3 ms·

You're absolutely right, but if the technology you sell is not even truly required by an unethical client like those mentioned, then there is even less reason t

You're absolutely right, but if the technology you sell is not even truly required by an unethical client like those mentioned, then there is even less reason to engage with them. The parent post from a former employee suggests that Palantir is in a similar position: > They build a federated search engine with a simple UI to make it accessible to a non-technical audience. That’s it. That's not a value proposition that is beyond the realms of possibility for other companies to develop. So why does Palantir appear to engage with more unethical projects that other companies if it's not by having a low ethical standard? (Obviously I can only comment on what is public knowledge.)

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> but if the technology you sell is not even truly required by an unethical client like those mentioned, then there is even less reason to engage with them. If the technology is not truly required by the unethical client, then you are doing a good, by taking their money and providing technology they don’t need. Money they give is money they can’t spend for other stuff that they truly need.
- tweetle_beetle 6y ago
  The idea of ethics is based on having some level of shared values. If we act collectively we can promote these values. In this case, if we collectively disagree with something then we can "punish" it by not engaging with it commercially. I'm not sure how the abstract sabotage suggested makes any difference if the reasoning behind it isn't expressed - giving someone exactly what they want is hardly a great long term motivator for change.