14 ms·

It is interesting how much influence Peter Thiel has on the main players of social media: via Facebook as an early investor and ex-board member and via Twitter

by lalos 4y ago

It is interesting how much influence Peter Thiel has on the main players of social media: via Facebook as an early investor and ex-board member and via Twitter with his ex-coworker from Paypal days Musk. He’s very explicit in his book about the power of monopolies and now you see this consolidation of social media companies under a specific group of closed people. WSJ reported Thiel being involved with Musk on this twitter deal, that plus his recent political investments in certain figures, did he figure out that they are not getting the same bang for buck with this ban in play? Dorsey has a financial interest of this deal going through, last I heard was at least 1 billion. So he’ll start saying yes to whatever pops up to let this go through and even more incentive with the recent downturn of tech stocks that are not profitable.

natly 4y ago
I doubt Thiel is some kind of central master mind behind all this. Musk seems quite independently driven and probably found this a necessary move with only minor chats with thiel (if any). I'm not sure Thiel has any more or less influence than Sam Altman or Paul Graham.
- lalos 4y ago
  If someone makes you rich and successful with their business advice and you work with them for multiple years, would you ignore their phone call in the future and ignore their other suggestions? It’s not about being a master mind, there is soft power in play, humans are social animals.
  - melony 4y ago
    If somebody truly creates value out of thin air, then they deserve to be heard.
    - throwmeariver1 4y ago
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      I agree. This is why labor unions need to be heard!
      - melony 4y ago
        Heard yes, protected from firing? Not necessarily.
  - kjksf 4y ago
    Thiel (+ the rest of the board) fired Musk from his CEO position at PayPal. I'm pretty sure Musk would ignore any phone calls from Thiel. Furthermore, Thiel didn't make Musk rich. When PayPal was sold to eBay Musk was the single largest shareholder of PayPal, which should tell you who was the most responsible for PayPal's success.
    - lalos 4y ago
      That decision to oust him made Musk (one of the largest shareholders as you mention) rich when ebay purchased paypal under the new CEO… Peter Thiel. He effectively secured an exit for the company.
- belter 4y ago
  "Elon Musk Reacts To WSJ Report That 'Shadow Crew' Of Billionaires Including Peter Thiel Pushed Him To Buy Twitter" https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/05/26922872/elon-musk-wants-to-sell-shadow-crew-merch-to-fund-twitter-purchase-in-response-to-washington-post-re https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/05/26922872/elon-musk-wants... "A source who spoke to both men said that Musk thinks Thiel is "a sociopath," and Thiel considers Musk "a fraud."" https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-elon-musk-relationship-contrarian-book-max-chafkin-2021-9?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-elon-musk-relati...
  - telesilla 4y ago
    Wouldn't that be what is beneficial for them to say about each other, in public? I honestly don't know what to think any more about anyone who has obtained massive amounts of money.
    - belter 4y ago
      Well there can't be much love between both... ""Life is too short for long-term grudges" Elon Musk on Peter Thiel's coup to be PayPal CEO": https://nitter.net/nitashatiku/status/735273960703545344 https://nitter.net/nitashatiku/status/735273960703545344
  - lvl102 4y ago
    Not true at all. They’re on very good terms.
  - natly 4y ago
    "Reacts to" and rejects the idea. I trust Musk more than rumors spread by WSJ.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    This is a very rare occasion when I can say that both Musk and Thiel are probably right (not that it matters either way).
  - bambax 4y ago
importantmsg 4y ago
- middleclick 4y ago
  Why did you feel the need for a new account?
  - importantmsg 4y ago
    [flagged]
- ahiknsr 4y ago
  > He didn't breach any law No. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-to-use-fake-electors-conspiracy-theories-to-remain-in-power https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-t... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/in-recorded-call-trump-pressures-georgia-official-to-find-votes-to-overturn-election-idUSKBN2980MG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/in-rec...
  - dmatech 4y ago
    The first example might not be a violation of the law at all. It's deeply unethical, but it might technically be legal. The second example has many different interpretations. The most favorable one is that Trump was urging them to check everywhere to make sure no ballots were missed. Interpreting it as a direct call for ballot stuffing is also possible, but we can't assume that. Humans tend to have good-faith interpretations of everything said by people they like and bad-faith interpretations of everything said by people they hate.
  - xdennis 4y ago
    I think importantmsg is saying that he didn't use Twitter to break the law. I don't understand importantmsg's argument, but you also don't make sense. He wasn't convicted of the two things you're point to, so they're just accusations. If people should get banned for doing something illegal outside Twitter (or just being accused of doing so) then millions of people should get banned from Twitter.
importantmsg 4y ago
- dncornholio 4y ago
  Trump got banned by his own accord
- lalos 4y ago
  Opposite ideologies have value yes, I was emphasizing on consolidation of power in a select few and alluding to fake competition. Also, the fact that Dorsey is flip flopping on a decision you can ultimately pin on him can be attributed to financially driven. I’m not against or for the ban, they can do whatever they want with their property.
- dmead 4y ago
  maybe he just needed to get banned.
  - importantmsg 4y ago
- stephencanon 4y ago
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    Trump should have been banned before even running for office? Oh is that how it works now in Silicon Valley? Can we just ban all right wing politicians from twitter so they don't get elected? Sounds like democracy!
    - sureglymop 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - stephencanon 4y ago
jason-phillips 4y ago
A rather cynical take, liberally sprinkled with straw men and conjecture, served fait accompli.
wutbrodo 4y ago
You don't need any conspiracies theories to explain why Dorsey is a supporter of free speech. Dorsey has always been part of the crop of Enlightenment-liberal tech CEOs, which includes Larry, Sergey, and Zuckerberg. It got memory-holed pretty quickly, but these guys were dragged kicking and screaming into the new illiberal consensus that it was their job to decide what users are allowed to talk about. At a certain point, they bowed to the emerging illiberal consensus, for fear of both political and employee-revolt consequences. It is business, after all. (I was at Google for the first half of the last decade, and it was eerie to see the employee culture slowly get colonized by the culty illiberal-left perspective) Culture is weird, and can shift dramatically between equilibria. Now that the conversation has shifted, a lot of these figures feel like they have cover to start expressing their beliefs again without those who disagree being able to gin up any financial consequences.
- tomlin 4y ago
  This take should be framed and pinned to the top. Of all the hinged/unhinged comments, this one tries hard to be principled in fact. It's getting tiring hearing about how this heir to an emerald mine was going to enslave us all.
- throwawaymanbot 4y ago
- lalos 4y ago
  Just as Dorsey was influenced by that abstract force you mention as 'illiberal consensus' because of fear of different factors (political, employee/stakeholders, financial consequences). Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to. It was beneficial to be for the ban before, and now it is beneficial to be against it. Dorsey was the CEO. It is business, after all. Sounds like your argument (or conspiracy theories) and mine aren't that different. Just to be explicit for all the rabid fans, I'm not against Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg or any other tech CEO. On the contrary, they have so much impact and are involved in multiple projects in so little time. I'm not proposing any conspiracy of them wanting to control us or whatever straw-man argument others are injecting on my comment. It's interesting to see this deal unfold from a business perspective with all the different stakeholders involved, and the flip-flopping of Dorsey's decisions.

