The concern is more with the tools that Palantir creates around the domains they service. They analyze, predict, and shape decisions using unproven technology. Palantir controls insights, models, and outcomes, and given the anti-democratic and frankly unhinged extremist worldviews of the founders, it's highly concerning to allow them to create tools for sensitive and nuanced data that have life or death consequences.
> Palantir controls insights, models, and outcomes,
No, Palantir's customers are the ones gleaning insights. To re-use the Excel analogy, this is like saying Microsoft is controlling insights and outcomes because organization use Excel.
Palantir's products are not Excel. Palantir's founders and executives are well aware of what their tools are designed for and what they enable, and they're proud of their role.
As far as I know, Microsoft executives don't brag about Excel being used to create a unified "kill chain" [1], nor do they market software intended for targeting for weapons of mass destruction [2], nor do they claim that their products are designed for use in lethal military operations [3].
As much as you'd like to hand-waive away their role, a war profiteer is a war profiteer. IBM also used to just make computers to manage supply chains in WW2; who they sold it to, the purposes it was used for, and why they sold it is still important. Based on interviews, Thiel and Karp are gleeful about their role in the military-industrial complex and embrace it [4], so likening their products to Excel is disingenuous at best.
But wouldn't all of that apply to Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Motors, Colt, Browning, and countless more companies that don't just build software for the military but actual weaponry? Yet those companies don't receive even a fraction of the hate that Palantir does.
Many people (myself included) have a lot to say about those companies as well. But their existence doesn't excuse Palantir, the company at the focus of the article that we're discussing in this thread. We're on a tech-focused forum which is probably why you hear more about tech-first companies here like Palantir and Anduril than "legacy" weapons manufacturers.
Nobody ever accused these companies of being competent at suppressing the research (which includes third parties btw, not just internal).
Companies do this research for all sorts of reasons (including legal compliance, demonstrating due diligence to regulators, to understand users and improve products, etc etc etc). For example, it's not like Zuck commissioned an internal study to show how they're harming children, more like some internal team was seeking to understand why kids love a certain feature which led them to conclusions that make the company look bad.
To your third point, that research is usually leaked by whistleblowers or conducted by third parties, not because of the altruism of these companies.
Finally, the platforms aren't doing enough and with this court case, it seems like they've persisted in finding ways to hook children because of financial incentives.
> Christianity is supported because it has shown itself to be the only culture capable to produce working institutions and a rule of law.
I'm really sick of these christian nationalists deciding that their chosen religion is the best thing for humanity and forcing it onto the rest of the world. "Working institutions" and "rule of law" for whom?
> Look at he middle east for understanding.
How comically reductive. Would you care to delve into the history of the middle east and of christian/western intervention?
> He is someone who plugged his fingers into the power outlett
Children harm themselves by plugging their fingers into power outlets. That's why we teach them not to.
As a case study, the Trump admin has done all those things (except the littering I guess) so I would say less likely since none of them have gone to prison.
The poor and marginalized tend to be incarcerated at much higher rates for lesser crimes than the richer and/or powerful whose crimes are much broader and more impactful on society.
The system in question in Essex is broken because it penalizes one race at higher rates than another race which commits the same crimes.
Flagged. Can we please not boost obvious astroturfing campaigns? [1]
"According to The Wall Street Journal, "[some] journalists at Iran International have complained that management is pushing a pro-Saudi, anti-Islamic Republic line". WSJ quoted a former correspondent at the TV station commenting that "a systematic and very persistent push" was made during her time there. Azadeh Moaveni of New York University has charged the channel is an arm of Saudi Arabia: "I would not describe Iran International as pro-reform, or organically Iranian in any manner". Historian Lior Sternfeld [he] stated, "Just as Al-Jazeera promotes Qatari interests, so does this channel promote Saudi interests regarding Iran", while noting a softening in Mohammed bin Salman's attitude towards Iran from around 2021. By 2026, in the estimation of the international relations scholar Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, Iran International was possibly being backed by Israel." [2]
I'm asking for critical thinking skills. This two-sentence "article" is literally just a screenshot of a chart on NetBlocks (which does its own reports, FYI, of which this is not one). Iran International is a Saudi-funded mouthpiece which astroturfs opposition to its enemies. The user who submitted it is not on HN for curious discussion and is solely focused on a pro-Israel, anti-Iran submissions.
HN should not be used as a platform to manufacture consent for war. This is not original, nor is it news, nor does it provide us with any developments. It is a transparent attempt to chip away the credibility of an enemy of Saudi Arabia.
You yourself have questioned sources before [1]. So what's your issue here? Why is it only acceptable for you to point out potential bias?
Yup, no need to trust Iran International. You can check NetBlocks if you really care about the source. It’s not that difficult.
A government should not hinder its own people’s access to potentially life saving communication channels especially in war time. Whether it’s Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine or Iran. Pointing this out isn’t manufacturing consent for war and shouldn’t make one mad.
My point isn't whether or not it's acceptable. It's that this particular source (and the fact that it was posted on HN) is an attempt to astroturf support for war for the HN audience. This is meant to manufacture legitimacy for the US and Israel's illegal war.
As I said above: "This is not original, nor is it news, nor does it provide us with any developments." I am again asking you to think critically: how does posting this add to the conversation? Why would someone who only posts pro-Israel and anti-Iranian content submit this to HN?
Pointing out that this is propaganda shouldn't make you mad.
