13 ms·

Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

132 points by dlp211 9y ago

rrggrr 9y ago
Rumours of Theils maleavolence are greatly exaggerated. His bio better resembles a modern day Ross Perot, libertarian and all. Network analysis and data mining inteilligence toolsets were used in the intel comminity lkng before Palantir, same as mercenaries were vighting foreign wars ling before Blackwater. A real problem in government is lack of domain expetise in oversight. Heres a chance to have some of that if the article is correct.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  I think I agree in part, though the framing of it in the Gizmodo piece that he seems "less" worried about Facebook is concerning. Google I get, Amazon sure, but why not Facebook? That seems like the most massive surveillance vector to ever exist and a company which might have a penchant for what's not too different from mind control. Edit: after reading the Vanity Fair essay (which is much better than this Gizmodo thing) I'm I think more skeptical, though it's more explicitly stated that Facebook is viewed in a more nefarious light.
  - confounded 9y ago
    > but why not Facebook? Early investor, made him untold millions, tight with zucc, who's sacrificed personal capital to keep him on the board (despite his far-right politics).
    - remarkEon 9y ago
      Can you explain how his politics are "far-right"? I don't really consider Libertarianism an element of what's become the emergence of right wing authoritarianism.
      - confounded 9y ago
        - He believes that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. - He is strongly opposed to multiculturalism, and attributes many evils to it. Though when put under pressure to justify some of the views he published in his book on the subject (such as that women reporting rape is an organized leftist conspiracy to undermine white men), he simply said he never thought them. Genius! - He promotes political figures on the far right of US politics, like race-baiter Ann Coulter. Whether you consider him a libertarian or not, I can't do much about. Normally I'm against Americans abusing words with perfectly well established meanings for marketing purposes, but I fear this one is a lost cause.
        remarkEon 9y ago
        On your first point, that doesn't seem like an idea unique to the Far Right at all. Plenty of Left Wing friends of mine don't think Capitalism works within a Democracy (though I'm sure for different reasons than Thiel). On your second, I think the virtue of Multiculturalism is at least worth debating. If he calls it "evil" that's not something I'd agree with, but that would align with a lot of Far Right thought. As for Coulter, she's just as much of a race baiter as any of the others on the Left that seem to attribute any problem they see to some race-based variable. I don't know of any instance where Theil has actively promoted her or her ideas but I'm ready to be proven wrong. Not sure what to make of that last paragraph. My guess is you're taking issue with "Libertarian" and implying that Thiel is in fact not one, and is using it to appeal to nominal "actual" Libertarians by hyjacking the word. This is of course quite possible.
        pryce 9y ago
        It isn't that Thiel thinks 'Capitalism and Democracy are incompatible' that makes him right-wing, it is that given he believes they are incompatible, he concludes Democracy should be discarded to preserve Capitalism, rather than the other way around. This is a far-right view.
        em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Yeah, why bother with any kind of personal ethics? If you don’t take the dirty money, someone else will always be found, so it might as well be you, right? I mean look around, those guys over there got away with literal war crimes. For that matter, why should you let common law precedent or the rule of law prevent you from secretly funding third-party lawsuits as part of your personal revenge scheme? This is America and money should be able to do whatever it wants. And oh, funding the campaign an openly white supremacist, brags-about-sexual-assualt, famous fraudster and charlatan with no credentials who is obviously unprepared and poorly suited temperamentally to be president? Hey, if the bet pays off there’s great personal upside, so who cares if it would be terrible for the society?
- CalChris 9y ago
  He's definitely a libertarian although his definition of libertarian is completely malleable.
- confounded 9y ago
  Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on the rich, Theil is effectively a feudalist. Both men were billionaires who invested in computing and were involved in the 'military industrial complex'. But the word 'libertarian' has been dragged so far to the right in the US in recent years that it's not a meaningful category to compare the two with.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?
    - alphonsegaston 9y ago
      This is is irrelevant with regard to Thiel, because, as the parent points out, he’s a neo-feudalist working for the abolition of democracy. He funds several “Dark Enlightment” figures like Curtis Yarvin and even says as much himself: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-menciu... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
      - sjcsjc 9y ago
        Democracy does not equal liberty. It may, arguably, be the best way of preserving liberty. But then again it may not. "Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1] [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versus-liberty https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versu...
