The balls on this guy. The sheer cynical audacity of trying to market yourself as a "defender of privacy" when you serve on the board of a company so antithetical to privacy that they're under federal supervision for twenty years [1] is breathtaking. Please tell me no one on Hacker News is dumb enough to fall for this.
My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned some breathless, excited editorial about "the future of media", and at one point he talked about the editorial/advertising firewall as a relic that needed to be abandoned. It was so slickly inserted that you could almost forget what he was really saying: that news desks need to be prevented from reporting things that companies rather they didn't.
Every time a VC tries to tell me "what's wrong with the media", I reach for my gun. Everyone: they're not your friends. They're not trying to help you. Their overriding concern is nurturing the value of their investments, and that sometimes means silencing people who report inconvenient truths.
Unless you have something specific to say regarding Peter Thiel's specific contribution to Facebook's current or past stance on privacy, I think you are being far too alarmist with an entirely unsupported position.
For example, it's entirely possible that Peter Thiel is part of a losing faction of the board that values more privacy, and has actually been a force for the better with regard to privacy at Facebook? Is that likely? I have no idea, but it's supported by just as much evidence as you put forth.
Keep in mind, by the logic you've used so far, if we ignore the voting history of congress, then every congressperson must obviously have been in favor of invading Iraq, since that's what the US did.
Note: If you take this as a defense of Peter Thiel you've entirely missed the point. I have no evidence as to how Peter Thiel truly feels about privacy in general, and more importantly that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Here's Andreessen on the future of the news business [1]. The part you are specifically pointing out in your comment is thus:
"One start would be to tear down, or at least modify the “Chinese wall” between content and the business side. No other non-monopoly industry lets product creators off the hook on how the business works."
My take on Thiel is that he sees himself trying to help navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. On one side, I think he agrees that too much surveillance and data gathering is a problem. He calls himself a libertarian, after all. He just sees the other side as being just as much of a problem, as in this quote (mostly relating to his involvement in Palantir):
"As a libertarian, I don't think we should have had the response [to 9/11] we did to those buildings blowing up. But all the mass movements, all the consciousness-raising in the world did not stop us from getting the Patriot Act. The ACLU is always good at talking about civil rights, but [despite that] once something happens, protections go out the window right way. I think there's something to be said for trying to figure out some ways to stop another attack which will be used to curtail civil liberties even more. A company like Paypal could not get started in the post-PatriotAct world, because we would be accused of money laundering [based on how we operated] in '98-'99..." (from a discussion with David Graeber hosted by The Baffler, Fall 2014)
Even ignoring the differences between the privacy issues of Gawker vs Facebook, the decisions a company makes are influenced by more than just one person, and nothing posted here says anything of Peter Thiel's views on privacy with respect to Facebook.
I see nothing wrong with a man who feels remorse for assisting in the stripping of online privacy owning up to his mistakes.
"As an internet entrepreneur myself, I feel partly responsible for a world in which private information can be instantly broadcast to the whole planet."
This article is as much an apology as it is a call to turn things around fix things
I don't particularly disagree with anything you said but even a privacy intruding clock can be right twice a day. The article is merely a pretty conventional discussion of the public interest vs what the public is interested in and what we should expect from journalism. Everything he says is pretty darn standard stuff which has been written a thousand times before, VC or no VC.
Pah, if facebook is under federal supervision, it's probably ultimately because they weren't friendly enough to government. That Thiel is on its board isn't in itself especially damning of him.
Far worse, then, that he founded surveillance industry contractor Palantir.
Thiel "acknowledges" this, though. That puts in him in the same boat as Soros, who is also good at "acknowledging" the paradoxes of his position even as he instructs governments, in private, exactly which people they should send out to handle a particular situation.
Intercept is billionaire-funded, too - and Greenwald has written at length about "what's wrong with the media" - most of which I agree with, by the way. We won't get away from the billionaires and their meddling. The best we can hope for is that they're stronger when they're right than when they're wrong.
That posting people's private sex tapes is not OK, is one of the ways Thiel is right.
It's bad in many ways he doesn't elucidate. For instance, in a world where your last shreds of privacy can be obliterated by Gawker or Buzzfeed the moment you catch public attention, there will be some winners, and some losers.
