Our First Amendment frames the rules of engagement for domestic fights over free speech, but the global reach of the internet tempts its adversaries into a global war. Can we believe that a Brazilian judge banned X without American backing, in a tragicomic perversion of the Monroe Doctrine? Were we complicit in Australia’s recent legislation requiring age verification for social media users, the beginning of the end of internet anonymity? Did we muster up even two minutes’ criticism of the UK, which has arrested hundreds of people a year for online speech triggering, among other things, “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”? We may expect no better from Orwellian dictatorships in East Asia and Eurasia, but we must support a free internet in Oceania.
I'm trying to find a way to interpret the argument charitably. I think that he's saying that foreign countries may be free to sanction or block US internet firms, but that the US should respond forcefully to such actions.
There is a certain degree of hypocrisy here, given the impending TikTok ban which Peter Thiel himself supported. That ban, universalized, implies that nations should be able to manage internet-based services and applications on their sovereign territory.
I think it is a lot more general than that, and outlined in the first sentence. In a world interconnected with soft power, the battle lines on free speech are unclear, and the US position is not ideologically consistent.
Thiel: Can we believe that { examples } without American backing,
I think that he's saying that foreign countries may be free to sanction or block US internet firms, but that the US should respond forcefully to such actions.
My read on that is he's obtusingly saying that "US (old) leaders" are prevented by the US Constitution from doing stuff they'd like to do .. and so instead they use five eyes allies and partners to do these things about the globe with a view to normalising them and bringing them to the US seemingly without direct US involvement.
It's commonly held that the US | UK | AU agencies spy on each others citizens in order to have clean hands and truthfully state that they don't spy on their own.
Presumeably he wants to champion Trump as someone to clean house, etc. but I have my doubts about the machinations of Thiel .. he's more complicate than most via the panopticon of Palantir .
That's a good insight, but, at the same time, it's not at all difficult to believe that a Brazilian judge in Brazil banned Twitter "without American backing."
That Monroe Doctrine jab also makes zero sense. The Doctrine doesn't hold that other countries in the Western hemisphere shouldn't be allowed to decide matters of law and trade policy for themselves.
All in all, what Thiel is trying to say is terribly unclear. Open to multiple Straussian interpretations, I guess.
All in all, what Thiel is trying to say is terribly unclear.
We're in furiously colorless green sleepy agreement here.
Is this deliberate or old age creeping up on someone who once had realistic Supreme Court ambitions and clerked at the highest level in the US legal system.
Comments
The full quote is interesting.
I'm trying to find a way to interpret the argument charitably. I think that he's saying that foreign countries may be free to sanction or block US internet firms, but that the US should respond forcefully to such actions.
There is a certain degree of hypocrisy here, given the impending TikTok ban which Peter Thiel himself supported. That ban, universalized, implies that nations should be able to manage internet-based services and applications on their sovereign territory.
I think it is a lot more general than that, and outlined in the first sentence. In a world interconnected with soft power, the battle lines on free speech are unclear, and the US position is not ideologically consistent.
Thiel: Can we believe that { examples } without American backing,
My read on that is he's obtusingly saying that "US (old) leaders" are prevented by the US Constitution from doing stuff they'd like to do .. and so instead they use five eyes allies and partners to do these things about the globe with a view to normalising them and bringing them to the US seemingly without direct US involvement.
It's commonly held that the US | UK | AU agencies spy on each others citizens in order to have clean hands and truthfully state that they don't spy on their own.
Presumeably he wants to champion Trump as someone to clean house, etc. but I have my doubts about the machinations of Thiel .. he's more complicate than most via the panopticon of Palantir .
That's a good insight, but, at the same time, it's not at all difficult to believe that a Brazilian judge in Brazil banned Twitter "without American backing."
That Monroe Doctrine jab also makes zero sense. The Doctrine doesn't hold that other countries in the Western hemisphere shouldn't be allowed to decide matters of law and trade policy for themselves.
All in all, what Thiel is trying to say is terribly unclear. Open to multiple Straussian interpretations, I guess.
We're in furiously colorless green sleepy agreement here.
Is this deliberate or old age creeping up on someone who once had realistic Supreme Court ambitions and clerked at the highest level in the US legal system.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_fu...
( FWiW the entirity of what the Brazilian judge did or didn't do of his own violoition is a sideshow here )
What do they say about this at Gawker?