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

21–30 of 206 posts

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

#21

Post by anonymousDan »

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…

I came in here to say exactly the same thing. The hypocrisy is just breathtaking.

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

#22

Post by mmanfrin »

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.

Is the author, who financed the lawsuit on behalf of Bollea, not part of the content?

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

#23

Post by aaronbrethorst »

FTA:

    I’m glad that an arena full of Republicans
    stood up to applaud when I said I was proud
    to be gay, because gay pride shouldn’t be a
    partisan issue. All people deserve respect,
    and nobody’s sexuality should be made a
    public fixation.
From the 2016 party platform[1] of that arena full of Republicans[2]:

    In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers
    robbed 320 million Americans of their
    legitimate constitutional authority
    to define marriage as the union of
    one man and one woman.
And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone.

----

[1] "A party platform is sometimes referred to as a manifesto[1] or a political platform. Research on American politics suggests that platform positions offer an important clue to the policies that U.S. parties will enact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform

[2] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document...

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

#24

Post by jonathankoren »

I love how he's trying to make his personal vendetta against Gawker Nobel, by trying to dub the IPPA as "the Gawker Bill."

From https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/peter-thiel-gawker-new-... : "It's the Intimate Privacy Protection Act or IPPA," a spokesperson for Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the bill's sponsors, told BuzzFeed News. "I have no idea where 'the Gawker Bill' name comes from, but it's incorrect."

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

#25

Post by nikcheerla »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #23

FTA: I’m glad that an arena full of Republicans stood up to applaud when I said I was proud to be gay, because gay pride shouldn’t be a partisan issue. All people deserve respect, and nobody’s sexuality should be made a public fixation. From the 2016 party platform[1] of that arena full of Republicans[2]: In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority t…

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.

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

#26

Post by onewaystreet »

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…

> antithetical to privacy

I don't use their service that much so I might have missed it, did Facebook add an update that forces people to post their private data?

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

#27

Post by microtherion »

serge2k wrote: post #11
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #9

I'm having trouble reconciling the following two quotes > I am proud to have contributed financial support to his case. I will support him until his final victory — Gawker said it intends to appeal — and I would gladly support someone else in the same position. > A free press is vital for public debate. Since sensitive information can sometimes be publicly relevant, exercising judgment is always part of the journalis…

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.

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

#28

Post by randomname2 »

jonathankoren wrote: post #24

I love how he's trying to make his personal vendetta against Gawker Nobel, by trying to dub the IPPA as "the Gawker Bill." From https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/peter-thiel-gawker-new-... : "It's the Intimate Privacy Protection Act or IPPA," a spokesperson for Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the bill's sponsors, told BuzzFeed News. "I have no idea where 'the Gawker Bill' name comes from, but it's incorrect."

It had been called that, informally. From a few weeks ago: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/gawker-bill-criminal...

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

#29

Post by swang »

serge2k wrote: post #16
swang wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol yeah this is definitely not about revenge. lies in wait for 7 years

revenge for wrongdoing on his part. Far as I know they outed him as a homosexual. That's not wrongdoing on his part.

okay thats just kinda semantics then. he didn't get revenge because he did something wrong. he got revenge because he felt someone else did something wrong. so this is still all about revenge for thiel at the cost of chilling free speech.

thiel saying he is defending free speech is disingenuous when the supreme court has given the press considerable latitude to write about someone's sexual orientation. he is mad about something that was completely legal for gawker to do.

now it is a really shitty thing to do to out someone as gay. but let's not pretend this wasn't thiel's payback.

> He was so paranoid that, when I was looking into the story, a year ago, I got a series of messages relaying the destruction that would rain down on me, and various innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, if a story ever ran. - Nick Denton's comment in original Thiel is gay article on Gawker [0] http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people?c...

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

#30

Post by dragonwriter »

nikcheerla wrote: post #25
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #23

FTA: I’m glad that an arena full of Republicans stood up to applaud when I said I was proud to be gay, because gay pride shouldn’t be a partisan issue. All people deserve respect, and nobody’s sexuality should be made a public fixation. From the 2016 party platform[1] of that arena full of Republicans[2]: In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority t…

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.

> 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 pretty well with belief that gay marriage should be allowed; I'd be very surprised if, even among, say, Evangelicals (the Christian religious subgroup polling shows most opposed to gay marriage), the share of that population that is gay isn't mostly part of the 27% (from Pew earlier this year [0]) of that group that says that gay marriage should be accepted.

[0] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-stea...

Post reply on HN