Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

171–180 of 206 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what about when Gawker(or other media) can afford lawyers but people legitimately harmed by Gawker cannot? I am not sure why Peter Thiel is being made out to be the bad guy here because he is a billionaire. The courts decided where the line was and Terry Bollea was awarded. What he did was charitable. I don't think those quotes are inconsistent.

Peter Thiel is the bad guy because he is a libertarian who took down Left's darling Gawker. That's why all the lefties are so butthurt.

Gawker was a pain in the ass. No one I know liked them. But they didn't deserve to be put out of business because they crossed a billionaire. That's why "so called lefties" are up in arms about this.

Peter Thiel intend to be untouchable. He proposes blood transfusions from young people [1], and wants to live forever.

I daresay his entire motive seems at odds with social contract.

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

#172

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…

Pah, if facebook is under federal supervision, it's probably ultimately because they weren't friendly enough to government. That Thiel is on its board isn't in itself especially damning of him.

Far worse, then, that he founded surveillance industry contractor Palantir.

Thiel "acknowledges" this, though. That puts in him in the same boat as Soros, who is also good at "acknowledging" the paradoxes of his position even as he instructs governments, in private, exactly which people they should send out to handle a particular situation.

Intercept is billionaire-funded, too - and Greenwald has written at length about "what's wrong with the media" - most of which I agree with, by the way. We won't get away from the billionaires and their meddling. The best we can hope for is that they're stronger when they're right than when they're wrong.

That posting people's private sex tapes is not OK, is one of the ways Thiel is right.

It's bad in many ways he doesn't elucidate. For instance, in a world where your last shreds of privacy can be obliterated by Gawker or Buzzfeed the moment you catch public attention, there will be some winners, and some losers.

Women, on the whole, will lose, because it seems fewer women are willing to sacrifice privacy for power. Gays will lose slightly, because they have more to lose from catching public attention (not so true in the US anymore, fortunately, but still very true in many countries).

Who are the winners?

First, those who can pay an army of publicity experts, and have had it for years to keep an iron grip on their public perception, so that all embarrassments and scandals (real and manufactured) can be managed most efficiently. And, who have very few ambitions or opinions not conductive to seeking power. In short career politicians.

The second type is people who just have no sense of shame, whose egos are so big they can just shrug it all off. Reality TV stars, or something.

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

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to clarify for those not in the know, he does not care about people's privacy, and is happy to build companies that want to spy on your social activities, and sell the surveillance capability to the us govt.

Do you mean social media sites? People voluntarily give up that information to the public, so it could reasonably not be considered private. The sex tape would be considered private. Presumably he draws his line somewhere between those two extremes. Has he done anything inconsistent with the position "The paparazzi should not write scandalous articles about famous people"? For example, has he invested in companies si…

I think most people consider what they post on social media sites to be for their friends, not the public. Of course, under an American moral definition of privacy, if you tell something to one person ever, it's as public as if you bought billboards across the country. And if you're tricked into releasing something to the public, say by a company which fails to properly advise you when you attempt to share things with your friends but actually publish them to the wider Internet, you have no recourse, legal or moral.

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're intensely equivocating here. The moral calculus of renouncing your massive profit-making association with a company that you serve on the board of if it chooses to do things that you find morally unacceptable is trivial, and entirely different than when you're a citizen of a country that you serve in the legislature of that decides to do things that you find morally unacceptable. If you're on the losing factio…

> You're intensely equivocating here. How so? I think I'm being very clear. If you make assertions, you should support them. I do not take at face value that being on the board of Facebook precludes you from caring about privacy. If there is specific evidence as to his actions apart from that, it should be presented . None was. > The moral calculus of renouncing your massive profit-making association with a company t…

To me, that whole line of argument makes no sense. Facebook is at its core and from the start an anti-privacy entity. It relies on encouraging people to post their whole lives and the lives of others. A privacy-friendly Facebook would not be Facebook at all except in name.

Taking your legislation example, a privacy-minded person investing in Facebook would not just like be a legislator disagreeing with a decision, it'd be like a self-proclaimed anarchist pushing for a more powerful government.

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

#175
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 diff…

You give information willingly to Facebook and accept their terms of service.

Frankly, I think that's just naivety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon

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

#176
I posted a link to the "Revenge Porn" bill, incase anyone wants to talk about the topic at hand instead of Peter Thiel. The bill is actually a pretty significant one with some big implications for service providers https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12295410

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're intensely equivocating here. How so? I think I'm being very clear. If you make assertions, you should support them. I do not take at face value that being on the board of Facebook precludes you from caring about privacy. If there is specific evidence as to his actions apart from that, it should be presented . None was. > The moral calculus of renouncing your massive profit-making association with a company t…

To me, that whole line of argument makes no sense. Facebook is at its core and from the start an anti-privacy entity. It relies on encouraging people to post their whole lives and the lives of others. A privacy-friendly Facebook would not be Facebook at all except in name. Taking your legislation example, a privacy-minded person investing in Facebook would not just like be a legislator disagreeing with a decision, it…

The lives of others it is. The funny thing is when I say to facebook users that I will post their pictures or other info to some other social network that they don't use, suddenly privacy becomes important to them. I really don't get this attitude among friends.

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take on Thiel is that he sees himself trying to help navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. On one side, I think he agrees that too much surveillance and data gathering is a problem. He calls himself a libertarian, after all. He just sees the other side as being just as much of a problem, as in this quote (mostly relating to his involvement in Palantir): "As a libertarian, I don't think we should have had the resp…

I have a hard time taking his libertarianism as anything other than a cynical maneuver to clear the way for corporate autocracy. He writes manifestos arguing against democracy, sits on the board of not one, but two private surveillance firms, and wrote a book about how the best business to be in is monopolies. It's like some negative image of Leninism, where the vanguard party is venture capitalists so the revolution…

The term you're looking for is Anarcho-Capitalism. Or just plain old Capitalism in Thiel's case.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusations of cognitive dissonance are fruitless – there's a sizable block of 'gay conservative Christians' who probably think that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and that their beliefs make sens given their worldview.

I'm sure that's true about many, perhaps most gay conservative Christians. But Thiel is demonstrably a smart, capable, and educated person, which makes it all the more impressive that his worldview can apparently accommodate what amounts to wizardry, manifested through a dizzying array of fables whose magical interpretation violate both common sense and Occam's razor to a degree I can hardly begin to express. I can u…

Could you tip your fedora any harder if you tried?

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

#180
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gawker pissed off Thiel by doing their standard trashy tabloid garbage and invading his personal life. He took the opportunity to get even when they went too far with someone else. Good for him. He's not taking part to cover up anything, or for revenge because they exposed some wrongdoing on his part. He's doing it because Gawker is a trashy worthless site.

Yes, don't worry! Thiel merely wants to shut down worthless, trashy publications like Gawker, and the presidential candidate he supports merely wants to shut down worthless, trashy publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Valuable, classy publications who adopt the proper fellatory posture toward their betters have nothing to fear whatsoever.

Perhaps you should look into the Citizen's United court case.

Who was the plaintiff? Hillary Clinton.

And what was she seeking to accomplish? Prevent the release of a movie which criticized her political career.

Post reply on HN