> In the same way that you mainly only post in threads to support toppling the Iranian regime
Oh I, like many of my people, have been posting and supporting toppling of this murderous dictatorship long before this war. I don’t even support the war and don’t think it’s the best way to get rid of the islamic regime.
> I am again asking you to think critically
Let’s: Why do jump in to defend an illegitimate regime so relentlessly. Isn’t it ironic you mention astroturfing?
Can you tell us a bit more about the gag orders? I find it fascinating that all the discussion about climate change has largely disappeared after LLMs became mainstream, and the idea that state actors may be suppressing data is equally fascinating/terrifying.
>I find it fascinating that all the discussion about climate change has largely disappeared after LLMs became mainstream, and the idea that state actors may be suppressing data is equally fascinating/terrifying.
It's just not as popular to virtue signal over. Everyone is discussing the wars.
You are aware that Google collects massive amounts of data and provides it to government and law enforcement without warrants [1][2], as well as working with the US and foreign militaries for legally-questionable ends [3][4]?
Yes. What I don't understand is why you blame Google for being forced by justice departments to do this and still resisting (e.g. publishing the numbers). Trust me that's showing a LOT more backbone than BT ever has shown.
Are you aware all Telcos, from AT&T to BT do the same, except 1000x bigger scale?
Have you ever seen the interface that the police forces of many countries demanded be delivered along with cell phone towers? You can livetrack individual phones (location, proximity), listen in, get lists of websites they visit (not 100% accurate, but pretty good, this part is sort of like Palo Alto Networks. E.g. you see when the system thinks they're sending or receiving Facebook messages)
Are you aware that in the Police department, yes, you have "IT cops", but they don't work to protect institutions, they mostly work to catch "copyright thieves". Not even bank fraud (which is a huge problem, btw). They're actually terrified of doing something about that (because it involves international relations and they're pretty sure the result some organized scammer would be someone in the department gets fired)
Are you aware that an EU country kidnapped the CEO of a large instant messenger, actually tried to keep it secret, then charged him with "complicity to child sex trafficking" and is still holding him?
Are you aware that a US police officer used cell phone lawful intercept to stalk, then beat up, his ex-girlfriend 3 years ago? He got fired for it but no persecution, then he got a friend to do the same again.
And this is all JUST public information. Things are way, way worse than what's leaked.
No offense, but Google is not the problem in this space.
> What I don't understand is why you blame Google for being forced
They weren't forced. I linked to sources showing they voluntarily handed over the information. There is no resistance.
> Have you ever seen the interface that the police forces of many countries demanded be delivered
No, but I'd imagine it looks a lot like the comprehensive information that Google provided without warrants in the first two links I provided.
> Are you aware all Telcos, from AT&T to BT do the same, except 1000x bigger scale?
Also terrible. Doesn't excuse Google.
> Are you aware that an EU country
> Are you aware that a US police officer
These are states and agents of the state, which Google is not. Google also doesn't execute people in public hangings, but that doesn't excuse their actions as a company.
Google unethically assists state actors. It's why they removed "Don't be evil" as their motto. They are not a force for good in the world, they are a company that exists to maximize shareholder value. The benevolent ideals you ascribe to the company are not based on the reality of their actions.
So you're angry at Google ... because they fail to fight not just 1 country, but all countries' police forces on your behalf enough? I mean you even seem to agree they do fight them, just not enough to completely defeat them ...
No, I'm pointing out that Google is a for-profit company that collaborates with governments. In the age of mass surveillance, we should dispense with idealistic notions of these companies somehow being forces for good and instead understand their motivations and modes of operation.
I was making an argument about Google specifically, compared to other companies, especially state monopolies and "ex-"state-monopolies, not about the abstract notion of what a company is. If your point is simply that companies can't entirely ignore the law and that makes them inherently evil ...
Ex is between scare quotes because I don't believe for one second governments aren't currently both controlling these companies AND sabotaging their competition.
Well, I'd say your anger is misdirected and should go towards governments and the law, not companies.
I sat next to the "law enforcement liaison" team at a Telco many years ago. They were all ex-cops and I could listen in on the conversations that had with cops. There was never even the slightest push back. Just sexism, racism, blokey humour and "yeah we'll get that info for you".
Reducing defense spending by a fractional amount will have more of an impact than completely eliminating science spending altogether. The Iran tally is up to what, $11b now after a single week?
Defense is 12% of federal spending, not 52%. Definitely a bigger impact & waste than science budgets, I agree - but even cutting 100% of it would not close our hole. As I said, I’m no big fan of DOGE — but the problem is a real one despite the common tendency to put fingers in our ears or propose non-solutions, whether of the ‘tax the rich’, ‘cut DEI spending’, or ‘end all military expenditures’ variety. Not a single one of those or combination gets us there. We have to make real hard choices.
Those numbers still scale whether you're talking about total or discretionary spending, which means science/grants are an even smaller fraction of the 3%.
Why start cutting from the smallest piece of the pie? My point is that defense spending is already outsized and increasing while we cut science spending. Instead of increasing it, why not cut it and provide 100x the savings before cutting science spending? Doesn't seem like such a hard choice.
Sure, I think we should significantly scale back on defense. I hope you also support cutting social security & medicare as well though -- and also tax increases. Otherwise, we're cooked.
It was a convenient misunderstanding about a call to the Palm Beach Sheriff. The FBI has a recording of the call, but probably ambiently from the Sheriff’s side. It’s a small ray of innocence for a guy like Trump. And he forgot all about it until by luck it was in the Epstein files.
reply