It seems even more implausible that a reputation monitoring business would raise a random French streamer's criticism of Palantir to Peter Thiel's attention. How could they possibly think that's worthy of his time? Here, let me try something:

-----------

I don't like Palantir, and I don't like Peter Thiel because of his role in creating it. It's a bad company that does bad things. I won't work for Palantir, it's shameful that anyone does work for Palantir, and the world would be much improved if Palantir went bankrupt tomorrow.

-----------

I'll come back and admit defeat if I get booted off of Thiel-funded technology platforms in a few days, but I know and I strongly suspect you know that's not going to happen.

▲

J_Shelby_J a day ago | parent | next [-]

Right, but if you could do it using a meaningless portion of your wealth, and it didn’t morally bother you, why not silence all criticism of you? Once you hire the people, it should run itself like any traditional PR firm.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest a day ago \| parent [-]
		Through what mechanism would a PR firm that you hired to monitor online sentiment convince a French bank to close someone's accounts for criticizing your companies? Who at the PR firm has the power to reach decisionmakers at the bank, and what would they say?

▲

turtlesdown11 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>It seems even more implausible that a reputation monitoring business would raise a random French streamer's criticism of Palantir to Peter Thiel's attention.

It's "more implausible" to you that a company who's job it is to monitor online sentiment about a particular company would be able to identify negative sentiment? So your argument is that these online monitoring businesses do not offer a real product?

> I'll come back and admit defeat if I get booted off of Thiel-funded technology platforms in a few days, but I know and I strongly suspect you know that's not going to happen.

Could you look up what a strawman is, and stop using them in your arguments?