3 ms·

did you hit up wikipedia? the controversies section would be a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palanti

did you hit up wikipedia? the controversies section would be a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir#Controversies

sequoia 4mo ago
This section is hilariously hostile towards Palantir. "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. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- lokar 4mo ago
  Well, you start with an obviously false claim, I did not continue reading.
- fluoridation 4mo ago
  >'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? 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.
  - dwd 4mo ago
    Someone in ICE uses Microsoft Excel to maintain a list of people who they believe should be send to an internment camp. Therefore Microsoft is an accessory to that? 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".
    - pebble 4mo ago
      If Microsoft sells ICE a subscription to Office then yes.
      - dzhiurgis 4mo ago
        How about selling cakes to gay couples?

did you hit up wikipedia? the controversies section would be a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir#Controversies

sequoia 4mo ago

This section is hilariously hostile towards Palantir. "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. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
lokar 4mo ago
Well, you start with an obviously false claim, I did not continue reading.
fluoridation 4mo ago
>'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? 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.
- dwd 4mo ago
  Someone in ICE uses Microsoft Excel to maintain a list of people who they believe should be send to an internment camp. Therefore Microsoft is an accessory to that? 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".
  - pebble 4mo ago
    If Microsoft sells ICE a subscription to Office then yes.
    - dzhiurgis 4mo ago
      How about selling cakes to gay couples?