[HN Gopher] Peter Thiel to step down from Meta's board
___________________________________________________________________
Peter Thiel to step down from Meta's board
Author : coloneltcb
Score : 172 points
Date : 2022-02-07 21:09 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| oger wrote:
| Referring to Palantir I once asked him if he ever had a Robert
| Oppenheimer moment - he did not answer. No more words were
| needed.
| dwmbt wrote:
| LOL, i would pay money to watch this in real time. another
| suggestive Thiel anecdote: after PayPal IPO'd the team threw a
| party to celebrate and he was said to have run a 10 game
| simultaneous (Thiel would play ten different games, moving
| through each board one move at a time, down the line) and was
| only beat by one person (David Sacks). after losing, he flipped
| the board and apparently responded to being called a sore loser
| with "show me a great loser and i'll show you a loser." [0]
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSUM1mvw17w
| newbie789 wrote:
| paxys wrote:
| How soon do people think we will see his candidacy for President?
| 2028 is my guess.
| chrchang523 wrote:
| Like Elon Musk, he wasn't born in the US and is therefore
| ineligible. (edit: "natural-born citizen" is not as well-
| defined as I thought, and Ted Cruz qualifies on account of
| having a US citizen parent at the time of his birth. But it's
| clear that Thiel doesn't.)
| memish wrote:
| [deleted]
| palijer wrote:
| That requirement seems pretty bizarre to myself as a non-US
| person. Haven't heard of being natural born as a requirement
| for president before, but seems like another aspect that the
| US shares with a small list of other countries.
|
| It seems pretty on-brand to be honest though, I wonder why
| that rule exists and what benefit it provides. The first
| couple presidents couldn't have met it, so I wonder when it
| was introduced.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidential_qualifica.
| ..
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Yep, it seems like a bizarre relic of a bygone era. This
| actually made me wonder if there's any place else in the
| government with this requirement. As far as I know, it only
| applies to the president. But what about the Vice
| President? He or she could be promoted if the president
| leaves. Then what about the Speaker of the House (3rd in
| line and I believe there is literally no requirement for
| the job; they're not even required to be a member of the
| house). I'm sure someone's thought through this already and
| there's a plan in place, but I never had.
| tevon wrote:
| This rule was enacted to prevent Alexander Hamilton from
| becoming president. He also wasn't born in the US. The term
| "naturalized" wasn't yet well defined.
|
| The first American born president (born after the
| revolution) was Van Buren, the first 7 were born British
| citizens!
| rfw300 wrote:
| This is a common belief, but it is false. The eligibility
| provision has an oft-forgotten second clause:
|
| > No Person except a natural born Citizen, _or a Citizen
| of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
| Constitution,_ shall be eligible to the Office of
| President;
|
| Hamilton was a citizen at the time of the Constitution's
| adoption and was therefore eligible to run for president
| should he have been so inclined.
| Thrymr wrote:
| > I wonder why that rule exists and what benefit it
| provides. The first couple presidents couldn't have met it,
| so I wonder when it was introduced.
|
| "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
| the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
| Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"
| from section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution (adopted
| 1789).
|
| There is some legal debate about what "natural born
| Citizen" means now, but that has not fully been testing in
| court IIUC.
| SllX wrote:
| I think it only really comes up for debate when someone
| wants to question the eligibility of Presidential
| candidates for political reasons. I recall a rather minor
| kerfuffle around McCain's eligibility (born in the Panama
| Canal Zone when it was under US Jurisdiction) back in the
| '08 election that was basically meaningless and I think
| then Senator Obama sponsored a bill that basically
| clarified this.
|
| There's two sources of law for determining citizenship
| though: 1. The Constitution and 2. Laws that Congress
| passes. If you're born a citizen according to either of
| these sources, congrats, you're a natural born citizen.
| harpersealtako wrote:
| It's interesting because the US also has unconditional jus
| soli citizenship (if you are born on American soil, no
| matter what your circumstances, you are granted
| citizenship). Nearly all major countries in the Americas
| have jus soli citizenship, but very few countries outside
| the Americas do.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| It's an 18th century solution to the problem of foreign
| kings.
| asdff wrote:
| It was to prevent foreign influence. The first couple
| presidents all met it, having been born in territory that
| became the U.S.. Mexico also did similar things with
| property rights surrounding the end of the Spanish mission
| era, in effort to remove Spanish influence.