        gnaritas 9y ago
- pryce 9y ago
  How white supremacist do you have to be, to be acceptably labelled 'malevolent'? * Enough to consistently regard ethnic minorities as threatening? * Enough to consume white supremacist literature? * Enough to endorse white supremacist literature to those around you? * Enough to write white supremacist literature? Your threat model is a caricature. When individuals with track-records like Thiel are selected for positions of power, it makes all of us less safe: No amount of domain expertise will protect us from Thiel himself.
  - 55555 9y ago
    What the hell are you talking about? It reads like you are accusing Thiel of being a white supremacist. If so, please provide citations.
    - pryce 9y ago
      I refer you Thiel's multiple published articles on multiculturalism during his time at Stanford for the journal 'Academic Questions', such as 'Multiculturalism and the decline of Stanford', followed by the book he co-authored called "the Diversity Myth", about how multiculturalism is horrific and how multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, are where you should look if you wish to get a good idea of what is going on in that man's mind.
      - belorn 9y ago
        Is anyone who prefer cultural globalisation over multiculturalism a white supremacist?
        aaroninsf 9y ago
        There's an obvious correlation, and the language of the former is also used as cover for self-identified white supremacists who until recently found themselves obliged to cloak or mute their views. NB: that correlation is less obvious for those who have the "right" culture.
intopieces 9y ago
> Thiel reportedly doubled-down and immediately donated $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign Can someone describe corruption and help me understand how it differs from this situation?
- aldoushuxley001 9y ago
  Trump was a private citizen at the time. That was a donation from Thiel to Trump presidential campaign. Corruption is mostly reservered for government favouritism.
  - zorpner 9y ago
    The point of the donation was a bet, to receive government favoritism in the event of election. Is that non-obvious?
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      Which is why basically every big corporation and donor donates to both side of the campaign. This is nothing new. Only difference is that here, Thiel donated to a candidate that didn't get many other big donations because it was presumed he had no chance of winning.
    - dogruck 9y ago
      "Government favoritism" is markedly different from the actual "leadership role in the newly elected government"
- dogruck 9y ago
  Proper corruption typically includes: * Lack of transparency. It's tough to be corrupt in plain sight. * Payment to someone who currently possesses power -- not a public contribution to a political candidate seeking a new office of power.
  - croon 9y ago
    > * Payment to someone who currently possesses power -- not a public contribution to a political candidate seeking a new office of power. The difference is negligible if you consider it a hedge on that person getting into office, upon which time you get rewarded through appointment. A theme that has become a pattern.
dpflan 9y ago
Here is the Vanity Fair article this piece references and recommends ("You can read the whole, absurd story here. Highly recommended.") > "here" --> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/donald-trump-peter-thiel-top-intelligence-advisory-post https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/donald-trump-peter-t...
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  Yep, mods should consider changing to this URL, IMO.
electriclove 9y ago
> “Peter has indicated that if he takes the P.I.A.B. position he intends to take a comprehensive look at the U.S. intelligence community’s information-technology architecture. He is super-concerned about Amazon and Google”—and Facebook, less so. Is that because he invested in Facebook early on?
- beambot 9y ago
  Any mention of massive conflicts of interest with Palantir?
- confounded 9y ago
  He's on the board.
ajennings 9y ago
Wait, I thought Thiel approved of monopolies...
- nocoder 9y ago
  Only the ones he has invested in.
sremani 9y ago
>> Peter Theil's mastery of Dark Arts... I mean providing Data Mining and Intelligence analysis software for Intel organizations is Dark Arts now?
- jacobush 9y ago
  Given Intel ME, mmm yes?
andy318 9y ago
I don't think this bodes well for Amazon, in particular. Trump has a grudge against Bezos and it won't be out of character for Trump to hint to Thiel to express his loyalty by being harsh on Amazon
xiaoma 9y ago
This article is exactly as objective and as "inciteful" as one would expect given the source. Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker, outed Thiel for being gay and he later helped fund a lawsuit someone else brought against them (for taking and publishing a recording of a private sexual encounter). That lawsuit put Gawker out of business.
- thirdsun 9y ago
  I recommend the documentary "Nobody Speak" on Netflix for an overview of how the lawsuit unfolded and why it's so problematic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHow1B32WZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHow1B32WZw
return0 9y ago
Finally
urlwolf 9y ago
