Going to a repressive country saying that you feel free in thought is pretty controversial. If you are doing that as someone who is rich and has influence it is a lot worse.
> You can reasonably disagree with them but Sam seems to have made them in good faith based on his observations.
Everyone does, or can at least be said to do, that. That doesn't mean anything. What means something is whether your thoughts and conclusions have merit. That you communicate the things you are saying clearly and that those things hold up to scrutiny.
His opinions doesn't do that. Being interviewed by people you know and being discussed on forums that are friendly to you isn't much of a discussion at all. And a lack of you hearing something isn't an indication of that whoever has your ear is right.
Matt Levine is one of the few people who even cares to comment on such things. He is fairly well respected even on HN. This is what he has to say:
> Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are bold iconoclastic innovators who move fast and break things and question established paradigms to change the world, unless someone makes fun of them. In which case they crumple instantly? There's no suggestion of actual censorship in Altman's post, no chance of the government suppressing controversial opinion (as it does in China!). It is just a sort of cringing terror that someone might disagree with you, say that you're wrong, criticize your priorities, make jokes at your expense. "How can I change the world if someone might mock me on Twitter?"
Going to a repressive country saying that you feel free in thought is pretty controversial. If you are doing that as someone who is rich and has influence it is a lot worse.
> You can reasonably disagree with them but Sam seems to have made them in good faith based on his observations.
Everyone does, or can at least be said to do, that. That doesn't mean anything. What means something is whether your thoughts and conclusions have merit. That you communicate the things you are saying clearly and that those things hold up to scrutiny.
His opinions doesn't do that. Being interviewed by people you know and being discussed on forums that are friendly to you isn't much of a discussion at all. And a lack of you hearing something isn't an indication of that whoever has your ear is right.
Matt Levine is one of the few people who even cares to comment on such things. He is fairly well respected even on HN. This is what he has to say:
> Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are bold iconoclastic innovators who move fast and break things and question established paradigms to change the world, unless someone makes fun of them. In which case they crumple instantly? There's no suggestion of actual censorship in Altman's post, no chance of the government suppressing controversial opinion (as it does in China!). It is just a sort of cringing terror that someone might disagree with you, say that you're wrong, criticize your priorities, make jokes at your expense. "How can I change the world if someone might mock me on Twitter?"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/appraisal...