I like how the article puts in the same sentence that his criticism of democracy is that it's against freedom, and therefore he's authoritarian - kind of like goading us, like we're not going to notice how frothing-at-the-mouth stupid that logic is.
I like how the article puts in the same sentence that his criticism of democracy is that it's against freedom, and therefore he's authoritarian - kind of like goading us, like we're not going to notice how frothing-at-the-mouth stupid that logic is.
Are you referring to the opening paragraph?
“Billionaire Peter Thiel insists that freedom and democracy are incompatible, and his portfolio of data mining and political bets puts that belief into practice. His is a program of authoritarian control disguised as innovation.”
Because your summarization is blatantly inaccurate. As you can clearly see above, they set the premise that Thiel believes freedom is incompatible with democracy, hence he subverts democracy with political influence and data mining in order to “preserve freedom” from HIS perspective. That’s a perfectly coherent statement for which there is plenty of evidence to support.
Check this out:
> Thiel wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” That wasn’t just a provocation, it was a programmatic declaration that aligns him with authoritarians both abroad and at home — culminating in a second Trump administration that daily tests the limits of US constitutional democracy.
What part of authoritarianism is pro-freedom again?
Democracy was obviously never pro-freedom - it's explicitly about the 51% taking freedom from the 49%.
I'm just confused how this twisted leftist publication has managed the mental acrobatics to claim pro-freedom means pro-authoritarianism.