You can read this the following way. The 'analogs', represented by Trump, realize they are losing power, that regulation may be their best shot even if that has proven to not work well, and are launching a full-force attack against the 'digitals' (eg Valley). This event is more meaningful for the world economy and safety than North Korea playing with nuclear weapons. The sides of a possible WW III are analogs vs digitals. What do you think? I'm thinking about writing a blog post expanding on the idea.
mtgx 9y ago
> “Peter has indicated that if he takes the P.I.A.B. position he intends to take a comprehensive look at the U.S. intelligence community’s information-technology architecture. He is super-concerned about Amazon and Google”—and Facebook, less so. “He feels they have become New Age global fascists in terms of how they’re controlling the media, how they’re controlling information flows to the public, even how they’re purging people from think tanks. He’s concerned about the monopolistic tendencies of [all three] companies and how they deny economic well-being to people they disagree with. I'm confused. I thought Thiel loved monopolies. Isn't that all he preaches about in one of his books, that you should create a monopoly ASAP? Or does he only love his monopolies or the ones he's been involved in - such as Facebook? And is that why he's willing to give Facebook a pass?
- xiaoma 9y ago
  If you read the book, he directly explains that what's ideal for a company isn't necessarily what's ideal for society. For a company's founders or investors, it's pretty much always good to become a monopoly and that's completely legal, too. The anti-trust problems happen after a company already is a monopoly. The US government seems to have essentially ignored anti-trust issues during the Bush/Obama era, but enforcement used to be common. During the MS anti-trust case in the 90s, it was common to hear things like "becoming a monopoly should be the goal of any business but once they succeed they can't use that monopoly to compete unfairly for another." It was lauded that the created the DOS/Windows monopoly, but it was illegal to force suppliers to bundle MS Word, IE or Media Player with each system and it was illegal to prevent them from pre-installing Word Perfect, Netscape or Real Player. I don't think MS would have survived so unscathed if Gore had won, but it's impossible to know for sure. The political administration has a huge effect on how much these things are pursued, and it would be a huge deal if the Trump administration were to pursue anti-trust cases as aggressively as the Clinton administration did.
d--b 9y ago
This position is about intelligence oversight. What's the link with being harsh on Google and Amazon? What the article makes it sound like is that Thiel is against forms of censorship at the level of companies like Google and Amazon, which in a way is fine, right? (Or maybe I misunderstood?). Also it sounds like Thiel would very much want to limit the role of the NSA in matters of domestic privacy, which is kind of what everybody wanted Obama to do. Don't get me wrong, I really dislike libertarianism in that it necessarily leads to very unbalanced societies. And I especially dislike it when it's incoherent (like when libertarians are against immigration/freedom of movement). But in matters of personal privacy, it's kind of good, no? EDIT: ok - whoever downvotes this - please send a comment regarding why you think my comment is inappropriate / not interesting?
- croon 9y ago
  > EDIT: ok - whoever downvotes this - please send a comment regarding why you think my comment is inappropriate / not interesting? Not me, but: > What the article makes it sound like is that Thiel is against forms of censorship at the level of companies like Google and Amazon, which in a way is fine, right? (Or maybe I misunderstood?). He's on the board of Facebook, and I don't think I'm pessimistic in assuming that will be a executive factor in his actions. I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he's only being considered for his support and donations to Trump, not for his qualifications (like most Trump appointees). > Also it sounds like Thiel would very much want to limit the role of the NSA in matters of domestic privacy, which is kind of what everybody wanted Obama to do. I don't believe anyone is hesitant out of dislike of the concept, but clouded judgement of the individual.
- confounded 9y ago
  > Also it sounds like Thiel would very much want to limit the role of the NSA in matters of domestic privacy, which is kind of what everybody wanted Obama to do. He founded and directly profits from Palantir, a huge private surveillance company that makes its money from government surveillance contracts. He's already got some sweet deals for the company after working for Trump, especially new contracts for ICE. It's possible that he'd like to privatize surveillance work for his own profit, but given that he's spent the last 13 years working on superior mass surveillance systems, it seems unlikely that the views you seem to attribute to him are true. This is all outside of him being on the board of Facebook (which I'd argue is single greatest force against domestic privacy in the US, and an extremely large ingest source for the NSA).
Overtonwindow 9y ago
I would like to see Thiel involved in government more, but where, and doing what I am not sure. I think his talents would be useful. The question remains, however, if the President's ego will let him.