| eruleman wrote:
| Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
|
| "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
| the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
| Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"
|
| The first few presidents were citizens of the US when the
| Constitution was adopted (previously, the US had been
| governed by the Articles of Confederation.)
| dls2016 wrote:
| "Natural born citizen" is the technical qualifier. Many
| natural born citizens aren't born in the US.
| paxys wrote:
| Being born outside the US doesn't have much to do with it.
| The requirement is to be a "natural born citizen", and anyone
| born to a US citizen will qualify, regardless of where in the
| world that was. It's the same reason why Ted Cruz and John
| McCain were eligible for the office despite not being born in
| the US.
|
| I have no idea about Thiel's specific case, and it doesn't
| seem like there's any info about it online.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Is he eligible? Looking at his bio it doesn't appear so. Also
| he seems like he'd be happier pulling the strings of a
| President JD Vance anyway.
| zls wrote:
| In the one law class I took, presidential eligibility was the
| example used to introduce our discussion of "standing". He
| framed the discussion specifically around a hypothetical
| Schwarzenegger run. The professor said that although it
| shouldn't be allowed, if Schwarzenegger actually ran, no one
| would have standing to sue him, so he would be allowed after
| all.
|
| The prof spoke in a way that implied this is an accepted
| truth in the legal community, rather than just his own
| opinion. But IANAL for a reason, I got a D in that class and
| maybe he bamboozled me :)
| paxys wrote:
| He is eligible if he was born in the US (doesn't look like
| it) or if either of his parents was a US citizen at the time
| of his birth. There doesn't seem to be any info online
| confirming or denying that.
| js2 wrote:
| I believe he is ineligible and it would be hotly contested
| were he to attempt to run:
|
| > Thiel was born in Frankfurt am Main, West Germany, on 11
| October 1967, to Susanne and Klaus Friedrich Thiel.[14][15]
| The family migrated to the United States when Peter was one
| year old and lived in Cleveland, Ohio, where his father
| worked as a chemical engineer. Klaus then worked for
| various mining companies, creating an itinerant upbringing
| for Thiel and his younger brother, Patrick Michael
| Thiel.[16][17] Thiel's mother became a U.S. citizen, but
| his father did not.[15]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
|
| Congressional Research Service:
|
| > The weight of legal and historical authority indicates
| that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person
| who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at
| birth," either by being born "in" the United States and
| under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents;
| by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being
| born in other situations meeting legal requirements for
| U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not
| include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at
| birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go
| through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a
| U.S. citizen.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-
| citizen_clause_(U...
| rm_-rf_slash wrote:
| I realize this is a petty and inconsequential question, but does
| anyone else think that the Forbes estimate of $2.6bn is a little
| low for a guy that was a key early investor in Facebook and has
| multiple other holdings like Palantir?
|
| Is there a bunch of money Forbes isn't counting or something?
| client4 wrote:
| Not to mention his investments in Tesla and space x...
| stingrae wrote:
| I thought his roth ira was worth $5b alone?
| https://www.propublica.org/article/lord-of-the-roths-how-tec...
| hobo_mark wrote:
| Like Thiel's famous "$5B Roth IRA" loophole that was making the
| rounds here a few months ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27616090
| vmception wrote:
| All net worth lists are just finance porn for plebs.
|
| There is no way of knowing. There are only some public
| transactions, and they are fixed in time that assume it was
| never lost.
|
| Additionally you would have no idea if he's holding a bunch of
| Dogecoin from the lows or an investor in extremely high
| performing PE/VC/Hedge funds.
|
| People's balance sheets are all nuanced.
|
| Those lists are not really worth anyone's time.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Those are just wild guesses. You can often find actors
| commenting "yeah, I wish!" when somebody asks them about their
| net worth.
| paxys wrote:
| Really rich people want to hide their wealth from the public as
| much as possible.
|
| Slightly rich people want to exaggerate their wealth as much as
| possible.
|
| Ultimately magazines like Forbes have very little real data to
| go off of, and so these lists all need to be taken with a huge
| grain of salt. If they were forced to put error bars on their
| projections people would see how worthless they really are.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| user249 wrote:
| This podcast "The Peter Thiel Paradox" [1] explained a lot about
| the mystery of Peter Thiel to me. Turns out that there is less
| than meets the eye but he does have a specific talent for
| manipulating the political systems and government coffers to
| enrich himself, much like Richard Branson, or so the British
| podcast claims.
