5 ms·
Maybe slightly off topic to the article, but I don't really care what Peter Thiel has to say. I do think we need to collectively think about how to not give the
by jmathai 10mo ago
Maybe slightly off topic to the article, but I don't really care what Peter Thiel has to say. I do think we need to collectively think about how to not give these people a microphone. It's one thing to have concentrated wealth. It's a very different thing to have concentrated wealth and people's attention. I think that's a much more interesting discussion :).
- lm28469 10mo agoOn the contrary, people should talk about these parasites more so we can get rid of them, they thrive in the shadows
- bananapub 10mo agoyou should care, he and his fellow nutters have siezed control of the USA and most tech-mega-corp leadership either agree with them or will go along with them.
- throw310822 10mo agoThis is the article's second sentence: "Thiel’s lurid, apocalyptic view of world politics may be ludicrous or even deranged, but his wealth and power mean that we can’t afford to ignore it."
- fastball 10mo agoPower might be hard to ignore, but wealth you literally just can.
- subw00f 10mo agoWealth is power
- fastball 10mo agoThen surely GC would've only needed to say "power"?
- dpark 10mo agoIt’s naive to believe these are not connected. Wealth buys power.
- palmotea 10mo ago> It’s naive to believe these are not connected. Wealth buys power. Raw power > wealth (see Putin, Vladimir: he doesn't need wealth or even to "own" anything, his raw power gets him everything wealth can buy and more). But for weaker people who aren't so powerful to control the system itself, wealth can get you a lot of power within that system.
- fastball 10mo agoThey are not intrinsically connected. Not everyone who is wealthy is powerful, not everyone who is powerful is wealthy.
- b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago"lemme just jump in this swimming pool while ignoring the water"
- SimianSci 10mo agoWealth is allowing people to buy consent for their worldviews these days. this is an incredibly naiive take.
- IncreasePosts 10mo agoHow does one buy consent for a worldview? Buying and selling require two parties - the party who is selling their viewpoint to the highest bidder isn't blameless.
- lenkite 10mo agoThe party who accepts the bid generally wins the election.
- relaxing 10mo agoTraditionally, through personal networks in media and industry — placing talking heads and op-ed’s and editorial direction to repeat your message. More recently, purchasing a social network and then flooding it with your worldview.
- strictlymomo 10mo agoWhen you say “these days,” you mean the past 10,000 years, right? Power based on consent likely existed throughout the Holocene: “Big men” with their gift-giving and elaborate feasts, chiefdoms comprised of aristocratic lineages… the gameplan has always been to collect favors by promising future returns, religious blessings, and the like. You can see the parallels to present-day VC. These pre-historic admin dudes emerged alongside the steepening wealth inequality gradients and population growths of agrarian societies. Comforting to know their influence is limited and precarious, as the social following can always fragment. This is what anthropologists call segmentary structures. More interesting, if severely depressing, is the theory that power based on consent is arguably the precondition for scaling social cohesion beyond kin and villages to cities and civilizations, thereby serving as the foundation for more durable power structures.
- fastball 10mo agoIf you have bought consent, you have power.
- flag_fagger 10mo agoThey’re roughly proxies for each other. But I think land is a much more fundamental source of power. Makes sense that a lot of these types have started to invest in defense fortresses and opine about building new cities.
- forgetfreeman 10mo agoThat's a dangerously myopic take in a political landscape where money == speech and speech == influence.
- BugsJustFindMe 10mo agoIt's weird to not understand that wealth buys power.
- lenkite 10mo agoHow does a politician or his opponent ignore millions of dollars donated to political campaigns ?
- epgui 10mo agoPresumably the commenter read the article and is expressing his disagreement with the article’s second sentence.