132 points by dlp211 9y ago

Rumours of Theils maleavolence are greatly exaggerated. His bio better resembles a modern day Ross Perot, libertarian and all. Network analysis and data mining inteilligence toolsets were used in the intel comminity lkng before Palantir, same as mercenaries were vighting foreign wars ling before Blackwater. A real problem in government is lack of domain expetise in oversight. Heres a chance to have some of that if the article is correct.

remarkEon 9y ago
I think I agree in part, though the framing of it in the Gizmodo piece that he seems "less" worried about Facebook is concerning. Google I get, Amazon sure, but why not Facebook? That seems like the most massive surveillance vector to ever exist and a company which might have a penchant for what's not too different from mind control. Edit: after reading the Vanity Fair essay (which is much better than this Gizmodo thing) I'm I think more skeptical, though it's more explicitly stated that Facebook is viewed in a more nefarious light.
- confounded 9y ago
  > but why not Facebook? Early investor, made him untold millions, tight with zucc, who's sacrificed personal capital to keep him on the board (despite his far-right politics).
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    Can you explain how his politics are "far-right"? I don't really consider Libertarianism an element of what's become the emergence of right wing authoritarianism.
    - confounded 9y ago
      - He believes that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. - He is strongly opposed to multiculturalism, and attributes many evils to it. Though when put under pressure to justify some of the views he published in his book on the subject (such as that women reporting rape is an organized leftist conspiracy to undermine white men), he simply said he never thought them. Genius! - He promotes political figures on the far right of US politics, like race-baiter Ann Coulter. Whether you consider him a libertarian or not, I can't do much about. Normally I'm against Americans abusing words with perfectly well established meanings for marketing purposes, but I fear this one is a lost cause.
      - remarkEon 9y ago
        On your first point, that doesn't seem like an idea unique to the Far Right at all. Plenty of Left Wing friends of mine don't think Capitalism works within a Democracy (though I'm sure for different reasons than Thiel). On your second, I think the virtue of Multiculturalism is at least worth debating. If he calls it "evil" that's not something I'd agree with, but that would align with a lot of Far Right thought. As for Coulter, she's just as much of a race baiter as any of the others on the Left that seem to attribute any problem they see to some race-based variable. I don't know of any instance where Theil has actively promoted her or her ideas but I'm ready to be proven wrong. Not sure what to make of that last paragraph. My guess is you're taking issue with "Libertarian" and implying that Thiel is in fact not one, and is using it to appeal to nominal "actual" Libertarians by hyjacking the word. This is of course quite possible.
        pryce 9y ago
        It isn't that Thiel thinks 'Capitalism and Democracy are incompatible' that makes him right-wing, it is that given he believes they are incompatible, he concludes Democracy should be discarded to preserve Capitalism, rather than the other way around. This is a far-right view.
        em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
jacobolus 9y ago
Yeah, why bother with any kind of personal ethics? If you don’t take the dirty money, someone else will always be found, so it might as well be you, right? I mean look around, those guys over there got away with literal war crimes. For that matter, why should you let common law precedent or the rule of law prevent you from secretly funding third-party lawsuits as part of your personal revenge scheme? This is America and money should be able to do whatever it wants. And oh, funding the campaign an openly white supremacist, brags-about-sexual-assualt, famous fraudster and charlatan with no credentials who is obviously unprepared and poorly suited temperamentally to be president? Hey, if the bet pays off there’s great personal upside, so who cares if it would be terrible for the society?
CalChris 9y ago
He's definitely a libertarian although his definition of libertarian is completely malleable.
confounded 9y ago
Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on the rich, Theil is effectively a feudalist. Both men were billionaires who invested in computing and were involved in the 'military industrial complex'. But the word 'libertarian' has been dragged so far to the right in the US in recent years that it's not a meaningful category to compare the two with.
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?
  - alphonsegaston 9y ago
    This is is irrelevant with regard to Thiel, because, as the parent points out, he’s a neo-feudalist working for the abolition of democracy. He funds several “Dark Enlightment” figures like Curtis Yarvin and even says as much himself: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-menciu... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
    - sjcsjc 9y ago
      Democracy does not equal liberty. It may, arguably, be the best way of preserving liberty. But then again it may not. "Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1] [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versus-liberty https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versu...
      - gnaritas 9y ago
pryce 9y ago
How white supremacist do you have to be, to be acceptably labelled 'malevolent'? * Enough to consistently regard ethnic minorities as threatening? * Enough to consume white supremacist literature? * Enough to endorse white supremacist literature to those around you? * Enough to write white supremacist literature? Your threat model is a caricature. When individuals with track-records like Thiel are selected for positions of power, it makes all of us less safe: No amount of domain expertise will protect us from Thiel himself.
- 55555 9y ago
  What the hell are you talking about? It reads like you are accusing Thiel of being a white supremacist. If so, please provide citations.
  - pryce 9y ago
    I refer you Thiel's multiple published articles on multiculturalism during his time at Stanford for the journal 'Academic Questions', such as 'Multiculturalism and the decline of Stanford', followed by the book he co-authored called "the Diversity Myth", about how multiculturalism is horrific and how multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, are where you should look if you wish to get a good idea of what is going on in that man's mind.
    - belorn 9y ago
      Is anyone who prefer cultural globalisation over multiculturalism a white supremacist?
      - aaroninsf 9y ago
        There's an obvious correlation, and the language of the former is also used as cover for self-identified white supremacists who until recently found themselves obliged to cloak or mute their views. NB: that correlation is less obvious for those who have the "right" culture.

