Thread 👇🏼. A billionaire who is profiting off of ICE raids doesn't need the additional platform of the @nytimes (particularly when they don't disclose his conflict of interests) https://t.co/nUH3MHVsG0
— Rachel Thomas (@math_rachel) August 2, 2019
Thread 👇🏼. A billionaire who is profiting off of ICE raids doesn't need the additional platform of the @nytimes (particularly when they don't disclose his conflict of interests) https://t.co/nUH3MHVsG0
— Rachel Thomas (@math_rachel) August 2, 2019
Not being given space in the New York Times is not suppression of speech. If it was, most of us (including me) would be having our speech suppressed. Being in NYTimes provides Thiel with additional reach & legitimacy.
— Rachel Thomas (@math_rachel) August 3, 2019
For those arguing that only the message matters, not the messenger nor their motivations, consider a more extreme example: Russian trolls brought up valid points about racism in USA
— Rachel Thomas (@math_rachel) August 4, 2019
The NYT could have found plenty of ppl other than Thiel to write about China AI ethics issues
You are misunderstanding the nature of influence. It is not driven by argument. There's a lot of great research showing how humans make decisions - it's important to be familiar with it in order to learn the real lessons of history. (eg Hitler was given a global media platform)
— Jeremy Howard (@jeremyphoward) August 4, 2019