6 ms·

Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review

77 points by cremno 9y ago

ordinaryradical 9y ago
The intelligence to found and lead a successful startup is not the same intelligence required to distinguish thoughtful, well-considered political opinions.
- WaitingForDang 9y ago
  If only he had the right kind of intelligence... Have you considered the benefits of phrenology lately? It's all the rage in Silicon Valley. http://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/ http://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Well, he is smart, by whatever metric we judge people today. Two degrees from Stanford, job at top law firms and, at least lucky in several start ups. The fact that he is rich means that people will listen to him more.
tryingagainbro 9y ago
>>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.
- civilian 9y ago
  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 things from the person who wronged you, by force. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-syste... But the issue is maybe you're not a great fighter, or you're old. You might not be comfortable taking things from someone by force. That's okay, because medieval iceland allowed you to sell the lawsuit/conviction to another party, and allow them to collect. It resulted in a system that actually had a most valid lawsuits being pursued, because there were people willing to carry them out themselves. Kinda cool, and it feels similar to how Peter Thiel supported Hulk Hogan. And I'm pretty okay with it!
  - slowandlow 9y ago
    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.
    - tryingagainbro 9y ago
      Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.
      - slowandlow 9y ago
        So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.
        ng12 9y ago
        If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business". Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.
        slowandlow 9y ago
        Gawker got what they deserved but this sets a dangerous precedent.
        ng12 9y ago
        What precedent is that? That if you skirt the law somebody might do something about it? That having a good legal team does not give you freedom from your legal responsibilities as a media outlet?
- ng12 9y ago
  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.
- phil21 9y ago
  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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- CalChris 9y ago
  Gawker didn't out Thiel. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker-didnt-out-peter-thiel_b_10141996.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker... Being in or out is kind of like a trade secret. You have to protect the trade secret. You can't tell it to your friends who are cool and have it remain a trade secret. Nor can you be semi out. Thiel didn't like a story about him. Now if Gawker had invaded his privacy he'd have had legal recourse for that. But Gawker didn't invade his privacy and so he took his revenge elseways. And the article wasn't even critical. http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people
nsnick 9y ago
How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel will be remembered for.
- notyourday 9y ago
  s/Peter Thiel/Gawker/g; there, fixed it for you.
- civilian 9y ago
  I think you're asking a rhetorical question where the answer is in the affirmative. But I would actually like to know how much damage Peter Thiel has done to free speech. Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.
  - slg 9y ago
    >Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended. Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund a legal case for political reasons or not. Isn't that in and of itself an issue of free speech?
    - jhayward 9y ago
      > because Gawker committed a crime What criminal statute was Gawker convicted of breaking? It would behoove everyone to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. A tort is not a crime. They were found to have caused injury to the reputation of a person. That is not a crime.
      - mgiannopoulos 9y ago
        > That is not a crime. Are you saying that this is why no one went to jail over this?? :) :)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
humanexperiment 9y ago
In the spirit of fiat lux would have been interesting to rope in the recent Rstional Vaccines shenanigans.
thisisit 9y ago
This 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.
danso 9y ago
Really 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.
myth_buster 9y ago
A network graph would have been more efficient than the bulk of 5k words in the article. The article goes in depth on the first part (Thiel and Stanford Review) but doesn't go into the _how they built a silicon valley empire_ part. Main takeaway is Thiel has been politically active since his sophomore years and his involvement in the current administration is in agreement with his past. So for most people who knew Thiel, it may not have come as a surprise.
ameister14 9y ago
Was this not edited? The writing is incredibly awkward.
xrd 9y ago
It's really interesting to me that Premal Shah, the CEO of Kiva, was a part of the Stanford Review. It always seemed to me that a prime philosophy of many in Thiel's orbit was "to keep government out of the way so I have the freedom to get rich." But, (clearly?) Kiva is not a vehicle for Shah to do that. Or, maybe another one of my mistaken assumptions. A thought provoking article for me at least.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

77 points by cremno 9y ago

The intelligence to found and lead a successful startup is not the same intelligence required to distinguish thoughtful, well-considered political opinions.