intopieces 9y ago

> Thiel reportedly doubled-down and immediately donated $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign Can someone describe corruption and help me understand how it differs from this situation?

aldoushuxley001 9y ago
Trump was a private citizen at the time. That was a donation from Thiel to Trump presidential campaign. Corruption is mostly reservered for government favouritism.
- zorpner 9y ago
  The point of the donation was a bet, to receive government favoritism in the event of election. Is that non-obvious?
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Which is why basically every big corporation and donor donates to both side of the campaign. This is nothing new. Only difference is that here, Thiel donated to a candidate that didn't get many other big donations because it was presumed he had no chance of winning.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    "Government favoritism" is markedly different from the actual "leadership role in the newly elected government"
dogruck 9y ago
Proper corruption typically includes: * Lack of transparency. It's tough to be corrupt in plain sight. * Payment to someone who currently possesses power -- not a public contribution to a political candidate seeking a new office of power.
- croon 9y ago
  > * Payment to someone who currently possesses power -- not a public contribution to a political candidate seeking a new office of power. The difference is negligible if you consider it a hedge on that person getting into office, upon which time you get rewarded through appointment. A theme that has become a pattern.

dpflan 9y ago

Here is the Vanity Fair article this piece references and recommends ("You can read the whole, absurd story here. Highly recommended.") > "here" --> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/donald-trump-peter-thiel-top-intelligence-advisory-post https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/donald-trump-peter-t...

jlgaddis 9y ago
Yep, mods should consider changing to this URL, IMO.

electriclove 9y ago

beambot 9y ago
Any mention of massive conflicts of interest with Palantir?
confounded 9y ago
He's on the board.

ajennings 9y ago

Wait, I thought Thiel approved of monopolies...

nocoder 9y ago
Only the ones he has invested in.

sremani 9y ago

>> Peter Theil's mastery of Dark Arts... I mean providing Data Mining and Intelligence analysis software for Intel organizations is Dark Arts now?

jacobush 9y ago
Given Intel ME, mmm yes?

andy318 9y ago

I don't think this bodes well for Amazon, in particular. Trump has a grudge against Bezos and it won't be out of character for Trump to hint to Thiel to express his loyalty by being harsh on Amazon

xiaoma 9y ago

This article is exactly as objective and as "inciteful" as one would expect given the source. Gizmodo's parent company, Gawker, outed Thiel for being gay and he later helped fund a lawsuit someone else brought against them (for taking and publishing a recording of a private sexual encounter). That lawsuit put Gawker out of business.

thirdsun 9y ago
I recommend the documentary "Nobody Speak" on Netflix for an overview of how the lawsuit unfolded and why it's so problematic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHow1B32WZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHow1B32WZw

return0 9y ago

Finally

urlwolf 9y ago

You can read this the following way. The 'analogs', represented by Trump, realize they are losing power, that regulation may be their best shot even if that has proven to not work well, and are launching a full-force attack against the 'digitals' (eg Valley). This event is more meaningful for the world economy and safety than North Korea playing with nuclear weapons. The sides of a possible WW III are analogs vs digitals. What do you think? I'm thinking about writing a blog post expanding on the idea.

