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

121–130 of 206 posts

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

#121

Post by mindslight »

kbenson wrote: post #62
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…

Unless you have something specific to say regarding Peter Thiel's specific contribution to Facebook's current or past stance on privacy, I think you are being far too alarmist with an entirely unsupported position. For example, it's entirely possible that Peter Thiel is part of a losing faction of the board that values more privacy, and has actually been a force for the better with regard to privacy at Facebook? Is t…

What aspect of Facebook's business model is not based on monetizing surveillance?

Sure, it's possible that Thiel has been a silently pushing for pivoting to eg a subscription model or static banner ads. It's just not likely.

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

#122

Post by swang »

incogitomode wrote: post #91
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…

Except that the incident was found to be newsworthy and not illegal in two previous cases, once in federal court and another attempt in Florida state court [1]. Shopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality." [1] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v...

haha wow i never knew about this part of the case.

kinda makes this whole thing even more of a shit storm.

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

#123

Post by jshevek »

nikcheerla wrote: post #76
kafkaesq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are absolutely right. This close to an election, its hard for some people to be charitable in politics.

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

#124

Post by vanattab »

swang wrote: post #77
fredgrott wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

What does this have to do with the case? The case is about a sex tape not outing thiel.

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

#125

Post by shanusmagnus »

nikcheerla wrote: post #98
shanusmagnus wrote: post #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.

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 understand how this system of beliefs could seamlessly cohere in the minds of children or proto-humans. Thiel, and the rare others like him, are harder to fathom.

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

#126

Post by vanattab »

zorpner wrote: 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.

Does tolerance mean no Republicans/Libertarians allowed in any of our social/work circles? Is that where we're going as Democrats? If so I will be putting the Kool Aid down and jumping off the wagon at the next stop.

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

#127

Post by vanattab »

LA_Banker wrote: post #4
api wrote: post #2

I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here. I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things bu…

I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system. The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate. Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep…

>I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system?

Why is funding a case related to a cause you support a perversion of the justice system? Every time an article about the EFF funding another lawsuit pops up do you cringe in horror?

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

#128

Post by Natsu »

microtherion wrote: post #27
serge2k wrote: 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.

The Washington Post was revealed in the email leaks to be holding clandestine fundraisers with the DNC that their own lawyers would "never" allow, so it's not clear how far above the board they are these days.

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

#129

Post by aaronmhatch »

linkregister wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical. And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument. But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true. We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc). Regarding A though, there might be…

I'm convinced that stcredzero is intentionally misdirecting you into arguing about logical fallacies. Based off of her/his other comments in this thread, it doesn't appear that she or he cares much about them. stcredzero's viewpoint is clear and not focused on policing the thread from logical fallacies. I would say it's a fallacy to harp on logical fallacies; it's not as if everyone has infinite time to convert all a…

Agreed. coldtea makes a good point.

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

#130

Post by [deleted] »

linkregister wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the argument is true, then it would also be true even if the person saying it were hypocritical. And nobody said otherwise -- for the core argument. But in real life we don't usually know whether the thing (let's call it A) itself that an argument tries to prove is true. We only know that the argument in favor of A is formulated correctly (follows its premises correctly, etc). Regarding A though, there might be…

I'm convinced that stcredzero is intentionally misdirecting you into arguing about logical fallacies. Based off of her/his other comments in this thread, it doesn't appear that she or he cares much about them. stcredzero's viewpoint is clear and not focused on policing the thread from logical fallacies. I would say it's a fallacy to harp on logical fallacies; it's not as if everyone has infinite time to convert all a…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN