Yep, seems like this person is very comfortable working at a company that exists to survey and aggregate indiscriminately, for the promise of "business insights", that's been known to discriminate...
Exemplary
even people who are morally uncomfortable with some aspects of policing are quick to call the police if their own home has been robbed.
Yep, seems like this person is very comfortable working at a company that exists to survey and aggregate indiscriminately, for the promise of "business insights", that's been known to discriminate on hiring, massively overstepped their privacy promises during the pandemic, that's been working with ICE to profile large groups of people and currently the US Government for the development of automatic combat drones, and is literally named after the all-seeing indestructible crystal ball that reveals all secrets and is a dangerous tool exactly because it reveals information only selectively and tends to confirm one's bias.
Paraphrasing here:
There's three types of projects - Morally neutral, like the Facebook News Feed, that's type 1; Unambiguously good like OpenPhilanthropy, that's type 2 - and grey areas like ICE and spy agencies, that's type 3.
...and this incredible analysis is followed not even a paragraph down by:
I don’t believe there is a clear answer to whether you should work with category 3 customers; it’s a case by case thing.
and of course, a true gem,
They did work with most other category 3 organizations, on the argument that they’re mostly doing good in the world, even though it’s easy to point to bad things they did as well.
I can’t speak to specific details here, but Palantir software is partly responsible for stopping multiple terror attacks. I believe this fact alone vindicates this stance.
What a coward's way of thinking. I mean, fine, make your money, hate the game not the players, whatever - but living in a vertically-integrated paperclip-maximising surveillance capitalist future and sitting at one of the largest sources of those symptoms, I would love a little more reflection here. But no, "That stance is good enough for me". Brilliant.
Do I remain bullish on the company? Yes.
"Bullish" is one of the few words that tell you so much about their author you can almost smell them. The social impact of a corporation like Palantir? Not all that interesting. The strange cult-like atmosphere the author reported on? A charming oddity, it appears. But the stock price? Of course that's what matters. Of course that's the question you have to ask. Of course you remain "bullish", which for those not acquainted with the specific brand of existential horror endemic to the financial sector means to stay invested, to continue to fund their malfeasance and to directly profit off of it. Of course you do. Who cares about a multinational surveillance conglomerate that the government is at best indifferent and at worst actively approving of? At least you get those sweet sweet dividends.
I think it’s reasonable to have some suspicions about this author, which I share. He’s a stranger I never heard of before. What do we really know about him? What are they not talking about that...
Exemplary
I think it’s reasonable to have some suspicions about this author, which I share. He’s a stranger I never heard of before. What do we really know about him? What are they not talking about that happened at Palantir?
However, I appreciated the somewhat nuanced discussion of working in morally grey areas. While I’m hardly going to apply for a job at Palantir or Lockheed, I think someone has to do the work, unless, for example, you’re fine with the Russians winning in Ukraine. The soldier or the arms manufacturer doesn’t get to make the call on most policy decisions, so they have to decide whether to trust the least-bad power in a conflict and live with the consequences. (We can see what happens when a military supplier does try to get involved with policy with Musk’s politicking about StarLink.)
It seems like you’re shutting out any discussion of such considerations by calling it “a coward’s way of thinking,” because you don’t want to think that way. It seems like the wrong word. Avoiding getting involved, which is what I do, is the easy way out. Criticizing from afar is pretty easy too.
At one point I worked on software directly used by the prison industry complex. Not a piece of software that just so happened to be used by prisons, but a purpose-built system to accommodate a...
At one point I worked on software directly used by the prison industry complex. Not a piece of software that just so happened to be used by prisons, but a purpose-built system to accommodate a very specific need. I am still haunted by the fact that I was naive at first, and didn't have the courage to quit the company that was contracted for the work once I realized how awful it was.
I can understand needing to make money. But knowing what I know now, I would never have considered the work I did to be a moral grey area, nor used the word "bullish" to describe the unjust system I contributed to.
I can certainly understand that - I would avoid such things, too. But having been there, do you think anyone should make software for prisons? Should we have prisons? I think there is an argument...
I can certainly understand that - I would avoid such things, too.
But having been there, do you think anyone should make software for prisons? Should we have prisons?