mtgx 9y ago

> “Peter has indicated that if he takes the P.I.A.B. position he intends to take a comprehensive look at the U.S. intelligence community’s information-technology architecture. He is super-concerned about Amazon and Google”—and Facebook, less so. “He feels they have become New Age global fascists in terms of how they’re controlling the media, how they’re controlling information flows to the public, even how they’re purging people from think tanks. He’s concerned about the monopolistic tendencies of [all three] companies and how they deny economic well-being to people they disagree with. I'm confused. I thought Thiel loved monopolies. Isn't that all he preaches about in one of his books, that you should create a monopoly ASAP? Or does he only love his monopolies or the ones he's been involved in - such as Facebook? And is that why he's willing to give Facebook a pass?

xiaoma 9y ago
If you read the book, he directly explains that what's ideal for a company isn't necessarily what's ideal for society. For a company's founders or investors, it's pretty much always good to become a monopoly and that's completely legal, too. The anti-trust problems happen after a company already is a monopoly. The US government seems to have essentially ignored anti-trust issues during the Bush/Obama era, but enforcement used to be common. During the MS anti-trust case in the 90s, it was common to hear things like "becoming a monopoly should be the goal of any business but once they succeed they can't use that monopoly to compete unfairly for another." It was lauded that the created the DOS/Windows monopoly, but it was illegal to force suppliers to bundle MS Word, IE or Media Player with each system and it was illegal to prevent them from pre-installing Word Perfect, Netscape or Real Player. I don't think MS would have survived so unscathed if Gore had won, but it's impossible to know for sure. The political administration has a huge effect on how much these things are pursued, and it would be a huge deal if the Trump administration were to pursue anti-trust cases as aggressively as the Clinton administration did.

d--b 9y ago

This position is about intelligence oversight. What's the link with being harsh on Google and Amazon? What the article makes it sound like is that Thiel is against forms of censorship at the level of companies like Google and Amazon, which in a way is fine, right? (Or maybe I misunderstood?). Also it sounds like Thiel would very much want to limit the role of the NSA in matters of domestic privacy, which is kind of what everybody wanted Obama to do. Don't get me wrong, I really dislike libertarianism in that it necessarily leads to very unbalanced societies. And I especially dislike it when it's incoherent (like when libertarians are against immigration/freedom of movement). But in matters of personal privacy, it's kind of good, no? EDIT: ok - whoever downvotes this - please send a comment regarding why you think my comment is inappropriate / not interesting?

croon 9y ago
> EDIT: ok - whoever downvotes this - please send a comment regarding why you think my comment is inappropriate / not interesting? Not me, but: > What the article makes it sound like is that Thiel is against forms of censorship at the level of companies like Google and Amazon, which in a way is fine, right? (Or maybe I misunderstood?). He's on the board of Facebook, and I don't think I'm pessimistic in assuming that will be a executive factor in his actions. I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he's only being considered for his support and donations to Trump, not for his qualifications (like most Trump appointees). > Also it sounds like Thiel would very much want to limit the role of the NSA in matters of domestic privacy, which is kind of what everybody wanted Obama to do. I don't believe anyone is hesitant out of dislike of the concept, but clouded judgement of the individual.
confounded 9y ago
> Also it sounds like Thiel would very much want to limit the role of the NSA in matters of domestic privacy, which is kind of what everybody wanted Obama to do. He founded and directly profits from Palantir, a huge private surveillance company that makes its money from government surveillance contracts. He's already got some sweet deals for the company after working for Trump, especially new contracts for ICE. It's possible that he'd like to privatize surveillance work for his own profit, but given that he's spent the last 13 years working on superior mass surveillance systems, it seems unlikely that the views you seem to attribute to him are true. This is all outside of him being on the board of Facebook (which I'd argue is single greatest force against domestic privacy in the US, and an extremely large ingest source for the NSA).

Overtonwindow 9y ago

I would like to see Thiel involved in government more, but where, and doing what I am not sure. I think his talents would be useful. The question remains, however, if the President's ego will let him.