- bigbadfeline 10mo ago> Presumably the commenter read the article and is expressing his disagreement with the article’s second sentence. The comment in question didn't make a point, it provided only this unsupported opinion that happens to be flatly wrong: "It's a very different thing to have concentrated wealth and people's attention." In fact, good buddies Thiel and Musk came from S Africa sharing similar librarian attitudes and both worked hard at circumventing the banking regulations while being part of the "PayPal mafia". They are both very keen on remodeling the government around the libertarian idea of uncountable corporate power. “They went from scrappy guys dodging government regulation to now they are the government, in a generation” said Steve Blank... an adjunct professor of management science [1] That cannot be done without using concentrated wealth to conquer people's attention. Sure enough, Musk proceeded to acquire Twitter at a great cost and to proclaim his idea of corporate control of speech through control of attention reach: "Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach" [2] [1] https://www.seattletimes.com/business/how-musk-thiel-and-sacks-took-silicon-valley-to-the-white-house/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/how-musk-thiel-and-sac... [2] https://www.chiefmarketer.com/twitters-musk-touts-new-freedom-of-speech-not-freedom-of-reach-moderation-policy/ https://www.chiefmarketer.com/twitters-musk-touts-new-freedo...
- esseph 10mo agoLibrarians, what will they do next?!? (Typo ;)
- bigbadfeline 10mo agoyes, typo, should read "libertarians" Thanks
- donchuru 10mo agoYes we can actually. I think it has something to do with Silicon Valley's obsession with money. To SV-people, billionaires are like gods. They are worshipped and invited to all the events worth going to (meetups, hackathons, etc.). Everyone wants to be like them. And it seems to me to be a geographical problem too. In NYC, billionaires are like supervillains. Nobody particularly likes them (outside of select finance bros), and people openly express disdain for them and their greed.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- entropicdrifter 10mo agoIt's also a governmental problem. Remember that Vance is functionally owned by Thiel, who also backed Trump's campaign. So, the issue is really just that he has far too much power, as an individual
- dpark 10mo ago> In NYC, billionaires are like supervillains. This is absurd to the point of being cartoonish. No one treats billionaires like supervillains. How many billionaires are in supermax prisons right now in New York? > Nobody particularly likes them This is not relevant, regardless of whether it’s true. A ton of people hate Thiel and Trump. Disliking a billionaire doesn’t take away their power.
- baseballdork 10mo ago> This is absurd to the point of being cartoonish. No one treats billionaires like supervillains. How many billionaires are in supermax prisons right now in New York? "Supervillains" are comic book entities who are rarely in prison
- dpark 10mo agoBecause they escape or cannot be captured. Not because there’s no will to lock them up. But this is really not my point. Billionaires == Supervillains is not a commonly held view outside some echo chambers.
- palmotea 10mo agoThis exactly. There are different kind of attention. We shouldn't pay attention to the billionaires in a submissive follower mode; or in a "let them set the agenda" mode; but in a wary, defensive mode (ready to oppose or try to get out of the way).
- Mistletoe 10mo agoUnfortunately he and people like him own the microphone, the PA system, the stadium… Voting is the only power we have but the voting booths are at the stadium.
- shevy-java 10mo agoI agree on the first part - I could not care any less about those insane superrich. But they use their money to influence people - this part is dangerous and must be stopped.
- philipallstar 10mo agoYou mostly hear about their views from contrarian articles warning of the dangers of their views.
- seattle_spring 10mo agoHighlighting the lunacy coming from Thiel, Andreesen, Yarvin, Vance, Musk, etc is not being "contrarian."
- dpark 10mo agoWhat does this even mean? Are you trying to imply that the only problem with Thiel’s apocalyptic beliefs is that people are writing articles about them?
- advisedwang 10mo agoa) that is partly bubble. There are others, in other political and social circles, that do hear from him directly. b) regardless of who hears about Thiel's philosophy, it still has impact. He funds political candidates, companies, think tanks etc and directly affect the world.
- rsynnott 10mo agoThe trouble is, he isn't just a crazy uncle. He's a crazy uncle with significant political power.
- sfpotter 10mo agoThe issue is that having concentrated wealth and having concentrated people's attention are not separate things.
- cbb330 10mo agoSorry, but that take is complete garbage. Wanting to “collectively figure out how to take away the microphone” from rich people you dislike isn’t a brave stance against inequality, it’s straight-up authoritarian censorship based on net worth. In a free society, people choose who gets attention. If you don’t like Thiel, out-argue him or ignore him, but don’t fantasize about silencing citizens because they’re successful. And honestly, Thiel’s worldview has real strengths: he’s been early and right on remote work, the stagnation of atom-based industries, the broken incentives in higher education, the dangers of bureaucratic overreach, and the need for bold technological breakthroughs instead of endless regulation. PayPal, Palantir, SpaceX (as an early investor), and backing young founders through the Thiel Fellowship have created massive value and progress. Dismissing all that because he’s rich and contrarian is lazy.