Women, on the whole, will lose, because it seems fewer women are willing to sacrifice privacy for power. Gays will lose slightly, because they have more to lose from catching public attention (not so true in the US anymore, fortunately, but still very true in many countries).
Who are the winners?
First, those who can pay an army of publicity experts, and have had it for years to keep an iron grip on their public perception, so that all embarrassments and scandals (real and manufactured) can be managed most efficiently. And, who have very few ambitions or opinions not conductive to seeking power. In short career politicians.
The second type is people who just have no sense of shame, whose egos are so big they can just shrug it all off. Reality TV stars, or something.
The firewall is a relic of a lucrative business model that imploded. What news desks can and cannot do anymore is a matter of exigency, not the politics of aspiring plutocrats.
I'm having trouble reconciling the following two quotes
> I am proud to have contributed financial support to his case. I will support him until his final victory — Gawker said it intends to appeal — and I would gladly support someone else in the same position.
> A free press is vital for public debate. Since sensitive information can sometimes be publicly relevant, exercising judgment is always part of the journalist’s profession. It’s not for me to draw the line
So this makes me think that, if Peter Thiel considers a journalist's particular article morally wrong, he will help the supposed victim to sue them. In the case of Gawker it's hard to say Gawker was innocent but at the same time what if the next case is something more grey? Peter says he wants a free press but it sounds more to me like he wants a free press by his own judgement.
I'm not a fan of Gawker at all but having a billionaire bankroll lawsuits against publications when his opinion is that they're doing something morally wrong...worries me that it'll stifle.
But what about when Gawker(or other media) can afford lawyers but people legitimately harmed by Gawker cannot? I am not sure why Peter Thiel is being made out to be the bad guy here because he is a billionaire. The courts decided where the line was and Terry Bollea was awarded. What he did was charitable. I don't think those quotes are inconsistent.
Gawker pissed off Thiel by doing their standard trashy tabloid garbage and invading his personal life.
He took the opportunity to get even when they went too far with someone else. Good for him. He's not taking part to cover up anything, or for revenge because they exposed some wrongdoing on his part. He's doing it because Gawker is a trashy worthless site.
As far as he being the investor in Facebook which uses your data to advertise to you - You actually agree to Facebook's terms when you sign up for it! In case of Gawker, it was someone who was feeding on destroying the private life of people in order to sell ads.
* Whether this sets a precedent or not - That is another question and can be resolved in future. That does not mean we should support a publication which is just gossiping about the private life of a person.
Except that the incident was found to be newsworthy and not illegal in two previous cases, once in federal court and another attempt in Florida state court [1].
Shopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality."
Implying that objections to Trump's narcissism and probable sociopathy amount to "culture war" is a staggering re-framing of reality. That combined with the gay-conservative-Christian thing suggest that the amount of cognitive dissonance Thiel can endure must truly be Olympic calibre.
Implying that objections to Trump's narcissism and probable sociopathy amount to "culture war" is a staggering re-framing of reality.
How about this? The degree of disconnect between the lower middle-class and below versus the upper middle class and ruling economic elites in the US has become a rift large enough to drive a semi-truck through. So how were we surprised when in comes Donald Trump's semi-sized narcissism and sociopathy?
The thing to ask yourself, as a member of the educated elite from either the left or right side of the political spectrum in the US: Have I understood and served all of those who have lost ground economically, or only "my side" while declaring the "other side" to be somehow unworthy and deficient? Trump and Sanders both demonstrate that for many in the US, the answer is the 2nd choice!
Accusations of cognitive dissonance are fruitless – there's a sizable block of 'gay conservative Christians' who probably think that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and that their beliefs make sens given their worldview.
I keep seeing "cognitive dissonance" used in this way, and I think it's incorrect. Cognitive dissonance is not holding opposing views simultaneously. It's having a anxiety because of it.
Although your usage could be taken in that way, I'd wonder why you think he experiences any cognitive dissonance at all.
Peter Thiel is all for radical freedom and libertarianism as long as the free speech that he protects isn't critical of himself.