I think there is an argument for wanting to be involved because you’ll do a better job than someone else would. But that might mean willing to fight for making things a little better as well as knowing when to compromise when you’re gonna lose. I think things get very gray very fast and it would be bad for my mental health, but it’s an argument.
I brought up my own experiences not to debate the morality of my own actions, but as a rebuttle to language policing. I would have no problem referring to my own past actions as "a cowards way of...
I brought up my own experiences not to debate the morality of my own actions, but as a rebuttle to language policing.
I would have no problem referring to my own past actions as "a cowards way of thinking" and I wouldn't bat an eyelash if /u/delphi echoed that sentiment.
That's perfectly fine, in my opinion. My problem wasn't necessarily with the author's view, but that the impulse to write it down and publish it for everyone to see apparently didn't trigger some...
That's perfectly fine, in my opinion. My problem wasn't necessarily with the author's view, but that the impulse to write it down and publish it for everyone to see apparently didn't trigger some form of self-reflection.
Well, of course I am. I'm saying that because I personally could not do the work the author does, and what you said does ring especially true because I am privileged enough to divest myself from...
Well, of course I am. I'm saying that because I personally could not do the work the author does, and what you said does ring especially true because I am privileged enough to divest myself from the discussion of "who will build the bombs for the good guys". I realise someone has to, it's a hard job, and they're certainly not bad people because of it. You do what you have to.
I am specifically irked by this report because in my opinion the reflection doesn't go far enough. Why is it impossible to outright say "Yes, what Palantir is doing is in some cases more than questionable and I can't shake the feeling that the world would be a better place without them, and I'm hardly proud of what my honest work will most likely be used for"? The answer lies I think in the text itself, right at the last paragraph - because it's personally convenient to keep one's shares, silently profit off of the torment nexus to have a life where one has the luxury of not thinking about it. That's really what everyone wants, and while that's in my view very clearly cowardice, that doesn't necessarily mean I blame anyone who chooses that path.
But going online and proudly announcing it between confident assertive declarations that the Facebook news feed is "morally neutral" does stir my inner reactionary.
It sounds like he disagrees that the world would be "a better place without them." For example, he points to stopping terrorist attacks, without details. Also, he doesn't write much about what he...
It sounds like he disagrees that the world would be "a better place without them." For example, he points to stopping terrorist attacks, without details.
Also, he doesn't write much about what he personally did, other than his "first real customer engagement" for Airbus.
I'm not going to try to answer whether the world would be a better place without them. I've shared two in-depth blog posts about what it was like to work for Palantir that were pretty interesting, but I don't think that's enough to judge. When a company does some good things and some bad things, many of which are undisclosed, it seems like a tough call.
Also, it's nice not to have to answer that question.
It bothers me that a grey area implies the existence of a morally wrong area, but somehow there’s only 3 types? You can’t define where the line is without defining what lies beyond it....
There's three types of projects - Morally neutral, like the Facebook News Feed, that's type 1; Unambiguously good like OpenPhilanthropy, that's type 2 - and grey areas like ICE and spy agencies, that's type 3
It bothers me that a grey area implies the existence of a morally wrong area, but somehow there’s only 3 types? You can’t define where the line is without defining what lies beyond it.
Categorizing companies like this feels like an attempt, either by the author or whoever taught them the idea, to dodge any sort of discourse on what entities you shouldn’t or wouldn’t do business with. Because realistically, I suspect Palantir would do business with just about anyone willing to pay for their services. The only definitive stance the author takes on ‘bad’ entities to work with are foreign adversaries like Russia or the CCP.
I’m no fan of Russia nor the CCP myself. But stating a US company which does work for the US government, and multiple tightly controlled US industries, shouldn’t work with adversarial foreign superpowers is such a non-statement. To such an extent that it just feels dishonest or lazy.
He did point out one time the company decided not to work anymore in a certain area: But overall, we know very little about how they make such decisions, and it does sound like for the most part,...
He did point out one time the company decided not to work anymore in a certain area:
On the ICE question, they disengaged from ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations) during the Trump era, while continuing to work with HSI (Homeland Security Investigations).
But overall, we know very little about how they make such decisions, and it does sound like for the most part, only US adversaries are ruled out.