- galleywest200 10mo ago> If you don’t like Thiel, out-argue him or ignore him Kind of hard to do this when he has so much money to buy influence anywhere. An example is how the current vice president of the United States is a protege of the guy.
- cbb330 10mo agoYeah sure, Thiel’s money helped put his protégé Vance in the VP chair, he has real influence, no denying it. But scroll this comment section for any critique of Thiel and you’ll see the pattern: his wealth gets attacked, his actual ideas almost never do. Take the “Antichrist Thesis” everyone mocks. It’s Rene Girard-speak for centralized, charismatic authoritarianism that weaponizes morality and scapegoating to grab power. Think Sam Altman preaching about AGI danger while lobbying the gov for openai prioritizing and startup stifling policies. Fed government using big tech censorship for preventing hate speech. He’s been dead-on about that danger for decades.
- BugsJustFindMe 10mo ago> his wealth gets attacked, his actual ideas almost never do This is false. His ideas get attacked plenty because it's clear that his ideas are destructive to society. But there are only so many times one can have the "holy shit his ideas are destructive to society" conversation without talking about how the only reason his destructive ideas are front and center is because of his money.
- ryandvm 10mo agoOn the other hand, nothing is quite as liberating as finding out that being batshit insane doesn't automatically disqualify you from tremendous economic success.
- yoyohello13 10mo agoI find it kind of terrifying, since the US culture tightly couples economic success with moral superiority.
- antisthenes 10mo ago> finding out that being batshit insane doesn't automatically disqualify you from tremendous economic success Nothing really disqualifies you from tremendous economic success because inheritance exists.
- fabian2k 10mo agoHis power is not in his public speech, but in his money, connections and private speech. I think overall it's probably more useful to expose just how insane his views are, even if that publicizes them more broadly.
- next_xibalba 10mo agoHaving listened to a fair amount of Thiel, he tends to be very, very mischaracterized. He relies on metaphor and allegory to describe the world, and is very philosophical and analytical–all of which opens the door to broad interpretation. For instance, his use of the phrase "Antichrist" has been wildly (and deliberately, IMO) misinterpreted by the commentariat and intelligentsia that dominate our sense making institutions. I'm not suggesting anyone should agree with everything (or anything!) he says, but I think the dismissal of him is to one's own detriment as much of it is very interesting and thoughtful.
- JohnFen 10mo agoMy problem with Thiel is that he's actively working to make the world a horrible place for anybody who isn't in his circle, and has the wealth needed to make inroads towards that end. I am not interested in listening to someone whose philosophy leads him to such behavior.
- next_xibalba 10mo ago> he's actively working to make the world a horrible place for anybody who isn't in his circle Can you be more specific? I see similar claims thrown about him, but they don’t really hold up to scrutiny and often o. The basis of straw men claims.
- Hikikomori 10mo agoHe believes that democracy has run its course (did so in the 2008 crash as well) and believes in the ideas of Curtis Yarvin that think that tech CEOs should reign as feudal lords over small fiefdoms that he calls network states. Essentially the plan is to break the federal government and buy up its assets for pennies on the dollar. If this sounds bad for most people is up to you I guess.
- next_xibalba 10mo agoDo you have any legitimate quotes or clips of him saying or writing any of these things? Not you or someone else paraphrasing, but actual, verbatim quotes. Bc as I have said, I've read and watched quite a bit of Thiel and none of this rings true.
- danans 10mo ago> It's one thing to have concentrated wealth. It's a very different thing to have concentrated wealth and people's attention. Because of human nature, the two are inseparable, and influence over people's attention is power, especially when those people hold seats of power. The question is about what perspective society takes towards wealth/power concentration at any given time, and that usually ends up correlated with how the non-wealthy and non-powerful are feeling.
- JKCalhoun 10mo agoBuying elections, politicians, doesn't require a microphone.
- giancarlostoro 10mo ago> I do think we need to collectively think about how to not give these people a microphone. I've said this about celebrities for two decades now. Most people don't care though; they love the gossip, I guess.
- jancsika 10mo agoThe name of the draft document escapes me but there's burgeoning work on this. (IETF?) IIRC it covers things like how to maintain proper oxygen levels and sustenance while still blocking frequencies in the human audible range with the sand around one's head.
