
Is billionaire VC Peter Thiel trying to break up Google? - mudil
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/15/is-billionaire-vc-peter-thiel-trying-to-break-up-google/
======
burnte
I think we've seen Thiel do this before, indirectly fund opposition to
organizations he doesn't like when he can't attack them directly. He's also
funded lots of politicians that work quite hard to restrict rights at every
level of government, including, frankly, that are rather adamantly against
equal rights for gay people. He's a great representation that some people will
align themselves with anyone to further their own personal agenda, without
respect for how it might affect others. He's personally been outspoken about
the "dangers" of multiculturalism, gender and ethnic diversity, although I
will give him credit for apologizing about his rape comments.

I'm not saying this because I disagree with him politically, I just think he's
not a great example of what kind of leaders we want moving forward, and given
his behavior in the past, I wouldn't put this past him.

~~~
factsaresacred
> the "dangers" of multiculturalism, gender and ethnic diversity

I don't know if "dangers" is your word or his, but it's been shown (a priori
and a posteriori) that multiculturalism and ethnic diversity erodes trust and
causes social strive.

This is opposed to cultural pluralism, where a dominant culture exists and
tolerates additional values that don't erode or threaten the dominant culture.

The reason I comment is because I sense once again an attempt to shame Thiel
for his views rather than parse them for merit. During last year's election we
had a similar form of hysteria in these threads because Thiel dared to
exercise his right to donate to a cause he supports.

Really wish this 'shame as an argument' tactic would cease.

Edit to provide evidence of the 'downside of diversity':
[http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...](http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

~~~
sdoering
And your unquoted "proof" is gathered exactly how? You state something as a
standing fact without giving us the ability to check the stated facts (and
underlying methodologies) ourselves.

So it seems to me that people using arguing strategies like you just seem to
have done are eroding "trust" in a rational discussion more then anything
else. Tactics like these are well below what I personally would classify as
honorable discussion.

~~~
factsaresacred
Calm down. I'll happily provide proof, I simply didn't want to overload my
initial response with quotes and links:

> Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his
> 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the
> diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer,
> the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most
> diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they
> do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic
> engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are
> lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of
Michigan political scientist.

[http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...](http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)

~~~
VeejayRampay
You should consider reading about the rest of the research on the matter, or
the words of Putnam himself:

[http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-
says...](http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-
research-was-twisted/30357)

One study isn't enough in isolation. Reproduction, vetting, counter-studies,
discussion and scientific engagement is what matters on the long run.

~~~
factsaresacred
I have read that. He concedes the study is valid and the problems real and
difficult. Then he adds his own _opinion_ that nevertheless it's worth it.

> In the short term, he writes, there are clearly challenges, but over the
> long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society,
> and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. It’s not an easy
> process, but in the end it’s “well worth the effort.”

“well worth the effort”. That's pretty subjective. I'm sure many would like to
avoid "fragmentation and distrust" in the first place.

> One study isn't enough by itself.

There are many similar studies:

"A higher degree of ethnic diversity is associated with a higher incidence of
civil conflict" \- [https://www.cgdev.org/doc/events/02.09.07/Matuszeski-
JMP.pdf](https://www.cgdev.org/doc/events/02.09.07/Matuszeski-JMP.pdf)

I mean, this stuff is intuitive for anybody with a sense of history.

To be clear I'm not arguing against diversity per se. I raise these points to
encourage us (as a society) to discuss - and not emote - these issues
_honestly_.

~~~
VeejayRampay
> I mean, this stuff is intuitive for anybody with a sense of history

Intuitive has nothing to do with fact, plenty of factors might heavily
influence what one considers "intuitive". For a lot of people the necessity of
the death penalty is "intuitive", yet for many societies, it's an absolute no-
brainer that such practices are medieval.

So again, unless there is a corpus of studies, all pointing in the same
direction, with all the environmental factors completely eliminated using
double-blind or other proper scientific methods, we cannot really conclude
anything.

~~~
factsaresacred
> We cannot really conclude anything.

Great! So when will we stop parading this nonsensical "diversity is our
strength" mantra, or at least stop stigmatizing those that point out - as you
have - that we cannot really conclude anything?

It has as much merit - and perhaps less, given the studies - as saying
"diversity is _not_ our strength".

You see the issue now?

