5 ms·

> a secretive artificial intelligence outfit founded by a Trump-backing billionaire I'm in no way a Trump-fan, but sentences like the above immediately puts me

> a secretive artificial intelligence outfit founded by a Trump-backing billionaire I'm in no way a Trump-fan, but sentences like the above immediately puts me into the opinion that this article is going to be one-sided - and hence I stopped reading. I don't read www.opendemocracy.net (first time I've encountered it), so perhaps that's there thing?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Especially since it’s a half-truth. They’re referring to Peter Thiel, but the co-founder and 16 year CEO Alex Karp is a Trump opponent.
- jhowell 6y ago
  Opponent of the person, but not the policies. For those at either ends of the spectrum the difference is inconsequential.
jhowell 6y ago
I think they are referring to Peter Thiel. Thiel gave a speech at the 2016 RNC in support of their nominee, Donald Trump. At the time through the present, Thiel continues to have a net worth in excess of $1 billion. Is it the adjective secretive that turned you away?
- slovette 6y ago
  No... come on, I think it’s obvious what they should have said: “billionaire investor Peter Thiel.” The man has an identity outside just being a “Trump backer”. Using that descriptor specifically chooses a minor, politically motivated detail about someone and concludes to the rightful reaction of turning away. Choosing to write a “news” article while also choosing descriptors like that make this an opinion piece, not a news article. I think it’s what is fundamentally wrong with most of the Information passed around today; you can’t escape the opinions buried neatly inside EVERY article, desperately persuading you to think and feel a certain way. Everything’s hostile these days, just constantly attacking your mindset.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > minor, politically motivated detail Describing it as this is also editorial. You just want them to follow your editorial line instead of their own.
    - Felony_Fred 6y ago
      My understanding is that the parent comment isn't trying to pose as a 'news article' and therefore is not implicitly accepting to adhere to vanishing standards of integrity and delivery of the information. A HN user / comment can be as biased and editorialized as they like, the same shouldn't be true for ' traditional media outlets ' whatever that means. As far as I'm concerned, it is objectively true that this is a minor, politically motivated detail although it is still relevant information. They could have mentioned that somewhere in the article without appending it as a prefix / title to his name. That's rather disingenuous. It's not his main defining characteristic. That being said, I believe one should not necessarily turn away from what they perceive to be propaganda of one kind or another, but rather view it as such and analyse it, although this can be irritating at times. FWIW, Thiel has also backed 48+ other political candidates over the years, maybe we should add all of that to his name ? ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Support_for_political_candidates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Support_for_politi...
      - slovette 6y ago
        Exactly. Barring the fact that I don't expect to get journalistic integrity from a source such as "opendemocracy.net", I wanted to still highlight the irresponsibility in describing an individual like Thiel in such a specific way.
    - slovette 6y ago
      I see how you could form this point, but I also strongly disagree. A quick Google on Thiel reveals he's 53 years old and has led a life FULL of detail that dwarfs his political choices in the last 4 years. One could write very thick books on this individuals life (and it looks like they already have in some context). Using the descriptor of 'Trump Backer' is deliberately prioritizing one single personal choice the subject individual made in a time representing roughly <7% of his total existence. I don't think it's editorial to say it's politically motivated at all. If you simply remove the specific subject matter of the descriptor used and instead, rely on its representation of the overall individual, its statistical irrelevance to the whole easily identifies its gross misuse as title descriptor of that individual. I would go as far to say, that not only is it not editorial to arrive to such a conclusion, I think it hard-pressed to not describe it as a factual occurrence.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  Trump isn't British, what has Thiel's support of him in an NHS deal got to do with anything? It's the sort of pathetic "supports Trump - must be a bad guy" association that is the hallmark of bad and biased journalism. If you really struggled to see that and weren't being disingenuous you should clarify how it's relevant.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Especially since it’s a half-truth. They’re referring to Peter Thiel, but the co-founder and 16 year CEO Alex Karp is a Trump opponent.

jhowell 6y ago
Opponent of the person, but not the policies. For those at either ends of the spectrum the difference is inconsequential.

jhowell 6y ago

I think they are referring to Peter Thiel. Thiel gave a speech at the 2016 RNC in support of their nominee, Donald Trump. At the time through the present, Thiel continues to have a net worth in excess of $1 billion. Is it the adjective secretive that turned you away?

slovette 6y ago
No... come on, I think it’s obvious what they should have said: “billionaire investor Peter Thiel.” The man has an identity outside just being a “Trump backer”. Using that descriptor specifically chooses a minor, politically motivated detail about someone and concludes to the rightful reaction of turning away. Choosing to write a “news” article while also choosing descriptors like that make this an opinion piece, not a news article. I think it’s what is fundamentally wrong with most of the Information passed around today; you can’t escape the opinions buried neatly inside EVERY article, desperately persuading you to think and feel a certain way. Everything’s hostile these days, just constantly attacking your mindset.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > minor, politically motivated detail Describing it as this is also editorial. You just want them to follow your editorial line instead of their own.
  - Felony_Fred 6y ago
    My understanding is that the parent comment isn't trying to pose as a 'news article' and therefore is not implicitly accepting to adhere to vanishing standards of integrity and delivery of the information. A HN user / comment can be as biased and editorialized as they like, the same shouldn't be true for ' traditional media outlets ' whatever that means. As far as I'm concerned, it is objectively true that this is a minor, politically motivated detail although it is still relevant information. They could have mentioned that somewhere in the article without appending it as a prefix / title to his name. That's rather disingenuous. It's not his main defining characteristic. That being said, I believe one should not necessarily turn away from what they perceive to be propaganda of one kind or another, but rather view it as such and analyse it, although this can be irritating at times. FWIW, Thiel has also backed 48+ other political candidates over the years, maybe we should add all of that to his name ? ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Support_for_political_candidates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Support_for_politi...
    - slovette 6y ago
      Exactly. Barring the fact that I don't expect to get journalistic integrity from a source such as "opendemocracy.net", I wanted to still highlight the irresponsibility in describing an individual like Thiel in such a specific way.
  - slovette 6y ago
    I see how you could form this point, but I also strongly disagree. A quick Google on Thiel reveals he's 53 years old and has led a life FULL of detail that dwarfs his political choices in the last 4 years. One could write very thick books on this individuals life (and it looks like they already have in some context). Using the descriptor of 'Trump Backer' is deliberately prioritizing one single personal choice the subject individual made in a time representing roughly <7% of his total existence. I don't think it's editorial to say it's politically motivated at all. If you simply remove the specific subject matter of the descriptor used and instead, rely on its representation of the overall individual, its statistical irrelevance to the whole easily identifies its gross misuse as title descriptor of that individual. I would go as far to say, that not only is it not editorial to arrive to such a conclusion, I think it hard-pressed to not describe it as a factual occurrence.
mellosouls 6y ago
Trump isn't British, what has Thiel's support of him in an NHS deal got to do with anything? It's the sort of pathetic "supports Trump - must be a bad guy" association that is the hallmark of bad and biased journalism. If you really struggled to see that and weren't being disingenuous you should clarify how it's relevant.