Really interesting article. I work on Stanford's campus and regularly check the Daily, and occasionally check the Review. Not because I have a problem with their viewpoints, but because they don't have as frequent or regular a publishing schedule. It's doubtful the economics will make it possible for the Review to be larger or to have a print edition. I wonder if Thiel has donated or considered giving a large donation (but one that would be trivial to him) not just out of nostalgia but to strengthen the Review as an institution that influences future Stanfordians?
I skimmed the story (`wc` says it is 5,700+ words). The most interesting thing I picked up on was how Thiel remains in surprisingly frequent contact with the Review staff over the years, even hosting dinners at his home.
According to a former Review editor, “he obviously had zero interest in getting to know us as individuals. He was there to figure out what was going on on the campus.” Another staffer adds:
> the thing which most Review alums are really interested in, not just or specifically Peter, is: they want to know what the issues de jour are, what the average Stanford student is like, and what we are doing to try and ensure that viewpoints that are usually not heard as heard
That's both impressive and...quaint? I mean, it'd be the equivalent of Barack Obama, now done with being President, hosting regular dinners and chats with the Harvard Law Review (he was the first black to lead the publication in its 104-years). Besides engaging conversation and socializing, what does Thiel have to gain from meeting up with students besides maybe being slightly earlier to sense a new political/societal movement (which is something he could get a gauge on in a variety of other ways off campus) .
Assuming his motives are as altruistic and casual as wanting to be a supporter of the Review and future generations, what strikes me is how much risk this social engagement is for Thiel given his public stature. An example of what I mean presents itself in the latter half of the article: an anonymous Review staffer spills the beans about the things Thiel said at a particular 2014 dinner (which was presumably off-the-record).
Thiel is smart enough to know this risk but seems to accept it anyway. If he's that sentimental about the Review, maybe he will make a donation.
This is one laborious read. We all know how Peter Thiel built his SV empire but there is nothing in the article which suggests the title in question. There are some tidbits under section VII. And that is the whole story about. This lines sums everything up (and probably much better title than current title):
> And in Silicon Valley, Review alumni have built an infrastructure that spans many billions of dollars in both company market value and personal wealth.
A network graph would have been more efficient than the bulk of 5k words in the article.
The article goes in depth on the first part (Thiel and Stanford Review) but doesn't go into the _how they built a silicon valley empire_ part.
Main takeaway is Thiel has been politically active since his sophomore years and his involvement in the current administration is in agreement with his past. So for most people who knew Thiel, it may not have come as a surprise.
It's really interesting to me that Premal Shah, the CEO of Kiva, was a part of the Stanford Review. It always seemed to me that a prime philosophy of many in Thiel's orbit was "to keep government out of the way so I have the freedom to get rich." But, (clearly?) Kiva is not a vehicle for Shah to do that. Or, maybe another one of my mistaken assumptions. A thought provoking article for me at least.
>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007
I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
It's fine for the free press. Free press shouldn't be outing people or thumbing their nose at revenge porn victims while ignoring court orders. They got used to being untouchable millionaires since they could just bury anyone in legal fees.
> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
I stole that from somewhere and had it saved as it sums up my thoughts better than I can write. If I had a legit civil lawsuit against a large misbehaving company you bet your last dollar I'd love to have a Thiel in my corner funding it. I see absolutely zero moral problem with that. If there is a moral problem or anything needs fixing - perhaps fix the court system that enables constant perversion of justice unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at attorney fees for even midrange lawsuits.
Free press is the wrong term to use here. Gawker was a corporation that was fragrantly skirting the law. If they were only in business because they targeted people who didn't have the funds to sue them then they're better off gone.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You walked the line between "being okay with Peter Thiel destroying gawker" and "being okay with a billionaire destroying press", so you're probably getting downvoted from both sides. :]
SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take things from the person who wronged you, by force. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-syste...
But the issue is maybe you're not a great fighter, or you're old. You might not be comfortable taking things from someone by force. That's okay, because medieval iceland allowed you to sell the lawsuit/conviction to another party, and allow them to collect.
It resulted in a system that actually had a most valid lawsuits being pursued, because there were people willing to carry them out themselves. Kinda cool, and it feels similar to how Peter Thiel supported Hulk Hogan. And I'm pretty okay with it!
Being in or out is kind of like a trade secret. You have to protect the trade secret. You can't tell it to your friends who are cool and have it remain a trade secret. Nor can you be semi out.