He vehemently defended his friend's right to yell "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" outside an instructor's residence. As he explains in his book, "His demonstration directly challenged one of the most fundamental taboos: To suggest a correlation between homosexual acts and AIDS implies that one of the multiculturalists’ favorite lifestyles is more prone to contracting the disease and that not all lifestyles are equally desirable."
How can someone be so radically opposed to encroachments on free speech, and yet so quick to quietly fund lawsuits against those who criticize you?
This has nothing to do with online privacy or the internet, stills and transcripts could have just as easily been published in the Enquirer (where they probably would have been protected), and an article outing somebody could have been in print anywhere. This "Gawker Law", has little or nothing to do with the Gawker-Hogan case. In the courts, the privacy of public figures has always been dealt with differently; if anything, this law will blur that distinction, and you won't be able to publish things about your Senator that you wouldn't be able to publish about your ex-wife.
Also, it's another sex law. If anything, the publication of the video without the consent of the people who made it was a copyright violation, and we already have laws for that that levy tens of thousands of dollars in fines on private citizens for republishing an albumful of music to dozens of people. Peter Thiel is a terrible person who made his entire fortune from knowing the right rich people at the right time. I hope he doesn't find somebody who thinks I may have slandered them in the mid-90s and finance a normally hopeless legal case in order to make sure that nobody who has less than a billion dollars in the bank says anything he doesn't like about him, or anyone he likes, or anyone he may be considering doing business with, ever again. We can call it the Peter Thiel Line of No Good Reason.
I'm afraid I kind of agree. What brought me over to Thiel's side on this particular issue (at least mostly) was when I realized that Gawker's publication of a sex tape in this way would be considered a sex crime if the victim were female. While I still understand the problem with outsiders bankrolling lawsuits, I can't bring myself to have much sympathy with Gawker here.
I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things but on this one I see his point.
I don't think one needs to necessarily choose a side. I'm of the opinion that what Gawker did is wrong, but surreptitiously funding lawsuits to bankrupt the company is a perversion of the justice system.
The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate.
Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep enough pockets can now use the courts to exact revenge in a roundabout way. Yes, Gawker is tawdry but one can't help pondering a chilling effect here on more worthy stories. Were I a journalist, I'd certainly think twice now of pursuing an investigative piece that might offend a billionaire, given that my own financial livelihood could become fair game.
If you read Gawker apologia, you continually see the claim that this is going to stifle journalism. Some people aren't able to distinguish between writing a story about a sex tape and actually showing the sex tape, when the latter behavior is the crux on which this whole thing is based.
As far as gender goes, one only has to consider that if the rule is going to be "Public figure + sexual aspect to the person's persona (e.g. Hogan talking about sex on Stern) = unlimited right to broadcast sexual material", then no porn star ever has the right to private sex again. Since that is clearly unacceptable, the error must be with the proposed rule.
In Hulk Hogan's sex tape he goes off on a racist rant. That's the reason the WWE fired him. I'm glad my kids won't be exposed to that racist and I'm thankful for Gawker's public services on that issue.
Also, Hogan was never going to earn $140million for the rest of his life. That judgment was ridiculous.
if we're talking about free speech here. gawker did not do anything illegal to out peter thiel. a shitty thing to do? yes. illegal? no.
so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech.
not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot of the satellite sites that were actually doing really good reporting. very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges, deadspin (a gawker blog) was probably the foremost site posting about it (and other violations by schools).
Gawker obtained a sex recording and published it without consent of the people in it. That's what was presented at trial and the jury ruled it was an invasion of privacy.
It's that act (and very poor representation of themselves at trial) that has landed Gawker in the position they are in now.
I suspect you are confused about the facts of the case – specifically, this has nothing to do with Peter Thiel's outing and everything to do with the fact that Gawker released Hulk Hogan's sex tape to the public and a court found that to be an unethical violation of privacy.
I’m glad that an arena full of Republicans
stood up to applaud when I said I was proud
to be gay, because gay pride shouldn’t be a
partisan issue. All people deserve respect,
and nobody’s sexuality should be made a
public fixation.
