"Financial details are vague, but the company has said the process will cost around $2,000 — far less than the retainer of a crisis communications expert."
the journalist trust score could be useful to limit the spread of AI generated news. Overall, a human supervisor feels like a necessity considering the weight of the decisions taken
And for an extra dose of irony: "arguing that the Antichrist is not necessarily a person but could come as a global government system". Gosh I wonder where Palantir fits into that?
> “It was simply the first large media company to be tested against reality in the age of clicks.”
> D’Souza is banking on everyone having forgotten that the Hulk Hogan case had nothing to do with “reality.” It was undisputed that the sex tape published by Gawker was real.
I guess the “reality” here is that our world is governed by plutocrats.
Apropos book: The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship
2 justice systems: a normative state which seems fair and continuous with what came before, and a prerogative state which is arbitrary, cruel, and usually covert.
The reservations expressed here are fair and Peter hasn't exactly distinguished himself as a holistic empathy-espousing human.
However, extra-institutional process is already a fixture in corporate law, for example arbitration. I'm dealing with a small US state-level jurisdiction at the moment and they can't even get their own rules published online (link is 'legacy.blah...' and times out) which makes placing trust in prosecution for flagrant violations impossible. I would go for arbitration through an official body but their timelines are worse and damage limits don't cover process.
As a second example, it is also a fixture in housing market law in some jurisdictions. I rented out a house here in Australia and had bad tenants who destroyed things, stole things, grew weed and stole electricity from the grid, leaving me with various damages. After a protracted 'tribunal' (local jurisdiction non-court proceeding with reduced powers and damage scope), I got nothing despite a massive weight of undisputable evidence basically because they couldn't be bothered evaluating it and there was no effective oversight.
The honest truth is I've had better, more balanced and effective judgements from Chinese courts. This shocked me.
That is to say: there is clearly a place for faster and fairer resolutions, even if just for small claims. I can see strong support for the approach in these cases. We do need appeals to humans, and we do need a limit. But it would prospectively be useful in these cases, especially if the system is designed to avoid corruption and to run isolated from the internet. You could even have a plurality of non-profits producing best-effort judges and voting. Disparate versions could be regression tested with anomalous decisions flagged for human review. That way it would be very hard to game because targeted attacks could be readily identified.
It's hard to think of a future in which humans are the most efficient means of governance. Carefully designed AI can free us of corruption, sloth, and procedural bullshit. As long as we have good oversight and transparency, from my experience as a business person across a range of jurisdictions and matters, it's hard to consider it worse than current solutions. So-called democratic representation is bullshit, and politicians know it: "Mamdani for prez!" He'll be sold out before entry - same as the others, just with a cleaner nose and cuter back-story.
If anyone wants to build an alternative to Judge Thiel, I'm in.
You're kidding yourself if you think governance by AI is somehow not magically governance by the worst kind of humans. If anything the humans can say I donno,the AI did it! When they cause the system to generate the outcome they wanted.
Tech isn't magic, you still have the same messy people problems.
Having suffered repeatedly at differing implementations of people-based systems across a range of jurisdictions, I remain an optimist for a tech solution. If the system is correctly designed, it can finally reduce the people problems.
Yes, it would be easy to screw up. Yes, it's not going to fix everything because surrounding process will no doubt be human-influenced. However: no, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get value from. Especially given the shitty state of present-era systems.
"Correctly" according to who? People with different interests have very different ideas about what "correct" is.
> Yes, it's not going to fix everything because surrounding process will no doubt be human-influenced.
Well, the core process will be more human-influenced, with even less doubt.
Besides efficiency, it doesn't matter who will be executing the process, actually a skewed process is better to be executed by slow and fallible humans than by a tireless machine that doesn't make mistakes while acting against you.
> no, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get value from.
Again, some will definitely get a lot of value from it but a lot more will only provide it.
All systems are human systems. There isn't a single technological solution in the history of humanity that hasn't been co-opted for some grubby human purpose almost immediately after being deployed. AI is just better at hiding who's running it.
> Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale.
> Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus.
Peter thiel the rational investor that dropped millions on a personal vendetta? Peter thiel the gay man who roleplays as Christian for some reason?
There already is a parallel system of justice.
Its name is The Department of Justice.
Which really should be named The Department Of The Legal System, as justice is a rare byproduct of their workings.
How can a faulty unreliable system that is easily prone to manipulation can make part of justice system?