by lalos 4y ago

natly 4y ago

I doubt Thiel is some kind of central master mind behind all this. Musk seems quite independently driven and probably found this a necessary move with only minor chats with thiel (if any). I'm not sure Thiel has any more or less influence than Sam Altman or Paul Graham.

lalos 4y ago
If someone makes you rich and successful with their business advice and you work with them for multiple years, would you ignore their phone call in the future and ignore their other suggestions? It’s not about being a master mind, there is soft power in play, humans are social animals.
- melony 4y ago
  If somebody truly creates value out of thin air, then they deserve to be heard.
  - throwmeariver1 4y ago
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    I agree. This is why labor unions need to be heard!
    - melony 4y ago
      Heard yes, protected from firing? Not necessarily.
- kjksf 4y ago
  Thiel (+ the rest of the board) fired Musk from his CEO position at PayPal. I'm pretty sure Musk would ignore any phone calls from Thiel. Furthermore, Thiel didn't make Musk rich. When PayPal was sold to eBay Musk was the single largest shareholder of PayPal, which should tell you who was the most responsible for PayPal's success.
  - lalos 4y ago
    That decision to oust him made Musk (one of the largest shareholders as you mention) rich when ebay purchased paypal under the new CEO… Peter Thiel. He effectively secured an exit for the company.
belter 4y ago
"Elon Musk Reacts To WSJ Report That 'Shadow Crew' Of Billionaires Including Peter Thiel Pushed Him To Buy Twitter" https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/05/26922872/elon-musk-wants-to-sell-shadow-crew-merch-to-fund-twitter-purchase-in-response-to-washington-post-re https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/05/26922872/elon-musk-wants... "A source who spoke to both men said that Musk thinks Thiel is "a sociopath," and Thiel considers Musk "a fraud."" https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-elon-musk-relationship-contrarian-book-max-chafkin-2021-9?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-elon-musk-relati...
- telesilla 4y ago
  Wouldn't that be what is beneficial for them to say about each other, in public? I honestly don't know what to think any more about anyone who has obtained massive amounts of money.
  - belter 4y ago
    Well there can't be much love between both... ""Life is too short for long-term grudges" Elon Musk on Peter Thiel's coup to be PayPal CEO": https://nitter.net/nitashatiku/status/735273960703545344 https://nitter.net/nitashatiku/status/735273960703545344
- lvl102 4y ago
  Not true at all. They’re on very good terms.
- natly 4y ago
  "Reacts to" and rejects the idea. I trust Musk more than rumors spread by WSJ.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  This is a very rare occasion when I can say that both Musk and Thiel are probably right (not that it matters either way).
- bambax 4y ago

