Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 206 posts

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

#51

Post by shklnrj »

DINKDINK wrote: post #43
shklnrj wrote: 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?

I mean the lawsuit with Hulk Hogan. Gawker published a sex tape of Hulk Hogan.

Now Gawker has been slapped with a penalty by the court in that case. It is not Peter Thiel who is collecting the penalty using a gun. Clearly since the court has decided at this level, the courts think that Gawker's action is against law. Of course courts could be wrong and Gawker could appeal to higher courts. But since I have limited knowledge of law, I definitely think I know less than the current level of court and hence think that Gawker was breaking the law by publishing the private sex tape of Hulk Hogan in order to sell advertising.

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

#52

Post by nikcheerla »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #33
nikcheerla wrote: post #25

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.

It's discriminatory and unconstitutional. For what it's worth, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form. States should issue civil union licenses, IRS 1040 forms should refer to one's civil partner, and medical decisions should be deferred to one's civil partner. In that model, a marriage would be a purely symbolic act between you, your partner, and whatever higher power…

Who are you asking? I'm atheist, and I don't think any other posts in this discussion ever reference 'biblical models of marriage".

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

#53

Post by coldtea »

sbov wrote: post #20
Analemma_ wrote: post #17

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…

Even ignoring the differences between the privacy issues of Gawker vs Facebook, the decisions a company makes are influenced by more than just one person, and nothing posted here says anything of Peter Thiel's views on privacy with respect to Facebook.

>the decisions a company makes are influenced by more than just one person, and nothing posted here says anything of Peter Thiel's views on privacy with respect to Facebook.

Again, assuming FB and Gawker have the same privacy issues, what you point doesn't really matter.

FB's decisions might be influenced by more than just Thiel, but if Thiel feels strongly about privacy (and his views aren't heard on FB) he always has the option of selling his stock and leaving FB...

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

#55

Post by fredgrott »

swang wrote: post #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 o…

let me explain free speech to you...

I am free to speak but not free to incite illegal acts or acts that result in violence..for example I cannot shot fire in a crowed theater..its NOT FREE SPEECH.

The court ruling stated it was not protected free speech..read it

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

#56

Post by loteck »

Analemma_ wrote: post #17

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…

Here's Andreessen on the future of the news business [1]. The part you are specifically pointing out in your comment is thus:

"One start would be to tear down, or at least modify the “Chinese wall” between content and the business side. No other non-monopoly industry lets product creators off the hook on how the business works."

[1] http://a16z.com/2014/02/25/future-of-news-business/

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

#57

Post by stcredzero »

mixmixmix wrote: post #44
Analemma_ wrote: post #17

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.

“When I hear ‘culture’...I unlock my Browning!.” [Also translated as “Whenever I hear the word ‘culture’...I release the safety on my pistol!.”]

    (“Wenn ich Kultur höre...entsichere ich meinen Browning!”)
        Hanns Johst (1890-1978)
        German playwright and Nazi SS officer
http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2011/02/whenever-i-hear-wor...

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

#58

Post by aaronbrethorst »

nikcheerla wrote: post #52
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's discriminatory and unconstitutional. For what it's worth, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form. States should issue civil union licenses, IRS 1040 forms should refer to one's civil partner, and medical decisions should be deferred to one's civil partner. In that model, a marriage would be a purely symbolic act between you, your partner, and whatever higher power…

Who are you asking? I'm atheist, and I don't think any other posts in this discussion ever reference 'biblical models of marriage".

What do you think 'one man and one woman' is if not a biblical model of marriage?

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

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

stcredzero wrote: post #49
dragonwriter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Why does it have to be common?

The post I was responding to claimed a belief that it was a common view among gay Christians; I was asking whether there were facts on which that belief was grounded.

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

#60

Post by coldtea »

dominotw wrote: post #19
Analemma_ wrote: post #17

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…

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

A hypocrisy charge is not an ad hominen.

An ad-hominen would be: "what he says is wrong because he is stupid/bribed/corrupt/a hypocrite" etc.

Saying: "What he says is hypocritical" is not an ad-hominem - it's not an argument on the content or the man, but the relation between the two (what he says and what he does).

Post reply on HN