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.
> And in Silicon Valley, Review alumni have built an infrastructure that spans many billions of dollars in both company market value and personal wealth.
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.
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.
> 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.
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!
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.
Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.
Why do so many people ignore this fact? Yes, Thiel funded a lawsuit that bankrupted them. But he won that lawsuit because Gawker committed a crime. I don't see how what Thiel did is any different than when an organization like the ACLU, NAACP, or EFF gets behind a court case that aligns with their political causes. Either we agree that a third party is allowed to fund a legal case for political reasons or not. Isn't that in and of itself an issue of free speech?
They needed to go, and they were not a net positive to society.
The best quote on the topic (pretty sure I saved it from a HN comment) I've seen is:
> 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.
there, fixed it for you.
