[flagged]
"Wired wrote that some people think Palantir "maintains a giant, centralized database of information collected from all of its clients", which is untrue."
'some people' is a classic weasel word[0] used to prop up the writer's opinion. This sentence is even funnier because it initially appears to state that Palantir has a centralized DB of clients data, only to finish with "...which is untrue." If the claim is untrue, why lead the section paragraph with it unless you're intending to smear or mislead? If I were to end sentences with "...which is untrue" I could write any number of things on Wikipedia.
It's as though I wrote "A YN user wrote that 'john_strinlai works for the CCP and uses ChatGPT to write all his posts', which is untrue."
I'll keep reading but rhetorical chicanery like this colours my interpretation of the article in general.
EDIT the section goes on: "[We can't pin anything specific on Palantir here]; still it is generally accepted that abuses by governments and data management failures can happen." What does that have to do with Palantir? "data management failures can happen" why is this in the section on "Palantir:Controversy"? This article is not good.
EDIT 2: This section is just comedy gold... 'Palantir "remains open to the critique of potentially being an accessory to acts of deportation, imprisonment, and racism through its contracts".' Open to critiques of potentially being an accessory to "racism?" What is this, the Future Crimes unit from Minority Report? This "future crimes" accusation is especially ironic in relation to the critiques of Palantir itself!
So I haven't read this whole section (it's quite long) but if this is the nature of the "smoking guns" I don't think much of it. Potentially maybe doing something according to 'some people...' this shouldn't hold water for any rational person.
If someone objects to Palantir for working with ICE I understand that, and if that's the nature of Spain's objections they should just say so.
No. What that means is, "there's nothing here that prevents these tools from being used in this manner". It's not about what may happen in the future, it's about the current situation, which is that the tools are already produced with the objectionable capacity. It's the same reason speeding is punished, even when no harm follows as a consequence; the act is inherently reckless, regardless of the actual consequences.
Where do you draw the line? Are we arguing there is a level of software capability that is simply too dangerous?
Maybe everyone should just stick to "I have my own biases, and I don't like Alex Karp's politics because they don't match my own. I'd rather this software was developed by someone from my side of politics - but still have the same capabilities".
Utterly disingenuous. Surveillance software is primarily sold to governments to spy on individuals. It doesn't exist for any reason except for the powerful to oppress the weak.
>Where do you draw the line?
"I just kept turning the heat up and the frog seemed perfectly fine. The fact that it's cooked now can't have anything to do with my actions." I don't have to propose a generalized demarcation criterion to say whether a particular example is on either side of the line.
If surveillance software is your issue, then companies like Cisco or Huawei are provide the hardware and software. But like most technology, there is always potential to use it for things we disagree with politically or personally.
Uh-huh? Which is used for what?
>they don't store, transfer or share customer's data.
LOL. Yeah, that's the issue, here.
>If surveillance software is your issue, then companies like Cisco or Huawei are provide the hardware and software.
Whataboutism? Sure, I have no problem lobbing the same criticism at them.
Their CEO is a megalomaniac who brags about "killing people"[0] and can't string together coherent sentences on live television[1]. Did I mention it's backed by Peter Thiel who is openly and actively trying to tear down the world's oldest constitutional democracy in favor of a technocratic oligarchy[2]?
[0]: https://youtu.be/G5gC_fParbY?si=isXSwbgUsdsQyGFD
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A3sGymV6kY
[2]: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/porta...
Funny, one comment ago you had no idea what the controversy around Palantir was. How could you possibly know the wikipedia article is hostile? It might be downplaying the controversies around Palantir.
This reaction almost makes it seem like you were being completely disingenuous with your first post, and had already made up your mind about Palantir. Curious.
It's like saying we shouldn't buy guns from gun makers and tickle our enemies with rose petals instead.
Feels like Kremlin bots are having a field day here.
You have to be trolling, a single online search tells you how the company CEO is the textbook definition of technofascism. Take a look at his manifesto if you don’t know
an example that may cure you of your “vibes-based” confusion, karp, palantirs ceo, argues clearly for authoritarianism and aggressive surveillance of the general population. he hilariously tries to convince people that the best way to have democracy is to not have it at all. a kind of “to protect your freedom, we’ll take away your freedom” idea that only a certain kind of person falls for.
so yes, people may find it silly to pretend those politics aren’t troubling, particularly when its relating to a government. i’m sure you’re aware that considering political ideas when thinking about how a government is operating isn’t “vibes-based”, it’s integral.
does this one example appease you that it isn’t “vibes based”? if this example doesn’t help you understand, both karp and thiel are not at all shy about their anti-freedom views. they’ve spoken loudly and publicly about them all over the place. if you’re truly curious, there is plenty of info out there you can read.
just be aware, they try to couch their ideas in rhetoric like “the best way to have democracy is to let us take it from you” or “let us surveil you so you can know you have privacy and freedom” kind of nonsense. it’s pretty obvious so i’m sure you won’t be tricked.
I'm sorry but I can't find where he said this. I'm finding it confusing and suspicious that the objections to Palantir & Alex Karp are all so vague and seem to lack the rigour typically required of assertions made here on YN. Usually if you declare something like someone "argues clearly for authoritarianism," you're expected to link to a source of this claim.
People keep telling me here it's so obvious Palantir is bad I shouldn't require any specific evidence and I'm stupid if I don't see it; I'm only reminded of the emperors new cloths.
Are you going to suggest that Thiel's role as chairman of Palantir is ceremonial and he's just there to make the tea and arrange the flowers?
The point is that democracies tend to want to erode liberties. Take the age gating bills floating around as an example.
The solution Thiel proposes is not eliminating democracy. It's building technology that governments cannot easily control. Cryptocurrency is one good example of this.
what does that mean?
advocates for the fall of?
palantir might not be particularly exciting, but the increase in government power by having access to joins is incredibly antidemocratic
> he hilariously tries to convince people that the best way to have democracy is to not have it at all. a kind of “to protect your freedom, we’ll take away your freedom” idea that only a certain kind of person falls for.
Where does he say anything like this? You made some specific allegations about what he said in his manifesto. Can you point to the passage that you're referring to when you make the above point about not having a democracy?
Like, Thiel says that it's easier to change the world by inventing new technology than through democracy. And people turn around and try quote this to prop up the claim that he wants to abolish democracy.
It had a better ring to it to me when Buckminster Fuller said essentially this. He was trying to do it through design rather than control.
the actual partisan politics of freedom and making the government's job harder is entirely left out of the politics
when the billionaires own all of the politicians, thats not particularly surprising
Maybe. The government performing its functions more is not necessarily a good thing. What if the government has decided that some of its functions involve torturing prisoners, or disappearing people?
It's strange that you would ask this question like the answer would be an uncontroversial no.
certainly! fascism requires industry that cooperates with the state to produce the means of control; these are all companies that do exactly that!
I don't think that most would agree with your understanding of technofascism.
or pressed the government into building more arms, and using them against the citizenry?
theres a pretty significant change between when the US was at declared war and when the companies making arms started pressing the US into undeclared war for the sake of selling the government more arms
Drop your guard down and you'll get eaten for breakfast.
no one in their right mind is going to argue with that, not sure what your point is
washington is full of right wing elites, even though the citizens are quite left wing
the military industrial complex is certainly a fascist institution