~~~
sillysaurus3
When taking a controversial side, it's important to be calm and make cogent
arguments.

It's hard. Especially when it feels like people are going out of their way to
misinterpret or frame you. But it's worth it.

------
ukulele
His words haven't matched his actions for quite some time now, with the common
theme being whatever is good for Mr. P. Thiel is what he's up to, prior
pontifications be damned.

Free speech --> Sue a magazine

Capitalism rules --> Sue because a company is too powerful

For a self proclaimed libertarian, his actions are about as libertarian as a
baked potato.

~~~
docdeek
> Free speech --> Sue a magazine

Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being held to account for your speech.

~~~
icebraining
That's exactly what it means; it's freedom from being held to account by at
least some groups. Which ones being a matter of debate.

~~~
CrystalLangUser
No, it isn't up for debate.

Free speech is only an unalienable right, in the US, from the government. Not
facebook, not google, and certainly not individuals suing a private entity.

Everything else stems from the public and historical landmark court cases
related to free speech- and the benches of the supreme court have staunchly
defended freedom of speech from _the government_.

~~~
klmr
> Free speech is only an unalienable right, in the US, from the government.

You’re confusing the concept of Free Speech and the law codified in the First
Amendment rights. Free Speech as a concept is (by necessity) much broader
(both as defined in the declaration of human rights, and as envisaged by the
thinkers who originally proposed it). It doesn’t mean “there’s no
accountability whatsoever” but it does mean that there’s an active duty to
uphold individuals’ rights to articulate themselves. Unfortunately this
confusion is extremely common — even the Wikipedia article restricts it to
government intervention in the opening paragraph (but then broadens it).

------
CalChris
I don't remember hearing that he left but Thiel isn't on the YC partner list
on either Crunchbase or YC itself.

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/y-combinator/current...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/y-combinator/current_employees/current_employees_image_list)

[http://www.ycombinator.com/people/](http://www.ycombinator.com/people/)

~~~
mrschwabe
Maybe he was kicked off the board for 'wrong think' \- he certainly was
chastised by members of Facebook's board for endorsing & contributing to
Donald Trump's Presidential campaign (Trump's victory vindication of said
endorsement & contribution).

While Thiel was endorsing/investing who would ultimately win - YC's President
did the opposite.

While Theil's endorsement/investment in Trump was based on principal - I don't
know if the same can be said for YC's endorsement of Hillary. At the time, it
came as a surprise ie- a prominent tech company claiming to invest in
'hackers' endorsing a candidate who had just been exposed as technically
incompetent (and/or corrupt) via thousands of leaked emails.

It also came across as contrived. Because those same emails revealed Eric
Schmidt's role as technical/marketing/search consultant for Hillary's campaign
and so it was not a stretch to assume Eric was leveraging his prominence &
connections in tech to solicit endorsements from SV 'leaders'.

~~~
tiles
> a prominent tech company claiming to invest in 'hackers' endorsing a
> candidate who had just been exposed as technically incompetent

Her opponent is wildly incompetent with technology. I'm not sure why you latch
onto this idea that Clinton was uniquely bad at IT. Googling comes up with
exactly two photos of Trump ever using a computer. He doesn't even have a web
browser on his phone [according to this NYT
article]([https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/john-kelly-
tr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/john-kelly-trump.html)).

~~~
mrschwabe
Hillary, as Secretary of State, had an unauthorized email server running from
a household bathroom that was being used to transmit classified material (that
she lied about).

If not technically incompetent, then sure - how about woefully ignorant,
deceitful & corrupt and in no position to take lead role of the world's most
powerful country. And that is not even taking into account the beef in the
leaked emails, for example there are a lot of very curious tidbits in there
not limited to the omnimous "I'm definitely for making an example of a
suspected leaker"[0] statement by her campaign manager John Podesta.

I don't know how any 'hacker' could honestly endorse this person, let alone
the president of YC. No personal offense to Sam. I dont' judge people based on
political opinion (especially cause an opinion is malleable; it can change and
as such people shouldn't be judged based on them) but do like to point out
anomalies & contradictions.

[0][https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/36082](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082)

~~~
speedplane
> I dont' judge people based on political opinion ... but do like to point out
> anomalies & contradictions.