From the 2016 party platform[1] of that arena full of Republicans[2]:
In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers
robbed 320 million Americans of their
legitimate constitutional authority
to define marriage as the union of
one man and one woman.
And, to the people who will say 'Obergefell is simply antithetical to Republicans because it's a states' rights issue,' you're not fooling anyone.
----
[1] "A party platform is sometimes referred to as a manifesto[1] or a political platform. Research on American politics suggests that platform positions offer an important clue to the policies that U.S. parties will enact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform
Seeing Hulk Hogan force Gawker into bankruptcy has been so satisfying. After all the sanctimonious nattering after the huge iCloud celebrity nudes leak, and then all the hand-wringing while Gawker gets punished for getting waist deep in the exact same thing has been galling. But after dozens of think-pieces about the troubling implications, bankruptcy court grinds on, impervious.
If a conservative site was outing gays on a regular basis it would have been shut down long ago. But liberal sites outing gay conservatives is considered totally acceptable and even commendable in today's society. Thus the vitriol towards Thiel.
I posted a link to the "Revenge Porn" bill, incase anyone wants to talk about the topic at hand instead of Peter Thiel. The bill is actually a pretty significant one with some big implications for service providers https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12295410
The fact that Thiel is still involved with Y Combinator should tell you everything you need to know about the disingenuity of their "commitment" to equality and diversity.
I love how he's trying to make his personal vendetta against Gawker Nobel, by trying to dub the IPPA as "the Gawker Bill."
From https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/peter-thiel-gawker-new-... :
"It's the Intimate Privacy Protection Act or IPPA," a spokesperson for Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the bill's sponsors, told BuzzFeed News. "I have no idea where 'the Gawker Bill' name comes from, but it's incorrect."
[+] [-] Analemma_|9 years ago|reply
My Google-fu is failing me on the exact link (can someone help?), but Marc Andreessen once penned some breathless, excited editorial about "the future of media", and at one point he talked about the editorial/advertising firewall as a relic that needed to be abandoned. It was so slickly inserted that you could almost forget what he was really saying: that news desks need to be prevented from reporting things that companies rather they didn't.
Every time a VC tries to tell me "what's wrong with the media", I reach for my gun. Everyone: they're not your friends. They're not trying to help you. Their overriding concern is nurturing the value of their investments, and that sometimes means silencing people who report inconvenient truths.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/technology/facebook-agrees...
(reposted from other submission)
[+] [-] kbenson|9 years ago|reply
For example, it's entirely possible that Peter Thiel is part of a losing faction of the board that values more privacy, and has actually been a force for the better with regard to privacy at Facebook? Is that likely? I have no idea, but it's supported by just as much evidence as you put forth.
Keep in mind, by the logic you've used so far, if we ignore the voting history of congress, then every congressperson must obviously have been in favor of invading Iraq, since that's what the US did.
Note: If you take this as a defense of Peter Thiel you've entirely missed the point. I have no evidence as to how Peter Thiel truly feels about privacy in general, and more importantly that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
[+] [-] loteck|9 years ago|reply
"One start would be to tear down, or at least modify the “Chinese wall” between content and the business side. No other non-monopoly industry lets product creators off the hook on how the business works."
[1] http://a16z.com/2014/02/25/future-of-news-business/
[+] [-] harshreality|9 years ago|reply
"As a libertarian, I don't think we should have had the response [to 9/11] we did to those buildings blowing up. But all the mass movements, all the consciousness-raising in the world did not stop us from getting the Patriot Act. The ACLU is always good at talking about civil rights, but [despite that] once something happens, protections go out the window right way. I think there's something to be said for trying to figure out some ways to stop another attack which will be used to curtail civil liberties even more. A company like Paypal could not get started in the post-PatriotAct world, because we would be accused of money laundering [based on how we operated] in '98-'99..." (from a discussion with David Graeber hosted by The Baffler, Fall 2014)
[+] [-] angry-hacker|9 years ago|reply
Gawker dug his own grave but Thiel is a disgusting hypocrite. I hope the history will remember this man that way. And no, not because of Trump.
[+] [-] sbov|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymousDan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dominotw|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idrios|9 years ago|reply
"As an internet entrepreneur myself, I feel partly responsible for a world in which private information can be instantly broadcast to the whole planet."