|
| [1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/podcasts-and-videos/podcasts/the-
| lrb-p...
|
| One nitpick; Theil said "We were promised flying cars and call we
| got was 140 characters" not "We were promised bases on the moon
| and all we got was Facebook"
|
| Link claims Buzz Aldrin said "You Promised Me Mars Colonies.
| Instead, I Got Facebook."
|
| http://files.technologyreview.com/magazine-archive/2012/MIT-...
| waffle_maniac wrote:
| There was a comment in a thread on HN a while ago by someone
| that interviewed with Thiel's hedge fund. Apparently the fund
| lost a lot of money and Thiel was directing the trading
| decisions. Other investors pulled their money and it was mostly
| Thiel's money in the fund going forward.
| leto_ii wrote:
| Wasn't Eric Weinstein also involved with that hedge fund? Or
| am I mixing things up?
| weneedctrl wrote:
| > he does have a specific talent for manipulating the political
| systems and government coffers to enrich himself
|
| That gave me Epstein-verse vibes.
| beebmam wrote:
| Why do people with this much wealth want even _more_ wealth for
| themselves? I 've never understood this.
| davidw wrote:
| Perhaps part of getting 'this much wealth' is a desire for
| more, more, more that doesn't seem to be something they can
| turn off?
|
| I have enjoyed seeing PG just sort of fade into the
| background of YC and enjoy his kids (his twitter feed). He
| seems to have done well by doing well and seems fairly
| satisfied with all of it.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Ok well I'm not there really so I have no idea what I'm
| talking about but I'm guessing, probably by the time you get
| "this much wealth", this is the only game you can play, and
| it's fun, so you continue playing.
| [deleted]
| nodesocket wrote:
| It's not about wealth once you reach a certain level. That's
| a simple and incorrect way of thinking about it. It's about
| legacy. Wealth is freedom and power to make change in
| society, politics, and the world that governments frankly are
| to ineffective, don't have the stomach, or intentionally
| choose not to change.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| You don't become Peter Thiel rich if money is a means to an
| end rather than an end in itself for you.
| ironman1478 wrote:
| I imagine its fun for them. I personally cannot relate to
| this either, but you could apply this question to so many
| things. Like why would a world record sprinter want to run
| faster? I imagine with that reframing makes it more
| relatable.
| yumraj wrote:
| People with this much wealth start competing to _up_ their
| position in the world 's richest ranking. And, when you're #1
| in the ranking you work hard to keep that ranking .. and so
| on and on ..
|
| Me, I would just retire if I had a fraction of that, or so I
| think since I'm nowhere there ..
| joelbondurant1 wrote:
| TuringNYC wrote:
| In the case of Peter Thiel, the Koch family, and Robert
| Mercer, it is quite clear that the end goal is no longer
| wealth, but reshaping politics, geo-political power, and
| thought for multiple generations.
| rodgerd wrote:
| It's power. A guy who thinks that the 19th Amendment was a
| mistake doesn't care about more money, he cares about winding
| back the clock.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| At some point net worth becomes self worth for these people.
| stuaxo wrote:
| "number go up", they are obsessed with a high score and
| having more than others playing the same game.
|
| It would be sad if it were just that, but the fallout effects
| so many.
|
| I like the idea someone had that beyond a certain point you
| get a big party to say you won capitalism then the rest of
| the money you earn goes back into society.
| pirate787 wrote:
| It is a worthy feature of the system that the winners get
| to direct the resources. Musk used his winnings to found
| SpaceX and Tesla and other moonshot companies. The
| alternative is to redistribute everything to people who
| have proven only that they mismanage resources.
| zem wrote:
| hoarder mentality
| paxys wrote:
| Is being the 50th best basketball player on the planet good
| enough? Why do athletes continue to dedicate their lives in
| the hopes of being #1?
|
| Once your basic needs are met and you have a comfortable
| standard of living, everything else is a game, and people
| like to win. Why does anyone need a fancy car? Why does
| anyone need to compete with their neighbors and coworkers?
| Why does a billionaire need a superyacht when an adequately
| sized one will do? This is simply how some (or maybe even
| most) people are wired.
| leto_ii wrote:
| > people like to win
|
| True, but there are a host of other things that people
| like. The idea that "winning" is the ultimate goal in life
| is more socially induced than immanent.
