In the spirit of fiat lux would have been interesting to rope in the recent Rstional Vaccines shenanigans.
Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
11–20 of 49 posts
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#12This is one laborious read. We all know how Peter Thiel built his SV empire but there is nothing in the article which suggests the title in question. There are some tidbits under section VII. And that is the whole story about. This lines sums everything up (and probably much better title than current title):
> And in Silicon Valley, Review alumni have built an infrastructure that spans many billions of dollars in both company market value and personal wealth.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#13>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007 I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :] SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take…
Why did Thiel not just bring a lawsuit himself if he was truly being defamed? I don't see the how he is justified in hiding behind someone else's lawsuit. Seems cowardly to me; not a crime but speaks to his character.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#14>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007 I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :] SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take…
That justice is not blind to personal wealth is a travesty, not something to celebrate.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#15>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007 I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
Free press is the wrong term to use here. Gawker was a corporation that was fragrantly skirting the law. If they were only in business because they targeted people who didn't have the funds to sue them then they're better off gone.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#16>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007 I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
It's fine for the free press. Free press shouldn't be outing people or thumbing their nose at revenge porn victims while ignoring court orders. They got used to being untouchable millionaires since they could just bury anyone in legal fees.
> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
I stole that from somewhere and had it saved as it sums up my thoughts better than I can write. If I had a legit civil lawsuit against a large misbehaving company you bet your last dollar I'd love to have a Thiel in my corner funding it. I see absolutely zero moral problem with that. If there is a moral problem or anything needs fixing - perhaps fix the court system that enables constant perversion of justice unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at attorney fees for even midrange lawsuits.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :] SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take…
Why did Thiel not just bring a lawsuit himself if he was truly being defamed? I don't see the how he is justified in hiding behind someone else's lawsuit. Seems cowardly to me; not a crime but speaks to his character.
Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#18Really interesting article. I work on Stanford's campus and regularly check the Daily, and occasionally check the Review. Not because I have a problem with their viewpoints, but because they don't have as frequent or regular a publishing schedule. It's doubtful the economics will make it possible for the Review to be larger or to have a print edition. I wonder if Thiel has donated or considered giving a large donation (but one that would be trivial to him) not just out of nostalgia but to strengthen the Review as an institution that influences future Stanfordians?
I skimmed the story (`wc` says it is 5,700+ words). The most interesting thing I picked up on was how Thiel remains in surprisingly frequent contact with the Review staff over the years, even hosting dinners at his home.
According to a former Review editor, “he obviously had zero interest in getting to know us as individuals. He was there to figure out what was going on on the campus.” Another staffer adds:
> the thing which most Review alums are really interested in, not just or specifically Peter, is: they want to know what the issues de jour are, what the average Stanford student is like, and what we are doing to try and ensure that viewpoints that are usually not heard as heard
That's both impressive and...quaint? I mean, it'd be the equivalent of Barack Obama, now done with being President, hosting regular dinners and chats with the Harvard Law Review (he was the first black to lead the publication in its 104-years). Besides engaging conversation and socializing, what does Thiel have to gain from meeting up with students besides maybe being slightly earlier to sense a new political/societal movement (which is something he could get a gauge on in a variety of other ways off campus) .
Assuming his motives are as altruistic and casual as wanting to be a supporter of the Review and future generations, what strikes me is how much risk this social engagement is for Thiel given his public stature. An example of what I mean presents itself in the latter half of the article: an anonymous Review staffer spills the beans about the things Thiel said at a particular 2014 dinner (which was presumably off-the-record).
Thiel is smart enough to know this risk but seems to accept it anyway. If he's that sentimental about the Review, maybe he will make a donation.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :] SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take…
That justice is not blind to personal wealth is a travesty, not something to celebrate.
The travesty is that Gawker probably would have gotten away with it based on the fact that Hogan didn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit. It really has nothing to do with Thiel.
Re: Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review
#20>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007 I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
It's fine for the free press. Free press shouldn't be outing people or thumbing their nose at revenge porn victims while ignoring court orders. They got used to being untouchable millionaires since they could just bury anyone in legal fees. > The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek jus…
[deleted]