So well said. You summarised my feelings exactly. Curious that some people think the Facebook News Feed is "neutral". Personally I think it was neutral back when it was chronological and had no...
So well said. You summarised my feelings exactly.
Curious that some people think the Facebook News Feed is "neutral". Personally I think it was neutral back when it was chronological and had no suggestions... but those two changes have had deep editorial repercussions that make it no longer neutral!
Palantir is headquartered near me, and when they first started the "Big Data" wave at least a decade (if not longer, I'm not good with time) ago, we were all interested in working for/with them....
Palantir is headquartered near me, and when they first started the "Big Data" wave at least a decade (if not longer, I'm not good with time) ago, we were all interested in working for/with them. They seemed so cool and on the verge of making life easier for everyone. Then it started to come out just how evil they were and how they were using the data.
Locally, at least in my circles, many of us equated them with how we see Elon Musk now. I've all but forgotten them in real time because back when I was looking to work with companies local to my nonprofit, we decided that their money wouldn't feel right to attract for donations.
I had similar reservations about joining Microsoft or a financial firm. I joined Google instead, because at the time, they seemed to be the good guys. :)
I had similar reservations about joining Microsoft or a financial firm. I joined Google instead, because at the time, they seemed to be the good guys. :)
Insightful and fascinating read. It sent me down a rabbit hole to look deeper into improv theatre as a therapeutic tool and put the book by Keith Johnstone on my reading list.
Insightful and fascinating read. It sent me down a rabbit hole to look deeper into improv theatre as a therapeutic tool and put the book by Keith Johnstone on my reading list.
Yep, seems like this person is very comfortable working at a company that exists to survey and aggregate indiscriminately, for the promise of "business insights", that's been known to discriminate on hiring, massively overstepped their privacy promises during the pandemic, that's been working with ICE to profile large groups of people and currently the US Government for the development of automatic combat drones, and is literally named after the all-seeing indestructible crystal ball that reveals all secrets and is a dangerous tool exactly because it reveals information only selectively and tends to confirm one's bias.
Paraphrasing here:
...and this incredible analysis is followed not even a paragraph down by:
and of course, a true gem,
What a coward's way of thinking. I mean, fine, make your money, hate the game not the players, whatever - but living in a vertically-integrated paperclip-maximising surveillance capitalist future and sitting at one of the largest sources of those symptoms, I would love a little more reflection here. But no, "That stance is good enough for me". Brilliant.
"Bullish" is one of the few words that tell you so much about their author you can almost smell them. The social impact of a corporation like Palantir? Not all that interesting. The strange cult-like atmosphere the author reported on? A charming oddity, it appears. But the stock price? Of course that's what matters. Of course that's the question you have to ask. Of course you remain "bullish", which for those not acquainted with the specific brand of existential horror endemic to the financial sector means to stay invested, to continue to fund their malfeasance and to directly profit off of it. Of course you do. Who cares about a multinational surveillance conglomerate that the government is at best indifferent and at worst actively approving of? At least you get those sweet sweet dividends.
I think it’s reasonable to have some suspicions about this author, which I share. He’s a stranger I never heard of before. What do we really know about him? What are they not talking about that happened at Palantir?
However, I appreciated the somewhat nuanced discussion of working in morally grey areas. While I’m hardly going to apply for a job at Palantir or Lockheed, I think someone has to do the work, unless, for example, you’re fine with the Russians winning in Ukraine. The soldier or the arms manufacturer doesn’t get to make the call on most policy decisions, so they have to decide whether to trust the least-bad power in a conflict and live with the consequences. (We can see what happens when a military supplier does try to get involved with policy with Musk’s politicking about StarLink.)
It seems like you’re shutting out any discussion of such considerations by calling it “a coward’s way of thinking,” because you don’t want to think that way. It seems like the wrong word. Avoiding getting involved, which is what I do, is the easy way out. Criticizing from afar is pretty easy too.
[edited to add more nuance]
At one point I worked on software directly used by the prison industry complex. Not a piece of software that just so happened to be used by prisons, but a purpose-built system to accommodate a very specific need. I am still haunted by the fact that I was naive at first, and didn't have the courage to quit the company that was contracted for the work once I realized how awful it was.
I can understand needing to make money. But knowing what I know now, I would never have considered the work I did to be a moral grey area, nor used the word "bullish" to describe the unjust system I contributed to.