|
| If as a society we decide to foster different attitudes and
| goals we will obtain different outcomes and different kinds
| of people (to a certain extent, of course).
| barry-cotter wrote:
| > The idea that "winning" is the ultimate goal in life is
| more socially induced than immanent.
|
| That idea will be a lot more prevalent among people who
| end up being the winners than among those who don't, at
| every scale. Effort doesn't get everything but it gets a
| lot.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| It is game with millions of human lives being destroyed as
| a consequence at times.
| okaramian wrote:
| If you don't like the game, you should probably vote for
| politicians that change the rules. There isn't a real
| bound on wealth within the system we're in, until that
| changes this is reality and expecting people who play it
| to be inherently moral is naive.
|
| Note that Im not stating a judgement either way, just
| pointing out how the system currently works.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| Humanity, the game. In the original version, conquest,
| you got points for taking other people's stuff, which
| almost always required injuring or killing them. With the
| addition of the extended economic growth (capitalism)
| expansion pack you could gain points by making things or
| providing services people wanted more than what they
| already had.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Points. It's just about bragging rights. There's nothing to
| it more than that. It's literally just hoarding like dragon.
| api wrote:
| Same thing that makes people grind eternally in MMORPGs to
| max out a character.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| If you're poor it tends to look like "How many houses could a
| person want?"
|
| If you're rich, it looks like "Everyone else, especially
| governments, sucks at allocating resources. I will do a
| better job."
|
| And here's the kicker, being extremely wealthy is the result
| of being good at the skill of resource allocation.
| ComradePhil wrote:
| I don't think Peter Thiel is in it for the money, not anymore
| anyway. He is fairly straightforward and has talked about his
| motivations in various long-form interviews over the years.
| In my observation, his actions are aligned with his
| motivations that he has expressed.
|
| Partisan media assigns fabricated evil motivations to explain
| his actions, like they do with everyone who they view as not
| on their side. People who get their idea of him from these
| sources have distorted view of him.
| dnissley wrote:
| IIRC he sold most of his stake in 2012 after the IPO. He
| would be far richer today if he had just let his investment
| in Meta ride, even with the recent fall. It seems clear
| he's not in it for the money.
| jdrc wrote:
| Whatever happened to facebook in the span of 1 month that is so
| different than what was happening the past ~10 years? devaluation
| in multiple dimensions
| YarickR2 wrote:
| Tax optimizations by top shareholders
| PeterisP wrote:
| Facebook's earlier valuation was reasonable only with an
| assumption that it will reasonably rapidly grow much, much
| larger than it is now. The market now started to believe that
| its long-term growth is going to be slower and more limited
| (i.e. disbelieving the Meta assertion that they're going to
| unlock humongous growth through metaverse), so that brings a
| huge adjustment down, closer to numbers justified by their
| current revenue.
| woodpanel wrote:
| I echo OPs _coup de grace_ statements.
|
| The underpinning failure of FB is indicated by
|
| - ad-revenue (97% of FB's revenue) has an uncertain growth-
| perspective (as seen with the iOS privacy updates)
|
| - Metaverse and VR in general (highlight Zuck's desperate,
| decade-long search for a new tech-moat) is a fad that is not
| going mainstream anytime soon
|
| - inability to lead libra into success
|
| All of these failures may seem unconnected but what ties them
| together is a deep underlying distrust of the company itself
| by the public
| bostonsre wrote:
| Did it get bad enough that they actually had to finally tell
| the truth to investors?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Their pivot to Meta deeply reinforced the writing on the wall.
| And then their first ever report of a declining user count was
| the coup de grace.
|
| Come to think of it I need to verify that the user count did
| decline. I only heard that anecdotally.
| rahulgoel wrote:
| - DAUs decreased -0.05% from 1,930m in Q3 22 to 1,929m in Q4
| 22. ("sequentially") - DAUs increased +4.5% from 1,845m in Q4
| 21 to 1,929m in Q4 22. ("year over year") - See pp18: https:/
| /s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2021/q4...
|
| DAUs are those using FB app only. Metric for those using all
| apps (Insta, Whatsapp, etc) increased.
|
| Btw - there are ~4.66B internet users - and FB has 77% of
| those log into one of their apps a month (MAPs = 3.59b,
| pp11).
| swamp40 wrote:
| FB pushes you to Insta via its Reels preview videos right
| on top when you open the FB app.