WaitingForDang 9y ago
If only he had the right kind of intelligence... Have you considered the benefits of phrenology lately? It's all the rage in Silicon Valley. http://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/ http://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Well, he is smart, by whatever metric we judge people today. Two degrees from Stanford, job at top law firms and, at least lucky in several start ups. The fact that he is rich means that people will listen to him more.

tryingagainbro 9y ago

>>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.

civilian 9y ago
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 things from the person who wronged you, by force. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-syste... But the issue is maybe you're not a great fighter, or you're old. You might not be comfortable taking things from someone by force. That's okay, because medieval iceland allowed you to sell the lawsuit/conviction to another party, and allow them to collect. It resulted in a system that actually had a most valid lawsuits being pursued, because there were people willing to carry them out themselves. Kinda cool, and it feels similar to how Peter Thiel supported Hulk Hogan. And I'm pretty okay with it!
- slowandlow 9y ago
  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.
  - tryingagainbro 9y ago
    Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.
    - slowandlow 9y ago
      So Gawker exercised free speech and he was allowed to tag along in an unrelated lawsuit. That sounds like a big loophole in the system. Say what you will about these "smut peddlers" like Gawker but that is an attack on free speech. I amazed more folks in the comments aren't upset about the constitution being perverted in such a way.
      - ng12 9y ago
        If it's a loophole they created it, with a big neon sign saying "please put us out of business". Would it make you feel any better if Hogan never got his day in court because he didn't have the money? Gawker was using their warchest to avoid litigation for completely legitimate lawsuits -- no matter how you feel about Thiel they got what was coming to them.
        slowandlow 9y ago
        Gawker got what they deserved but this sets a dangerous precedent.
        ng12 9y ago
        What precedent is that? That if you skirt the law somebody might do something about it? That having a good legal team does not give you freedom from your legal responsibilities as a media outlet?
ng12 9y ago
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.
phil21 9y ago
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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
CalChris 9y ago
Gawker didn't out Thiel. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker-didnt-out-peter-thiel_b_10141996.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker... Being in or out is kind of like a trade secret. You have to protect the trade secret. You can't tell it to your friends who are cool and have it remain a trade secret. Nor can you be semi out. Thiel didn't like a story about him. Now if Gawker had invaded his privacy he'd have had legal recourse for that. But Gawker didn't invade his privacy and so he took his revenge elseways. And the article wasn't even critical. http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people

nsnick 9y ago

How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel will be remembered for.

notyourday 9y ago
s/Peter Thiel/Gawker/g; there, fixed it for you.
civilian 9y ago
I think you're asking a rhetorical question where the answer is in the affirmative. But I would actually like to know how much damage Peter Thiel has done to free speech. Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.
- slg 9y ago
  >Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended. Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund a legal case for political reasons or not. Isn't that in and of itself an issue of free speech?
  - jhayward 9y ago
    > because Gawker committed a crime What criminal statute was Gawker convicted of breaking? It would behoove everyone to understand the difference between civil and criminal law. A tort is not a crime. They were found to have caused injury to the reputation of a person. That is not a crime.
    - mgiannopoulos 9y ago
      > That is not a crime. Are you saying that this is why no one went to jail over this?? :) :)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

humanexperiment 9y ago

In the spirit of fiat lux would have been interesting to rope in the recent Rstional Vaccines shenanigans.

thisisit 9y ago

This 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.

danso 9y ago

Really 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.

myth_buster 9y ago

A network graph would have been more efficient than the bulk of 5k words in the article. The article goes in depth on the first part (Thiel and Stanford Review) but doesn't go into the _how they built a silicon valley empire_ part. Main takeaway is Thiel has been politically active since his sophomore years and his involvement in the current administration is in agreement with his past. So for most people who knew Thiel, it may not have come as a surprise.

ameister14 9y ago

Was this not edited? The writing is incredibly awkward.

xrd 9y ago

It's really interesting to me that Premal Shah, the CEO of Kiva, was a part of the Stanford Review. It always seemed to me that a prime philosophy of many in Thiel's orbit was "to keep government out of the way so I have the freedom to get rich." But, (clearly?) Kiva is not a vehicle for Shah to do that. Or, maybe another one of my mistaken assumptions. A thought provoking article for me at least.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]