I can certainly understand that - I would avoid such things, too.
But having been there, do you think anyone should make software for prisons? Should we have prisons?
I think there is an argument for wanting to be involved because you’ll do a better job than someone else would. But that might mean willing to fight for making things a little better as well as knowing when to compromise when you’re gonna lose. I think things get very gray very fast and it would be bad for my mental health, but it’s an argument.
I brought up my own experiences not to debate the morality of my own actions, but as a rebuttle to language policing.
I would have no problem referring to my own past actions as "a cowards way of thinking" and I wouldn't bat an eyelash if /u/delphi echoed that sentiment.
That's perfectly fine, in my opinion. My problem wasn't necessarily with the author's view, but that the impulse to write it down and publish it for everyone to see apparently didn't trigger some form of self-reflection.
Well, of course I am. I'm saying that because I personally could not do the work the author does, and what you said does ring especially true because I am privileged enough to divest myself from the discussion of "who will build the bombs for the good guys". I realise someone has to, it's a hard job, and they're certainly not bad people because of it. You do what you have to.
I am specifically irked by this report because in my opinion the reflection doesn't go far enough. Why is it impossible to outright say "Yes, what Palantir is doing is in some cases more than questionable and I can't shake the feeling that the world would be a better place without them, and I'm hardly proud of what my honest work will most likely be used for"? The answer lies I think in the text itself, right at the last paragraph - because it's personally convenient to keep one's shares, silently profit off of the torment nexus to have a life where one has the luxury of not thinking about it. That's really what everyone wants, and while that's in my view very clearly cowardice, that doesn't necessarily mean I blame anyone who chooses that path.
But going online and proudly announcing it between confident assertive declarations that the Facebook news feed is "morally neutral" does stir my inner reactionary.
It sounds like he disagrees that the world would be "a better place without them." For example, he points to stopping terrorist attacks, without details.
Also, he doesn't write much about what he personally did, other than his "first real customer engagement" for Airbus.
I'm not going to try to answer whether the world would be a better place without them. I've shared two in-depth blog posts about what it was like to work for Palantir that were pretty interesting, but I don't think that's enough to judge. When a company does some good things and some bad things, many of which are undisclosed, it seems like a tough call.
Also, it's nice not to have to answer that question.
It bothers me that a grey area implies the existence of a morally wrong area, but somehow there’s only 3 types? You can’t define where the line is without defining what lies beyond it.
Categorizing companies like this feels like an attempt, either by the author or whoever taught them the idea, to dodge any sort of discourse on what entities you shouldn’t or wouldn’t do business with. Because realistically, I suspect Palantir would do business with just about anyone willing to pay for their services. The only definitive stance the author takes on ‘bad’ entities to work with are foreign adversaries like Russia or the CCP.
I’m no fan of Russia nor the CCP myself. But stating a US company which does work for the US government, and multiple tightly controlled US industries, shouldn’t work with adversarial foreign superpowers is such a non-statement. To such an extent that it just feels dishonest or lazy.
He did point out one time the company decided not to work anymore in a certain area:
But overall, we know very little about how they make such decisions, and it does sound like for the most part, only US adversaries are ruled out.
So well said. You summarised my feelings exactly.
Curious that some people think the Facebook News Feed is "neutral". Personally I think it was neutral back when it was chronological and had no suggestions... but those two changes have had deep editorial repercussions that make it no longer neutral!
Palantir is headquartered near me, and when they first started the "Big Data" wave at least a decade (if not longer, I'm not good with time) ago, we were all interested in working for/with them. They seemed so cool and on the verge of making life easier for everyone. Then it started to come out just how evil they were and how they were using the data.
Locally, at least in my circles, many of us equated them with how we see Elon Musk now. I've all but forgotten them in real time because back when I was looking to work with companies local to my nonprofit, we decided that their money wouldn't feel right to attract for donations.
I had similar reservations about joining Microsoft or a financial firm. I joined Google instead, because at the time, they seemed to be the good guys. :)
And now we know they're all evil all the way down. :)
Insightful and fascinating read. It sent me down a rabbit hole to look deeper into improv theatre as a therapeutic tool and put the book by Keith Johnstone on my reading list.