This article is as much an apology as it is a call to turn things around fix things
[+] [-] mixmixmix|9 years ago|reply
--
I'm going to steal this line. Great post.
[+] [-] kirrent|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vintermann|9 years ago|reply
Far worse, then, that he founded surveillance industry contractor Palantir.
Thiel "acknowledges" this, though. That puts in him in the same boat as Soros, who is also good at "acknowledging" the paradoxes of his position even as he instructs governments, in private, exactly which people they should send out to handle a particular situation.
Intercept is billionaire-funded, too - and Greenwald has written at length about "what's wrong with the media" - most of which I agree with, by the way. We won't get away from the billionaires and their meddling. The best we can hope for is that they're stronger when they're right than when they're wrong.
That posting people's private sex tapes is not OK, is one of the ways Thiel is right.
It's bad in many ways he doesn't elucidate. For instance, in a world where your last shreds of privacy can be obliterated by Gawker or Buzzfeed the moment you catch public attention, there will be some winners, and some losers.
Women, on the whole, will lose, because it seems fewer women are willing to sacrifice privacy for power. Gays will lose slightly, because they have more to lose from catching public attention (not so true in the US anymore, fortunately, but still very true in many countries).
Who are the winners?
First, those who can pay an army of publicity experts, and have had it for years to keep an iron grip on their public perception, so that all embarrassments and scandals (real and manufactured) can be managed most efficiently. And, who have very few ambitions or opinions not conductive to seeking power. In short career politicians.
The second type is people who just have no sense of shame, whose egos are so big they can just shrug it all off. Reality TV stars, or something.
[+] [-] ittekimasu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shimon_e|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yabatopia|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] onewaystreet|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anamoulous|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BinaryIdiot|9 years ago|reply
> I am proud to have contributed financial support to his case. I will support him until his final victory — Gawker said it intends to appeal — and I would gladly support someone else in the same position.
> A free press is vital for public debate. Since sensitive information can sometimes be publicly relevant, exercising judgment is always part of the journalist’s profession. It’s not for me to draw the line
So this makes me think that, if Peter Thiel considers a journalist's particular article morally wrong, he will help the supposed victim to sue them. In the case of Gawker it's hard to say Gawker was innocent but at the same time what if the next case is something more grey? Peter says he wants a free press but it sounds more to me like he wants a free press by his own judgement.
I'm not a fan of Gawker at all but having a billionaire bankroll lawsuits against publications when his opinion is that they're doing something morally wrong...worries me that it'll stifle.
[+] [-] onetimeusename|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serge2k|9 years ago|reply
He took the opportunity to get even when they went too far with someone else. Good for him. He's not taking part to cover up anything, or for revenge because they exposed some wrongdoing on his part. He's doing it because Gawker is a trashy worthless site.
[+] [-] shklnrj|9 years ago|reply
Many people committed suicides because of the way Gawker brought their private life in public. http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8992155/gawker-outing-gay-peopl...
As far as he being the investor in Facebook which uses your data to advertise to you - You actually agree to Facebook's terms when you sign up for it! In case of Gawker, it was someone who was feeding on destroying the private life of people in order to sell ads.
* Whether this sets a precedent or not - That is another question and can be resolved in future. That does not mean we should support a publication which is just gossiping about the private life of a person.
[+] [-] incogitomode|9 years ago|reply
Shopping for a favorable venue, and convincing one jury in a civil case does not make for a very compelling argument of "illegality."
[1] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/hogan-v...
[+] [-] omphalos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DINKDINK|9 years ago|reply
I didn't follow the case. What did Gawker do that was illegal?
[+] [-] shanusmagnus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|9 years ago|reply
How about this? The degree of disconnect between the lower middle-class and below versus the upper middle class and ruling economic elites in the US has become a rift large enough to drive a semi-truck through. So how were we surprised when in comes Donald Trump's semi-sized narcissism and sociopathy?
