TBH, Wikipedia should have pages on these cranks and point out they are cranks and that if they say the sky is blue that's because it changed color.

> bias is reason that Grokipedia came about in the first place.

You are correct, but only in the sense that Musk was unable to impose his own biases upon Wikipedia, so he had to make one where he can tune bias to whatever is convenient at the moment.

I think he might be the only one whose fans need to be reminded of that fact.

Grokipedia will eventually replace it.

If nobody ever finds the website, there will be no misbehavior. Genius.

Obviously, people would continue to go to "Wikipedia", and the encyclopedia itself wouldn't be hidden from Google, but Wikipedia pages on arbitrary subjects wouldn't be at the top of search rankings simply by dint of being Wikipedia pages.

Security through obscurity!

> Don’t underestimate the reach of billionaires with an ideological agenda.

Or the audience's need to have their wrong opinions validated.

I believe the point is that, since the electoral races are already decided in terms of party, the only decision is whom to nominate. This decision is made in the primaries, by a very small number of voters.

FAANG won’t send auditors to check whether your are in compliance with what license you paid for. Per core/socket licensing is one of the reasons POWER can do SMT/8.

To best destroy the idea of an objective truth, you need to control it first.

While I have no sympathy for Thiel, outing someone against their will is just wrong.

Journalism has to be responsible.

This article is a clusterfuck, no pun intended.

So it's 2007. LGBT groups are trying to protect people from getting fired for being gay and legalize gay marriage.

There's a conservative christian billionaire who is actively funding political groups blocking this.

You, a journalist, working at a tabloid, finds out he's secretly gay. Sound like a story?

There's context to all of these things.

Yes it's a story. But the thing I'm most interested in is... Why? Why does he do that?

Because people mostly behave based on their virtues and principles not on greedy self interest

We all have different ones

An optimistic answer. I like it!

But, like, Peter Thiel genuinely thinks life ought to be harder for gay people? He's a good Christian and thinks gay people will go to hell? I still don't really get it.

No. He supported conservative and christian groups because that's who he is. He founded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stanford_Review funded by conservative luminary William Kristol. He went on to get a philosophy degree and a JD. He was a clerk and worked for Sullivan and Cromwell, one of the most prominent law firms in the country that defends corporate interests.

He's always worked on the law/capital/property side. The man can't code and has never claimed to be able to.

He's a deeply libertarian conservative christian who happens to get titillated by men.

But that last part is just what he is, it's not really who he is.

Being gay doesn't constrain you to a particular set of beliefs.

There's plenty people active on the right that are all kinds of diverse; hispanic, gay, asian. Look at that recent shooter, a trans person with a history of far right activism with neonazi tattoos who said they were "to the right of hitler" but also, transgendered.

It's really all over the map. Shit's complicated.

Thank you for the explanation. I find the "conservative christian who happens to get titillated by men" hard to grok, but it looks like you're correct.