Everyone has anomalies and contradictions. Chucking substance and just looking
for red herrings is the exact opposite of the type of critical analysis people
need to do.

~~~
mrschwabe
Fair point, but staying silent isn't a good option either. If everyone chucks
substance perhaps at least there are those on the sidelines who can aggregate
all of it, dig deeper, critically analyze & and make their own determinations.

------
kyledrake
> Thiel, a billionaire libertarian

Which thing made him a libertarian: the idea of using a government agency to
break up a company, or the stump speech he did for the alt right nationalist?

~~~
_fizz_buzz_
Thiel calls himself a libertarian: "I remain committed to the faith of my
teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest
good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the
ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these
reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.” "

[1]: [https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/education-libertarian)

~~~
kyledrake
> the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual

Ah yes, that core libertarian tenant they all believe in. Can't truly be a
libertarian without refusing to accept your own mortality.

------
cromwellian
He’s proving as a libertarian how regulatory capture works by trying to engage
in it. Perhaps while he’s at it the AG can look into Palintir’s spook
contracts and police state contracts.

------
polskibus
I wonder why Google in particular and not the others like Facebook, Microsoft,
Amazon etc. who enjoy similar market power?

~~~
dasimon
Well, Peter Thiel is on the board of Facebook...

~~~
mtgx
Surprisingly few people in the tech media seem to be aware of this.

But I'm not sure I'm too mad about someone trying to take down Google a notch.
My only worry is not that people are starting to believe Silicon Valley
companies can do no wrong anymore, but that the government will exploit the
situation to force backdoors, censorship, and other stuff like that on them.
And we're already seeing that. Feinstein and others are now trying to take
advantage of the "hate on tech companies" to push for encryption backdoors by
also arguing about how "out of control" tech companies are, which is starting
to ring a bell in people's heads.

I probably mentioned this a few times in the past few years, but Google and
Facebook and others should not be taking advantage of the good will of people
to constantly maximize their profits. Eventually that good will is going to
run-up, and then they'll be in Uber's situation, where few people defend them
anymore. And then they're in trouble, because if the people don't defend them
anymore, then the government will have free reign _against them_.

But they've always ignored this, because they've always seen such warnings as
only coming from a "vocal minority" so they didn't care. I remember even
comments from here post-Snowden, about how Google doesn't care about end-to-
end encryption just to gain the trust of a few HNers. But they've forgotten
that Chrome built a reputation and a fanbase "on the backs" of people like
that. Without people like that preaching how much better Chrome is than
Firefox and IE, Chrome may have been relegated to Opera status.

Perhaps instead of seeing tech enthusiasts as a "vocal minority", Google
should see them as an "army of unpaid PR agents", working every day either to
raise them up or _bring them down_ if they start doing nasty stuff. That might
change their perspective a bit on how to approach the criticism coming from
enthusiasts.

~~~
dx034
Google is a conglomerate like many before. At some point people will realise
that it's better to split the company up and allow individual parts to focus
more. Google's individual businesses often have very little overlap. But
that's not only for Google. Amazon, for example, has no reason to keep AWS in
the same company as ecommerce (except to subsidise businesses). Quite the
opposite, keeping them apart would bring some clients back that don't want to
support Amazon (such as Walmart). I'm not sure how long it will take but I'd
be very surprised if they remain connected in the longer term.

Conglomerates are usually split up when they're under pressure. Tech companies
haven't seen any crisis in the past decade, when the first one comes investors
will probably push harder.

Interestingly, Facebook so far remains quite focused. The companies they
bought (Whatsapp, Instagram) are very similar to their core product. That
means they remain extremely reliant on the success of Facebook itself but also
means there's not natural way of splitting up the company.

~~~
yannis7
On your point, might be worth mentioning that Facebook is starting to lose its
focus with acquisitions such as Oculus Rift - which Zuck considers a major
strategic move

~~~
sjg007
The next social network might be the virtual one.

------
tanilama
Well..Google has as more than legal power to take care of itself, will be
interesting.

------
mr_spothawk
Palantir’s snooping abilities are probably a lot more valuable if Google
doesn’t have them