|
| Instagram Reels is more addicting - full screen videos that
| just show you more of what you watch most intently, doesn't
| care that you "liked" a page 5 years ago.
|
| Zuck is depreciating FB.
| vagabund wrote:
| The obvious Zuckerbergian next vertical to exploit when
| you've run out of people on the planet to addict is to
| funnel those DAUs toward a dating service to birth future
| demand.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > FB has 77% of those log into one of their apps a month
|
| I would suspect some of those are bots or sockpuppet
| accounts.
| tootie wrote:
| I think it's entirely possible and really not even that hard
| to "fix" Facebook. Zuckerberg seems more intent on pivoting
| to nonsense like Portal and Metaverse with no actual
| foundations. It's Zuck getting bored and letting his ego ruin
| a cash cow that can easily be a force for good in the world
| if they just tried. I think the only way this ends is with
| Zuck losing his job as CEO. He tripped up the stairs for 15
| years and now thinks he is a visionary.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Just enough built up negativity that caused a transition in
| public (and market) sentiment.
|
| The markets aren't all that efficient or things like this
| wouldn't happen. Markets underestimated obvious risks and those
| risks reached high enough levels that there's a bit of a run to
| be the first out the door.
| XorNot wrote:
| Markets also don't play the company, they play the other
| participants: even if you thought Facebook was overvalued,
| you're still incentivised to wait till everyone else has
| figured this out.
| aqualinux wrote:
| One of the ones who gets it.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Rats are leaving the sinking ship.
|
| FB 5Y price return 68%
|
| SP500 5Y price return 94%
| rvz wrote:
| If the rats are leaving this sinking ship now, perhaps its
| captain has told them to build them a new one called: 'The
| Metaverse'.
| tpmx wrote:
| I don't think it's okay to call another human a rat. It's pure
| hate without reason.
| brnt wrote:
| In this case, I believe we should make an exception.
| skrbjc wrote:
| This says everything about what is wrong with the
| woke/anti-woke, in-group/out-group craziness playing out on
| in the world right now.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| Which seems to correlate with Facebook user numbers,
| ironically.
| mewse wrote:
| I spent some time at university doing psychological research
| on rats. In my experience they're the sweetest things and
| actually quite affectionate, as long as they're given
| somewhere safe to live, aren't too hungry, and you handle
| them with kindness and care.
|
| (they have quite sharp claws which can accidentally pierce
| your skin if they're startled or scared of you. Also, their
| vision isn't great; you can wind up getting bit if they
| mistake your finger for a piece of food being offered to
| them, so you do need to keep your fingers together whenever
| you present your hand to them. But other than those? Absolute
| sweeties.)
|
| I guess I just mean to say that I think I might agree with
| you.
| hinkley wrote:
| >Co-founder of Palantir Technology.
|
| I'm gonna need a DNA swab on that one.
|
| Dude is filthy rich. Emphasis on the 'filthy'.
| tpmx wrote:
| Why does his wealth change anything in this regard? I
| honestly don't get it.
| toss1 wrote:
| No, there's plenty of reason
|
| Thiel has worked hard to earn that disrespect; there's no
| reason to deny him that which is due.
| hinkley wrote:
| <find in page> rats <enter>
|
| Mmmmhmmm.
| nosianu wrote:
| The sub headline is a better summary of what is happening:
|
| > Peter Thiel to Exit Meta's Board to Support Trump-Aligned
| Candidates
|
| He just wants to be free to involve himself in politics but not
| get Meta involved. Maybe he also has additional motivation for
| leaving, but that's speculation and this right here is a solid
| reason.
|
| From the article:
|
| > _In October, the two Senate candidates argued in an opinion
| piece in The New York Post that Mr. Zuckerberg's $400 million in
| donations to local election offices in 2020 amounted to "election
| meddling" that should be investigated._
|
| To avoid any such issues for the company leaving the board looks
| like a logical precaution to me.
| joelbondurant1 wrote:
| YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote:
| I don't know could also be this..