Thiel didn't like a story about him. Now if Gawker had invaded his privacy he'd have had legal recourse for that. But Gawker didn't invade his privacy and so he took his revenge elseways. And the article wasn't even critical.
I think you're asking a rhetorical question where the answer is in the affirmative. But I would actually like to know how much damage Peter Thiel has done to free speech.
sadly you're getting downvoted into gray, but I have a feeling you're wrong for a different reason, Thiel will be remembered for many deeply authoritarian things, one of which will be his assault on the journalism. Gawker was a flawed organization, but they were also doing a fair amount of journalism that no one else would, not the least of which was sexual harassment allegations against people like Louis C.K. that are only now seeing the light.
danso|8 years ago
I skimmed the story (`wc` says it is 5,700+ words). The most interesting thing I picked up on was how Thiel remains in surprisingly frequent contact with the Review staff over the years, even hosting dinners at his home.
According to a former Review editor, “he obviously had zero interest in getting to know us as individuals. He was there to figure out what was going on on the campus.” Another staffer adds:
> the thing which most Review alums are really interested in, not just or specifically Peter, is: they want to know what the issues de jour are, what the average Stanford student is like, and what we are doing to try and ensure that viewpoints that are usually not heard as heard
That's both impressive and...quaint? I mean, it'd be the equivalent of Barack Obama, now done with being President, hosting regular dinners and chats with the Harvard Law Review (he was the first black to lead the publication in its 104-years). Besides engaging conversation and socializing, what does Thiel have to gain from meeting up with students besides maybe being slightly earlier to sense a new political/societal movement (which is something he could get a gauge on in a variety of other ways off campus) .
Assuming his motives are as altruistic and casual as wanting to be a supporter of the Review and future generations, what strikes me is how much risk this social engagement is for Thiel given his public stature. An example of what I mean presents itself in the latter half of the article: an anonymous Review staffer spills the beans about the things Thiel said at a particular 2014 dinner (which was presumably off-the-record).
Thiel is smart enough to know this risk but seems to accept it anyway. If he's that sentimental about the Review, maybe he will make a donation.
thisisit|8 years ago
> And in Silicon Valley, Review alumni have built an infrastructure that spans many billions of dollars in both company market value and personal wealth.
myth_buster|8 years ago
The article goes in depth on the first part (Thiel and Stanford Review) but doesn't go into the _how they built a silicon valley empire_ part.
Main takeaway is Thiel has been politically active since his sophomore years and his involvement in the current administration is in agreement with his past. So for most people who knew Thiel, it may not have come as a surprise.
xrd|8 years ago
tryingagainbro|8 years ago
I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
phil21|8 years ago
> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
I stole that from somewhere and had it saved as it sums up my thoughts better than I can write. If I had a legit civil lawsuit against a large misbehaving company you bet your last dollar I'd love to have a Thiel in my corner funding it. I see absolutely zero moral problem with that. If there is a moral problem or anything needs fixing - perhaps fix the court system that enables constant perversion of justice unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at attorney fees for even midrange lawsuits.
ng12|8 years ago
civilian|8 years ago
SlateStarCodex had a really good book review on David Friedman's "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours". One of the systems he covered is Iceland, which a court conviction allows you to go take things from the person who wronged you, by force. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-syste...
But the issue is maybe you're not a great fighter, or you're old. You might not be comfortable taking things from someone by force. That's okay, because medieval iceland allowed you to sell the lawsuit/conviction to another party, and allow them to collect.
It resulted in a system that actually had a most valid lawsuits being pursued, because there were people willing to carry them out themselves. Kinda cool, and it feels similar to how Peter Thiel supported Hulk Hogan. And I'm pretty okay with it!
CalChris|8 years ago
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/gawker...
Being in or out is kind of like a trade secret. You have to protect the trade secret. You can't tell it to your friends who are cool and have it remain a trade secret. Nor can you be semi out.
Thiel didn't like a story about him. Now if Gawker had invaded his privacy he'd have had legal recourse for that. But Gawker didn't invade his privacy and so he took his revenge elseways. And the article wasn't even critical.
http://gawker.com/335894/peter-thiel-is-totally-gay-people
humanexperiment|8 years ago
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|8 years ago
[deleted]
ameister14|8 years ago
nsnick|8 years ago
civilian|8 years ago
Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.
dtornabene|8 years ago
CalChris|8 years ago
notyourday|8 years ago
there, fixed it for you.
ordinaryradical|8 years ago
[deleted]
tryingagainbro|8 years ago
The fact that he is rich means that people will listen to him more.
WaitingForDang|8 years ago
[deleted]