[adam419]

I remember as far back as 2012 seeing Gawker articles and truly feeling ashamed for humanity. You had these pompous writers completely mocking and attempting to knock down elon musk as some insane fool for his recent release of the hyperloop plans, etc.

So here's a guy actually moving our society forward in transportation and the environment, and these smug writers try to cast him as a clown.

Does anyone actually defend on substance any of the activities Gawker was engaging in? These people pushed wrong narratives and destroyed lives over reasons that were most often proven false and always self serving to the interests of gawker.

I think peter is a smart guy, but I really feel a sense of gratitude to him for ridding the world of that awful organization.

Everyone sensationalistically shouts he's an evil billionaire damaging free speech and journalism, but gawker was engaged in voyeurism and bullying. And a court of law agreed with it. We make exceptions to pure free speech all the time, such as not being allowed to shout fire in a movie theater, etc.

I don't care to comment about his support of trump, but I also find it curious most of his vocal critics are themselves journalists, and are in my opinion resentful of the fact he set a precedent that the power "journalists" have is also something that can be held accountable.

[Nokinside]

>"These people pushed wrong narratives and destroyed lives over reasons that were most often proven false and always self serving to the interests of ...."

Assuming our opinion is like above, but against Trump, do we have justification to attack Trump and Thiel based on their political opinion?

[astrodust]

It can be your "political opinion" that the government should be small, taxes kept low, and regulation to a minimum.

When you start bragging about sexually assaulting women, advocating violence against your opponents, and feeding the flames of racial tension you've moved well beyond mere opinion.

It's bewildering that Thiel would support such a character now given how Thiel won't "suffer" from Trump not being in the White House.

It was under Bill Clinton that this entire tech party got started: The commercialization of the Internet. Laws favorable to the start-up investment scene. Freeing up investment banks to allocate capital more freely.

I just don't get Thiel's motivation here. You don't want a total lunatic in power, you want someone you can talk to and persuade.