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2022/02/01/billi...
| fearfulofview4 wrote:
| breckenedge wrote:
| I think this could mean he wants to involve himself in a
| competing social network.
| ukie wrote:
| omegaworks wrote:
| >He has also been seen as the contrarian who has Mr. Zuckerberg's
| ear, championing unfettered speech across digital platforms. His
| conservative views also gave Facebook's board ideological
| diversity.
|
| What a fawning, iconoclastic corruption of "diversity." The New
| York Times is blatantly courting Thiel's fascist endeavor.
|
| This journalistic abortion glosses over exactly what kind of
| speech Thiel's cohort seeks not just to "unfetter" but to blast
| loudly across all mediums:
|
| Xenophobic, genocidal conspiracy theories to the very front of
| the line.
| strangesongs wrote:
| nytimes staying on brand, courting lil' wannabe fascists
| cehrlich wrote:
| Thiel recently hired former Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz,
| who resigned from that position after a bunch of corruption
| scandals came to light. That should make it quite clear what
| direction he wants to take.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| He wants to become chancellor of Austria? Or just parlay that
| relationship into another citizenship for his collection?
| nodesocket wrote:
| Fun fact, Peter Thiel gave Vitalik Buterin a Thiel Fellowship to
| work on Ethereum. Let's count the wins Peter Thiel has had:
| - Paypal - Facebook - Palantir - Etherum
| - Took on deplorable Gawker
| missedthecue wrote:
| The guys behind Figma, Upstart, and Ocean Cleanup were also
| Thiel Fellowship recipients.
| memish wrote:
| vineyardmike wrote:
| His attack on gawker are anything but commendable. They may
| have been a trashy gossip site, but attacking press like that
| is not good for society.
| nodesocket wrote:
| Wait, are you really calling gawker press? I assume TMZ is
| right up there with the Walls Street Journal as well. Yikes
| that is scary.
| morelish wrote:
| Really? Gawker published intimate photos of someone without
| their permission. What Gawker did was very wrong. I don't get
| why people defend Gawker.
| MiscIdeaMaker99 wrote:
| One doesn't have to defend Gawker to think that what Peter
| Theil did was atrocious.
| tacitusarc wrote:
| I've never understood the perspective that what Thiel did too
| Gawker was anything but good. Love or hate the guy, he just
| funded a lawsuit that Gawker assumed they would beat using
| the classic tactics of bankrupting their opponent. I despise
| those tactics, it was (rightly IMO) determined that Gawker
| acted illegally and caused massive damage, and if the Hulk
| Hogan had been funded by literally any other billionaire I
| think they would have been applauded.
|
| Corporations use "run the meter" tactics to win lawsuits all
| the time. It's nice to see that fail for once.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| You seem to be confused as to which party used which
| tactics?
|
| https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/the-thiel-gawker-
| sag...
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/06/21/peter-
| thi...
| b0sk wrote:
| "wins"
| fuckpeterthiel wrote:
| Why did you delete your comment down thread defending rape?
| nodesocket wrote:
| It's users like you who go around flagging and downvoting
| posts and comments on HN ruining good healthy discussion
| because you are unable to think critically without turning
| into an emotional ball of diarrhea of the keyboard.
|
| @dang I really appreciate what you do for HN, but honestly
| how hard is it if is a user is brand new (created in last X
| hours) and karma is below negative Y, ban their account from
| commenting and posting.
| fuckpeterthiel wrote:
| I never down voted or flagged the post where you defended
| rape. Stop being triggered and posting false narratives.
| fuckpeterthiel wrote:
| [deleted]
| fuckpeterthiel wrote:
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| To be honest from your article itself it doesn't seem to be
| reported that he has been convicted as a rapist but that he had
| uncommon ideas about the topic? Does that make someone a
| rapist?
| missedthecue wrote:
| Fantastic comment. You really added value to this thread.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| This is a good move for both Thiel and Facebook.
|
| This helps Facebook with advertisers, the DC machinery still
| reeling from the Trump fallout, shareholders and almost all their
| staff. They can wash their hands of what looks - to many - a
| toxic situation.
|
| This helps Thiel, because he's no longer going to have to explain
| himself - his writing game me the impression that he is somebody
| who despises having to explain himself to people who think he
| might be wrong - and allows him to carry on with his Trump
| project, unquestioned, unencumbered.
|
| From a certain perspective and distance this is all deeply
| depressing, though. They walk away from each other knowing all
| sides face fewer consequences for their terrible decisions, many
| of which have caused significant - perhaps irreparable - damage
| to the standing of United States politics and industry in the
| wider World.
| speed_spread wrote:
| People don't think he's merely wrong, people think he's
| outright evil.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-07 23:00 UTC)