Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

nytimes.com

41–50 of 206 posts

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#41
post #37

The fact that Thiel is still involved with Y Combinator should tell you everything you need to know about the disingenuity of their "commitment" to equality and diversity.

Can you explain what is meant by this comment (I'm ignorant as to what this is referring to)?

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#42
Implying that objections to Trump's narcissism and probable sociopathy amount to "culture war" is a staggering re-framing of reality. That combined with the gay-conservative-Christian thing suggest that the amount of cognitive dissonance Thiel can endure must truly be Olympic calibre.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#43
post #38

I am actually in favour of Peter Thiel. What Gawker did was illegal and hence it is facing this backlash by the LAW. Many people committed suicides because of the way Gawker brought their private life in public. http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8992155/gawker-outing-gay-peopl... As far as he being the investor in Facebook which uses your data to advertise to you - You actually agree to Facebook's terms when you sign up f…

>What Gawker did was illegal

I didn't follow the case. What did Gawker do that was illegal?

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#44

The balls on this guy. The sheer cynical audacity of trying to market yourself as a "defender of privacy" when you serve on the board of a company so antithetical to privacy that they're under federal supervision for twenty years [1] is breathtaking. Please tell me no one on Hacker News is dumb enough to fall for this. My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned s…

Every time a VC tries to tell me "what's wrong with the media", I reach for my gun.

--

I'm going to steal this line. Great post.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#45
if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no.

so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech.

not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot of the satellite sites that were actually doing really good reporting. very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges, deadspin (a gawker blog) was probably the foremost site posting about it (and other violations by schools).

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#46
post #38

I am actually in favour of Peter Thiel. What Gawker did was illegal and hence it is facing this backlash by the LAW. Many people committed suicides because of the way Gawker brought their private life in public. http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8992155/gawker-outing-gay-peopl... As far as he being the investor in Facebook which uses your data to advertise to you - You actually agree to Facebook's terms when you sign up f…

Privacy-wise Palantir is even scarier than Facebook.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#47

The balls on this guy. The sheer cynical audacity of trying to market yourself as a "defender of privacy" when you serve on the board of a company so antithetical to privacy that they're under federal supervision for twenty years [1] is breathtaking. Please tell me no one on Hacker News is dumb enough to fall for this. My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned s…

I see nothing wrong with a man who feels remorse for assisting in the stripping of online privacy owning up to his mistakes.

"As an internet entrepreneur myself, I feel partly responsible for a world in which private information can be instantly broadcast to the whole planet."

This article is as much an apology as it is a call to turn things around fix things

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#48
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you have anything to say about the content of the article or just ad hominem attacks on the author.

I don't see the OP laying out a case for the article's content, I see them mentioning how it's absurd for anyone to take the author of this article seriously on privacy issues.

That's kind of what ad hominem is... Discredit the argument by discrediting the arguer. The thing is, that has zero effect on whether the argument is valid or not. The fact that I state 10 wrong facts about bananas does not mean that the next fact I state is wrong, even though I've far and away proven myself to not be a trusted expert on banana facts.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly do you think those two positions are necessarily in opposition? You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay.

> You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay. Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views? While I haven't seen things broken out at that detail level (e.g., gay marriage views of gay Christians), in general, belief that society should accept homosexuality tracks pret…

Is there any reason to believe this is a common alignment of views?

Why does it have to be common? I wouldn't consider it to be a valid position, but I would find it plausible that some people would think so.

Re: Peter Thiel: The Online Privacy Debate Won’t End With Gawker

#50

The balls on this guy. The sheer cynical audacity of trying to market yourself as a "defender of privacy" when you serve on the board of a company so antithetical to privacy that they're under federal supervision for twenty years [1] is breathtaking. Please tell me no one on Hacker News is dumb enough to fall for this. My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned s…

The firewall is a relic of a lucrative business model that imploded. What news desks can and cannot do anymore is a matter of exigency, not the politics of aspiring plutocrats.
Post reply on HN