5 ms·

It's possible that Thiel knew something deeper about the state of the nation through Palantir. However, I seriously doubt that Palantir secretly worked on the

It's possible that Thiel knew something deeper about the state of the nation through Palantir. However, I seriously doubt that Palantir secretly worked on the data that Kogan sold to CA years after he collected it, as this Wylie guy alleges. He has presented no evidence, and Palantir flatly denies it. I think he has seen the media run with his previous claims, and thinks that nobody will call BS on him now. I have started wondering what could be driving this guy to make what at first seemed like believable allegations, that now seem more and more wild. I have been unable to find any current employer for him. My suspicion is that he is out of work and thought the attention from this would get him hired somewhere, not realizing that nobody - even the most liberal of firms - will hire him because he has proven, in the most public of ways, that he can't be trusted to not disclose confidential information. According to [1], he is a dyslexic high school dropout with ADHD who sued his elementary school because he was bullied and "...he describes himself as the gay Canadian vegan who somehow ended up creating "Steve Bannon's psychological warfare mindf--k tool." That is certainly a grandiose claim, but there seems to be no evidence that this tool even worked, and in fact there is some evidence to the contrary [2]. It appears that campaigns hired CA not because its data analysis techniques were helpful, but because doing so was a prerequisite for obtaining campaign contributions from the Mercer family [3]. So, we have an out of work programmer with social issues who has no degree and can't be trusted, whose most famous work apparently didn't work at all (according to its customers), and whose biggest asset is that the media will take everything he says as fact. My guess is that Wylie's claims will get even more bizarre as he and his stories quickly disappear from the headlines with no work forthcoming. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/christopher-wylie-background-1.4583054 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/christopher-w... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-facebook-scandal-trump-cruz-operatives-2018-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-facebook-... [3] https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/975756418128187393 https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/975756418128187393

wjnqx 9y ago
I suggest you watch his testimony before UK lawmakers this morning. He appears to know what he's talking about and bases his claims on evidence supplied to the Parliamentary committee. https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mnxeXjraDNJX https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mnxeXjraDNJX
- downandout 9y ago
  This is a 3.5 hour video. Did he present actual evidence about the Palantir claim?
jnbiche 9y ago
First of all, a significant part your comment is ad hominem. For example, bringing up his dyslexia and sexuality in the context of his credibility does no credit to your argument. More importantly, some very big players have decided that Wylie is very credible. Channel 4's investigation, which featured Cambridge Analytica's CEO bragging about conducting campaign bribery and blackmail on camera, was based primarily upon his whistleblowing to The Guardian's Carole Cadwalladr. Britain's libel laws are quite strict, so Wylie was extensively vetted before Guardian was confident enough to publish without fear of being sued. And Channel 4 approved the undercover investigation of CA on the basis of Wylie's information. Also, with these kinds of blockbuster investigative reports, the legal department gets involved in vetting whistleblowers. Based on all this, along with Wylie's testimony to parliament today, as well as his willingness to testify under oath to the US Congress, I'd say his credibility is quite high unless specifically proven otherwise.
- downandout 9y ago
  Bringing up his dyslexia and sexuality in the context of his credibility does no credit to your argument. I pasted his own quote. That is how he describes himself in the media. That is the only reason I found it relevant - because he found it relevant. In the quote I copied, he also said that he is both Canadian and a vegan, but somehow you didn’t take issue with that. Is it now not PC to copy and paste exact quotes from people? The rules change so often...I can’t keep up. With regard to the rest of your comment, again, my comment was in response to his Palantir claim. Did he present any evidence of his Palantir claim?
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    > Is it now not PC to copy and paste exact quotes from people? The rules change so often...I can’t keep up. You brought it up in the context of questioning his motives and credibility. By the way, I'm a big admirer of folks like Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I hate PC. But I also can't stand ad hominem attacks, and a very significant part of your comment discussed things that have no bearing on your argument. > With regard to the rest of your comment, again, my comment was in response to his Palantir claim. Did he present any evidence of his Palantir claim? There's turned out to be a ton of evidence to back up his Cambridge Analytica claims. And his Palantir claims just came out today. On the basis of those two facts alone, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he's lying, I'm sure it will come out. But I'm skeptical he's making this all up.
mlb_hn 9y ago
It doesn't look like he was jobless the whole time. At 3:01 in the hearing, they get into a discussion regarding Wylie pitching the company he was at in January, 2016, to the VoteLeave people (but not being accepted). Wylie was doing something in Canada at the time though.
- downandout 9y ago
  I was referring to right now. If he is employed, I can’t find any information as to where.

wjnqx 9y ago

I suggest you watch his testimony before UK lawmakers this morning. He appears to know what he's talking about and bases his claims on evidence supplied to the Parliamentary committee. https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mnxeXjraDNJX https://www.pscp.tv/w/1mnxeXjraDNJX

downandout 9y ago
This is a 3.5 hour video. Did he present actual evidence about the Palantir claim?

jnbiche 9y ago

First of all, a significant part your comment is ad hominem. For example, bringing up his dyslexia and sexuality in the context of his credibility does no credit to your argument. More importantly, some very big players have decided that Wylie is very credible. Channel 4's investigation, which featured Cambridge Analytica's CEO bragging about conducting campaign bribery and blackmail on camera, was based primarily upon his whistleblowing to The Guardian's Carole Cadwalladr. Britain's libel laws are quite strict, so Wylie was extensively vetted before Guardian was confident enough to publish without fear of being sued. And Channel 4 approved the undercover investigation of CA on the basis of Wylie's information. Also, with these kinds of blockbuster investigative reports, the legal department gets involved in vetting whistleblowers. Based on all this, along with Wylie's testimony to parliament today, as well as his willingness to testify under oath to the US Congress, I'd say his credibility is quite high unless specifically proven otherwise.

downandout 9y ago
Bringing up his dyslexia and sexuality in the context of his credibility does no credit to your argument. I pasted his own quote. That is how he describes himself in the media. That is the only reason I found it relevant - because he found it relevant. In the quote I copied, he also said that he is both Canadian and a vegan, but somehow you didn’t take issue with that. Is it now not PC to copy and paste exact quotes from people? The rules change so often...I can’t keep up. With regard to the rest of your comment, again, my comment was in response to his Palantir claim. Did he present any evidence of his Palantir claim?
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > Is it now not PC to copy and paste exact quotes from people? The rules change so often...I can’t keep up. You brought it up in the context of questioning his motives and credibility. By the way, I'm a big admirer of folks like Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I hate PC. But I also can't stand ad hominem attacks, and a very significant part of your comment discussed things that have no bearing on your argument. > With regard to the rest of your comment, again, my comment was in response to his Palantir claim. Did he present any evidence of his Palantir claim? There's turned out to be a ton of evidence to back up his Cambridge Analytica claims. And his Palantir claims just came out today. On the basis of those two facts alone, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he's lying, I'm sure it will come out. But I'm skeptical he's making this all up.

mlb_hn 9y ago

It doesn't look like he was jobless the whole time. At 3:01 in the hearing, they get into a discussion regarding Wylie pitching the company he was at in January, 2016, to the VoteLeave people (but not being accepted). Wylie was doing something in Canada at the time though.

downandout 9y ago
I was referring to right now. If he is employed, I can’t find any information as to where.