importantmsg 4y ago

middleclick 4y ago
Why did you feel the need for a new account?
- importantmsg 4y ago
  [flagged]
ahiknsr 4y ago
> He didn't breach any law No. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-to-use-fake-electors-conspiracy-theories-to-remain-in-power https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-t... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/in-recorded-call-trump-pressures-georgia-official-to-find-votes-to-overturn-election-idUSKBN2980MG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/in-rec...
- dmatech 4y ago
  The first example might not be a violation of the law at all. It's deeply unethical, but it might technically be legal. The second example has many different interpretations. The most favorable one is that Trump was urging them to check everywhere to make sure no ballots were missed. Interpreting it as a direct call for ballot stuffing is also possible, but we can't assume that. Humans tend to have good-faith interpretations of everything said by people they like and bad-faith interpretations of everything said by people they hate.
- xdennis 4y ago
  I think importantmsg is saying that he didn't use Twitter to break the law. I don't understand importantmsg's argument, but you also don't make sense. He wasn't convicted of the two things you're point to, so they're just accusations. If people should get banned for doing something illegal outside Twitter (or just being accused of doing so) then millions of people should get banned from Twitter.

importantmsg 4y ago

dncornholio 4y ago
Trump got banned by his own accord
lalos 4y ago
Opposite ideologies have value yes, I was emphasizing on consolidation of power in a select few and alluding to fake competition. Also, the fact that Dorsey is flip flopping on a decision you can ultimately pin on him can be attributed to financially driven. I’m not against or for the ban, they can do whatever they want with their property.
dmead 4y ago
maybe he just needed to get banned.
- importantmsg 4y ago
stephencanon 4y ago
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  Trump should have been banned before even running for office? Oh is that how it works now in Silicon Valley? Can we just ban all right wing politicians from twitter so they don't get elected? Sounds like democracy!
  - sureglymop 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - stephencanon 4y ago

jason-phillips 4y ago

A rather cynical take, liberally sprinkled with straw men and conjecture, served fait accompli.

wutbrodo 4y ago

You don't need any conspiracies theories to explain why Dorsey is a supporter of free speech. Dorsey has always been part of the crop of Enlightenment-liberal tech CEOs, which includes Larry, Sergey, and Zuckerberg. It got memory-holed pretty quickly, but these guys were dragged kicking and screaming into the new illiberal consensus that it was their job to decide what users are allowed to talk about. At a certain point, they bowed to the emerging illiberal consensus, for fear of both political and employee-revolt consequences. It is business, after all. (I was at Google for the first half of the last decade, and it was eerie to see the employee culture slowly get colonized by the culty illiberal-left perspective) Culture is weird, and can shift dramatically between equilibria. Now that the conversation has shifted, a lot of these figures feel like they have cover to start expressing their beliefs again without those who disagree being able to gin up any financial consequences.

tomlin 4y ago
This take should be framed and pinned to the top. Of all the hinged/unhinged comments, this one tries hard to be principled in fact. It's getting tiring hearing about how this heir to an emerald mine was going to enslave us all.
throwawaymanbot 4y ago
lalos 4y ago
Just as Dorsey was influenced by that abstract force you mention as 'illiberal consensus' because of fear of different factors (political, employee/stakeholders, financial consequences). Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to. It was beneficial to be for the ban before, and now it is beneficial to be against it. Dorsey was the CEO. It is business, after all. Sounds like your argument (or conspiracy theories) and mine aren't that different. Just to be explicit for all the rabid fans, I'm not against Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg or any other tech CEO. On the contrary, they have so much impact and are involved in multiple projects in so little time. I'm not proposing any conspiracy of them wanting to control us or whatever straw-man argument others are injecting on my comment. It's interesting to see this deal unfold from a business perspective with all the different stakeholders involved, and the flip-flopping of Dorsey's decisions.