Like everyone else, I am very skeptical that it is somehow related, for several reasons.
- He is just a small time streamer, I didn't watch his videos but it looks like typical clickbait content playing on people's paranoia. Why would Palantir care about it?
- I didn't watch the videos in question, but I suppose that he says that Palentir is evil because it is used by police forces to attack poor migrants, that kind of thing. Not only he is saying what everyone is saying, but it may be good advertising for Palantir, as it shows that they are good at their (evil) job.
- Streisand effect, I am sure that even the idiots at Palantir know that it may not be a good idea to give attention to a streamer who annoys them.
- Speaking of attention, it is highly likely that the streamer in question was unbanked for a completely unrelated reason but saw the opportunity to make buzz, and it seems to be working!
- There seem to be no further evidence connecting the two.
> I am sure that even the idiots at Palantir know that it may not be a good idea to give attention to a streamer who annoys them.
Thiel has proved that he can hold a grudge. After Gawker outed him, he spent years shopping for anyone who could sue them, and found his guy in Hulk Hogan. He financed the lawsuit that led to Gawker Media's bankruptcy and closure.
>Thiel has proved that he can hold a grudge. After Gawker outed him, [...]
That might be true, but it's a stretch to go from this to "Thiel had a grudge for this specific streamer and was responsible for him getting banned". For one, Gawker has orders of magnitude more visibility than this guy.
> For one, Gawker has orders of magnitude more visibility than this guy.
Which suggests Thiel doesn't care about the Streisand effect.
Oh he does. But he uses the Streisand effect to his benefit to sell his product. Maybe you could argue it is not the Streisand effect if you want exposure by quenching stuff, though?
Gawker probably deserved it, and at one point during deposition said they'd publish a celebrity sex tape of a four year old if they felt like it.
This can be very frustrating when it's a false positive, but these 'neobanks' have a tendency to be very "trigger happy" and quickly close accounts whenever they have a reason to think there is fraud involved. And there's a lot of automation involved of course.
When that happens, they won't tell you the reason of course, because that would help fraudsters improve their fraud skills.
There is no reason to believe this bank actually have humans who are aware of this customer's Twitter handle, and who read it, and didn't like what they saw.
TLDR; this is obvious BS.
[flagged]
There should really be a rule banning these types of comments.
The response to someone’s comment regarding “x” is not “why are you defending x?”. It’s a rebuttal of “x”. Respond to the argument on its merits. Don’t dodge it.
Flag the comment.
Done
> Why the F are so many hn'rs defending these billionaire creeps?
They're not. There is a big difference between being skeptical of something, and OP even gave clear reasons why, and defending someone.
Nobody is defending anyone in this case, simply raising an eyebrow and expressing some doubt.
Just because that doesn't seem to fit your narrative doesn't make it against yours either.
[flagged]
Do you lot ever get tired of saying this type of stuff? There’s nothing new or interesting in this comment. This isn’t a fresh perspective. You’re just saying the same one liner that have been said hundreds of thousands of times before. Let’s move on.
I'll be ready to move on once our society is no longer being pillaged by hoarding sociopaths, thankyouverymuch.
Looks like it got flagged. Guess we don’t need you to move on when everyone else has.