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

71–80 of 206 posts

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

#71

Post by anamoulous »

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…

Gawker obtained a sex recording and published it without consent of the people in it. That's what was presented at trial and the jury ruled it was an invasion of privacy.

It's that act (and very poor representation of themselves at trial) that has landed Gawker in the position they are in now.

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

#72

Post by nikcheerla »

jdmichal wrote: post #48
m3rc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but that just points to the fact that ad hominem should not be dogmatically a logical fallacy.

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

#73

Post by wildmusings »

coldtea wrote: post #53
sbov wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

They're not comparable. You give information willingly to Facebook and accept their terms of service. I know plenty of very social and successful people who don't use Facebook. Maybe you feel that there should still be additional regulations on Facebook; fine, that's a debate for another day. But it's very clearly different than a "journalist" prying into your private life against your will to produce a sensationalist and embarrassing article that does nothing to serve the public interest.

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

#74

Post by dragonwriter »

jdmichal wrote: post #48
m3rc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That's kind of what ad hominem is...

Strictly, the fallacy involved is tu quoque -- if it is used to rebut the argument which is inconsistent with the persons behavior -- not ad hominem. They are related, but distinct.

Although I suppose if one took the route of:

  1. A says X, 
  2. But A acts in accord with not-X, 
  3. Therefore, A is a hypocrite.
  4. And, because A is a hypocrite, one should disregard A's arguments
You could actually make an ad hominem out of the accusation of hypocrisy.

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

#75

Post by stcredzero »

dragonwriter wrote: post #59
stcredzero wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, there's also Milo Yiannopoulos.

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

#76

Post by nikcheerla »

kafkaesq wrote: post #36
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.

The religious mindset fosters all kinds of cognitive dissonance. "Sure the GOP will accept us -- as long as we keep a low profile, don't call them on their open bigotry, and don't ask for too much in the way of actual rights" being just another recent manifestation.

Be charitable. Clearly that's not actually what 'gay Christians' believe.

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

#77

Post by swang »

fredgrott wrote: post #55
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

what does any of that have to do with any of this case? did any of this incite illegal acts or acts that resulted in violence? no. that part of your post has zero relevance to either my post or to the current situation (did someone kill someone? did someone make someone cause someone else to commit an illegal act?)

i said outing peter thiel is not illegal. and in fact the supreme court has ruled that reporting facts is permissible. _but_ it is a really shitty thing to out people.

and the saying is "falsely shout fire in a crowded theater" not just "shout fire in a crowded theater" read up son.

you should also read up because that saying is not "law" and the court case that it originated from was overturned because of its gross ignorance of the first amendment. read up son x2.

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

#78

Post by angry-hacker »

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…

Someone sitting on the FB board on FB and Palantir, talking about privacy...

Gawker dug his own grave but Thiel is a disgusting hypocrite. I hope the history will remember this man that way. And no, not because of Trump.

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

#79

Post by gakada »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #58
nikcheerla wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a Hindu model of marriage, a Chinese model of marriage, …

Hell, even the Ancient Greeks didn't practice gay marriage (as far as I know!)

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

#80

Post by czep »

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.

Where evidence is provided which undermines the credibility of the author, this does not qualify as an ad hominem attack. The parent provided relevant background as to why one should doubt the author's objectivity.

Simply playing the "ad hominem" card is not a free pass for the opinions of crackpots to be given equal weight.

Post reply on HN