
Peter Thiel and the Stanford Review - cremno
https://stanfordpolitics.org/2017/11/27/peter-thiel-cover-story/
======
danso
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.

------
thisisit
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._

------
myth_buster
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.

------
xrd
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.

------
tryingagainbro
_> >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.

~~~
civilian
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...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-
systems-very-different-from-ours/)

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!

~~~
iClaudiusX
That justice is not blind to personal wealth is a travesty, not something to
celebrate.

~~~
ng12
The travesty is that Gawker probably would have gotten away with it based on
the fact that Hogan didn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit. It really
has nothing to do with Thiel.

------
humanexperiment
In the spirit of fiat lux would have been interesting to rope in the recent
Rstional Vaccines shenanigans.

------
ameister14
Was this not edited? The writing is incredibly awkward.

------
nsnick
How much damage has Peter Thiel done to free speech? This is what Peter Thiel
will be remembered for.

~~~
civilian
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.

Gawker broke the law. It's great they got ended.

~~~
slg
>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?

~~~
jhayward
> because Gawker committed a crime

What criminal statute was Gawker convicted of breaking?

It would behoove everyone to understand the difference between civil and
criminal law. A tort is not a crime. They were found to have caused injury to
the reputation of a person. That is not a crime.

~~~
slg
I am not a lawyer. I was not using a specific legal definition of "crime". I
was using the word colloquially and my usage is perfectly fine according the
generally accepted definition of the word. [1]

[1] - [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/crime)

