[sequoia]

So the objections to Palantir are political? I know nothing about Spanish politics so I assume that makes sense in the Spanish political context. This helps explain why I can't find a specific concrete concern, it sounds more vibes-based. Thank you!

[toofy]

if you take the time to read karp’s manifesto and look into thiels beliefs, then maybe it wouldn’t seem “vibes-based” for you.

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.

[sequoia]

"he hilariously tries to convince people that the best way to have democracy is to not have it at all."

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.

[TheOtherHobbes]

How would you interpret Thiel's “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"?

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?

[Manuel_D]

> How would you interpret Thiel's “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"?

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.

[Manuel_D]

Can you point to where Karp falls for abolishing democracy? I can't seem to find that part.

[8note]

> falls for?

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

[Manuel_D]

Ah sorry, I meant to write "calls for". To be more specific:

> 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?

[Manuel_D]

Yes, the objections to Palantir are mostly just partisan politics. Efforts to portray Karp or Thiel as especially dangerous usually involves some taking some quote and applying a massive leap in logic.

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.

[ompogUe]

> says that it's easier to change the world by inventing new technology than through 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.

[8note]

its not partisan politics when both partisan parties increase their use of palantir

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

[Manuel_D]

Is making the government's job hard a good thing? If medicare delivers care half as good as it could have been, that's a good thing? If fraudsters go unchecked because the FBI is stymied, is the country better off?

[fluoridation]

>Is making the government's job hard a good thing?

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.