- mushufasa 10mo agoFundamentally money can buy a microphone (including literally). That said, buying airtime/ads does is not sufficient to create traction with your ideas. I have worked at plenty of foundations that spend a lot of money to "raise awareness" on various issues, which ultimately goes nowhere. IMHO the zany, outlandish claims by Thiel, are gaining attention because of their inherent shock-value. I sent a text to my girlfriend last week, incredulous that Thiel was reported to claim the Pope is now an antichrist (¡). Definitely not because I agreed with that claim. I think the root issue here is deep to human nature -- heightened awareness of danger, that adrenaline amygdala response. Social media helps these messages spread, but news publishers have been putting train wrecks on the front page since the 1800s. A growing handful of savvy operators, Thiel included, have learned how to manipulate this primal instinct to garner fame and influence. I'm not sure how to change human nature. I do think that education about these tactics helps -- the magic trick is not as impressive when you know how it is done. I find the premise of projects like Ground News -- trying to de-bias media -- really compelling. That said, a de-biasing site isn't much help if people don't read it. Infamously, people's politically-melded worldviews are increasingly divorced for reality -- there's a famous example of people in surveys saying they "hated Obamacare" but "loved and relied on the Affordable Care Act" (for international readers: those are the exact same thing, which a simple google search would reveal).
- _DeadFred_ 10mo agoJoe Rogan, now's mainstream media, humble brags about hanging with Thiel on show. Thiel very much plays the game in your second sentence, he's just smart about it. Thiel is gaining attention because he's put in the work, for a long time. Not because of shock value. And he's leveraging his soft power/contacts/PR sources/exposing his power level/drawing on what he built pretty hard now. Why?
- red-iron-pine 10mo agobecause his blood-bag is currently the VP and he's angling for him to take over if/when Trump is declared unfit or just dies he's exploring these esoteric tasks 1) cuz he wants to, and 2) because he knows they'll sell with the right demographics
- MangoToupe 10mo agoHaving peoples’ attention strikes me as not very interesting when you can just buy a newspaper (or the opinions therein) and have it anyway. Thiel is courting Christian nutjobs whether or not you pay attention to it. I’m personally not gonna stick my head in the sand.
- myth_drannon 10mo agoWhere to draw the line? Only the right-wing billionaires? What about other more left-wing like Soros. And what about the influencers with millions of followers (recent Qatari influence campaign comes to mind)? What about Hollywood (again Qataris and their influence campaign, if you notice how some famous actors started to speak on certain topics)
- moogly 10mo agoDo you think you're being subtle? Anyway, Israel's genocide is pretty irrelevant to this subthread.
- myth_drannon 10mo agoDarn, can't hide anything from the "but it's a genocide squad", eh?
- bigyabai 10mo agoNot since AIPAC paid-off American politicians to look the other way, no. That is a grave miscarriage of justice, and will be scrutinized until the Third Temple is returned to rubble. Alas, it's what Likud wants and we can't let their bloodlust frame America's future.
- duxup 10mo agoI agree about handing the wrong people a microphone, but people are handing it to him and he has money so it potentally matters, even if I think it should not.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 10mo agoWhat matters most is what people with extreme wealth do with that wealth because the power means those actions can affect many many people. Listening to them can help you predict what those actions may be, either because they say outright what they are planning, or because the tone of their rants can indicate a mindset that would lead to some actions being much more probable than others. I hate having to listen to rich people. To me its as bad as having to listen to politicians, but these people affect my life (whether I like it or not) so I have to listen to know what's coming.
- sifar 10mo agoYou and the article's position about not ignoring his views are both right. One cannot ignore his views (for the reasons stated) and yet there needs to be a feedback loop to limit the spread of their views using their wealth and influence.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 10mo ago"The notion that because one is rich one must be smart, however fallacious, is deeply embedded: People can equate piles of money - or the promise of it - with good sense, wisdom, and savoir faire," she wrote." (2000) The writer who dared criticize Silicon Valley https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46107890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46107890
- sennalen 10mo agoIt would be nice to be able to ignore Peter Thiel's opinions, but that's not a luxury we can afford while he's buying federal law enforcement politicians up to and including the vice president to help implement his crazy.