast with ACLU or the EFF, who sometimes represent or file amicus briefs on behalf of clients to whom they’re ideologically opposed. While they’re certainly funded by wealthy people (plural), they don’t sue defendants based on the personal grudges of their donors.