The thing to ask yourself, as a member of the educated elite from either the left or right side of the political spectrum in the US: Have I understood and served all of those who have lost ground economically, or only "my side" while declaring the "other side" to be somehow unworthy and deficient? Trump and Sanders both demonstrate that for many in the US, the answer is the 2nd choice!
[+] [-] nikcheerla|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solipsism|9 years ago|reply
Although your usage could be taken in that way, I'd wonder why you think he experiences any cognitive dissonance at all.
[+] [-] guelo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tertius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blintz|9 years ago|reply
He vehemently defended his friend's right to yell "Faggot! Faggot! Hope you die of AIDS!" outside an instructor's residence. As he explains in his book, "His demonstration directly challenged one of the most fundamental taboos: To suggest a correlation between homosexual acts and AIDS implies that one of the multiculturalists’ favorite lifestyles is more prone to contracting the disease and that not all lifestyles are equally desirable."
How can someone be so radically opposed to encroachments on free speech, and yet so quick to quietly fund lawsuits against those who criticize you?
[+] [-] pessimizer|9 years ago|reply
Also, it's another sex law. If anything, the publication of the video without the consent of the people who made it was a copyright violation, and we already have laws for that that levy tens of thousands of dollars in fines on private citizens for republishing an albumful of music to dozens of people. Peter Thiel is a terrible person who made his entire fortune from knowing the right rich people at the right time. I hope he doesn't find somebody who thinks I may have slandered them in the mid-90s and finance a normally hopeless legal case in order to make sure that nobody who has less than a billion dollars in the bank says anything he doesn't like about him, or anyone he likes, or anyone he may be considering doing business with, ever again. We can call it the Peter Thiel Line of No Good Reason.
[+] [-] api|9 years ago|reply
I don't agree with Thiel on a lot of things but on this one I see his point.
[+] [-] LA_Banker|9 years ago|reply
The tension between privacy and speech is a discussion that needs to be had. Litigating it in a Pinellas County courtroom is an odd way to go about having that debate.
Thiel has now demonstrated that those with deep enough pockets can now use the courts to exact revenge in a roundabout way. Yes, Gawker is tawdry but one can't help pondering a chilling effect here on more worthy stories. Were I a journalist, I'd certainly think twice now of pursuing an investigative piece that might offend a billionaire, given that my own financial livelihood could become fair game.
[+] [-] ElComradio|9 years ago|reply
As far as gender goes, one only has to consider that if the rule is going to be "Public figure + sexual aspect to the person's persona (e.g. Hogan talking about sex on Stern) = unlimited right to broadcast sexual material", then no porn star ever has the right to private sex again. Since that is clearly unacceptable, the error must be with the proposed rule.
[+] [-] raldi|9 years ago|reply
Can you elaborate on that? What crime are you referring to where the victim's gender is significant?
[+] [-] guelo|9 years ago|reply
Also, Hogan was never going to earn $140million for the rest of his life. That judgment was ridiculous.
[+] [-] swang|9 years ago|reply
so essentially thiel planned revenge because they did something shitty and he did not like it. again pretty shitty of gawker to out him, also pretty shitty of thiel to chill free speech.
not sure there are any real winners to root for here. bringing down gawker did bring down a lot of the satellite sites that were actually doing really good reporting. very few sports websites were talking at all about the sexual assaults going on in colleges, deadspin (a gawker blog) was probably the foremost site posting about it (and other violations by schools).
[+] [-] anamoulous|9 years ago|reply
It's that act (and very poor representation of themselves at trial) that has landed Gawker in the position they are in now.
[+] [-] nikcheerla|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|9 years ago|reply
----
[1] "A party platform is sometimes referred to as a manifesto[1] or a political platform. Research on American politics suggests that platform positions offer an important clue to the policies that U.S. parties will enact." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform
[2] https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/document...
[+] [-] elevensies|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maverick_iceman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephdviviano|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyledrake|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zorpner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emblem21|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swagv|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jonathankoren|9 years ago|reply
From https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/peter-thiel-gawker-new-... : "It's the Intimate Privacy Protection Act or IPPA," a spokesperson for Rep. Jackie Speier, one of the bill's sponsors, told BuzzFeed News. "I have no idea where 'the Gawker Bill' name comes from, but it's incorrect."