Always has been.
things have always been bad and so it’s okay for them to become worse is probably somewhere near the root of every decline
It will pair well with his Palantir pre-crime division.
Why would any media company care about what Objection says or agree to arbitration?
From TFA:
"Financial details are vague, but the company has said the process will cost around $2,000 — far less than the retainer of a crisis communications expert."
Sounds like a proper wank
the journalist trust score could be useful to limit the spread of AI generated news. Overall, a human supervisor feels like a necessity considering the weight of the decisions taken
Thiel is the last person I’d trust with any efforts related to journalism.
Not only are his ethics horrible, but he's crazy to boot: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/16/europe/peter-thiel-antichrist...
And for an extra dose of irony: "arguing that the Antichrist is not necessarily a person but could come as a global government system". Gosh I wonder where Palantir fits into that?
> “It was simply the first large media company to be tested against reality in the age of clicks.”
> D’Souza is banking on everyone having forgotten that the Hulk Hogan case had nothing to do with “reality.” It was undisputed that the sex tape published by Gawker was real.
I guess the “reality” here is that our world is governed by plutocrats.
Apropos book: The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship
2 justice systems: a normative state which seems fair and continuous with what came before, and a prerogative state which is arbitrary, cruel, and usually covert.
The reservations expressed here are fair and Peter hasn't exactly distinguished himself as a holistic empathy-espousing human.
However, extra-institutional process is already a fixture in corporate law, for example arbitration. I'm dealing with a small US state-level jurisdiction at the moment and they can't even get their own rules published online (link is 'legacy.blah...' and times out) which makes placing trust in prosecution for flagrant violations impossible. I would go for arbitration through an official body but their timelines are worse and damage limits don't cover process.
As a second example, it is also a fixture in housing market law in some jurisdictions. I rented out a house here in Australia and had bad tenants who destroyed things, stole things, grew weed and stole electricity from the grid, leaving me with various damages. After a protracted 'tribunal' (local jurisdiction non-court proceeding with reduced powers and damage scope), I got nothing despite a massive weight of undisputable evidence basically because they couldn't be bothered evaluating it and there was no effective oversight.
The honest truth is I've had better, more balanced and effective judgements from Chinese courts. This shocked me.
That is to say: there is clearly a place for faster and fairer resolutions, even if just for small claims. I can see strong support for the approach in these cases. We do need appeals to humans, and we do need a limit. But it would prospectively be useful in these cases, especially if the system is designed to avoid corruption and to run isolated from the internet. You could even have a plurality of non-profits producing best-effort judges and voting. Disparate versions could be regression tested with anomalous decisions flagged for human review. That way it would be very hard to game because targeted attacks could be readily identified.
It's hard to think of a future in which humans are the most efficient means of governance. Carefully designed AI can free us of corruption, sloth, and procedural bullshit. As long as we have good oversight and transparency, from my experience as a business person across a range of jurisdictions and matters, it's hard to consider it worse than current solutions. So-called democratic representation is bullshit, and politicians know it: "Mamdani for prez!" He'll be sold out before entry - same as the others, just with a cleaner nose and cuter back-story.
If anyone wants to build an alternative to Judge Thiel, I'm in.
You're kidding yourself if you think governance by AI is somehow not magically governance by the worst kind of humans. If anything the humans can say I donno,the AI did it! When they cause the system to generate the outcome they wanted.
Tech isn't magic, you still have the same messy people problems.
Having suffered repeatedly at differing implementations of people-based systems across a range of jurisdictions, I remain an optimist for a tech solution. If the system is correctly designed, it can finally reduce the people problems.
Yes, it would be easy to screw up. Yes, it's not going to fix everything because surrounding process will no doubt be human-influenced. However: no, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get value from. Especially given the shitty state of present-era systems.
> If the system is correctly designed,
"Correctly" according to who? People with different interests have very different ideas about what "correct" is.
> Yes, it's not going to fix everything because surrounding process will no doubt be human-influenced.
Well, the core process will be more human-influenced, with even less doubt.
Besides efficiency, it doesn't matter who will be executing the process, actually a skewed process is better to be executed by slow and fallible humans than by a tireless machine that doesn't make mistakes while acting against you.
> no, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get value from.
Again, some will definitely get a lot of value from it but a lot more will only provide it.
All systems are human systems. There isn't a single technological solution in the history of humanity that hasn't been co-opted for some grubby human purpose almost immediately after being deployed. AI is just better at hiding who's running it.
AI comes from corrupt, megalomaniac batshit insane American billionaires. So good luck with that.