With that going on, it's hard to imagine there once was a time where the news paper publishers hat little to no signal on what actually sold news papers. Given that papers were only sold as a bundle of articles and most sold through subscribers, they pretty much had to guess. So they had a rough direction they knew their readers expected and they had some sparse feedback from the "letters to the editor" but you had to be really angry to follow through on writing a physical letter, getting a stamp and walk to the post box just to complain.
I would argue, that helped journalism because journalists probably assumed that their readers would hold them to the same standards they hold the writes of the other papers to.
Even with moral issues aside, Palantir is absurdly expensive and seems to be focused on selling buzzwords over actual value and tech. It’s like crack for non-technical big wigs.
Setting aside politics and personalities, are Palantir's products any good? At least on the surface, their products seem to have many competitors, so is the product quality actually driving their growth?
some of their value comes in as they're an outside party with carte-blanche to organize your data....do you have 10 internal teams that can't agree on a schema or organize themselves well due to political reasons? hire palantir
"After 12 months of data analysis, we have arrived at the conclusion that our average customer was born before 1957 and thinks the country to going to hell in a hand basket."
Objection (objection.ai), which proposes to apply AI to “adjudicate the truth of journalism.” Pay $2,000 to contest allegations in a published story or various social media sources.
Personally, I ditched almost all western media outlets altogether because of their zionist and fascist tendencies. The propaganda was much too obvious. I don't think a Palantir partnership is going to change my mind.
Hacker News occasionally indexed Palestinian voices but this was a breath of fresh air compared to outlets like USA Today. I'm actually constantly conflicted about the sources I consume and still seek alternatives. If they want me to view more of their content, including more authoritarian surveillance technology is not the right move.
> Personally, I ditched almost all western media outlets altogether because of their zionist and fascist tendencies.
That is not helpful, and a very good way of falling down rabbit holes just because you find a source that agrees with you on one subject. That’s how you get manipulated and radicalised.
It’s much better to have a variety of sources, even if you occasionally disagree. It keeps you grounded and reminds you that other people have other opinions.
I cannot stress this enough: do not get polarised because of a single issue. That is how rational discourse dies.
> “It’s important to note all of our data remains our data,”
Despite all the negative attention about "palantir taking your data", this kind of data privacy is actually why so many organizations choose Palantir over the large AI providers. Palantir uses OSS AI models which don't feed back into the large lab training data and sets up firewalled instances per customer to give them total data sovereignty.
If the storage is on US soil their contractual privacy declaration is meaningless. They can either be forced to hand over data or they can be backdoored to take it without their knowledge. They are becoming the Cloudflare of digital life patterns and that is a tempting target for the powers who want that data.
I've still never quite understood the difference between an FDE and a contractor SWE the client hires through their parent consultancy, other than that with the contractor it would be clearer the hiring company owns all the work, data and infra produced.
Pessimistically I might think that the client demands data privacy and ownership on paper, but also doesn't want the liability of actually owning and maintaining or even touching their own vast stores directly. While the firm would love to learn from the data to better their systems... and more. So there's just a nice wink and a nod about what's not happening. But that is an uncharitable conspiratorial lens. I'm sure it's fine.
I would argue, that helped journalism because journalists probably assumed that their readers would hold them to the same standards they hold the writes of the other papers to.
Also, I remember staying at a hotel once where they delivered one to every guest room.
Objection (objection.ai), which proposes to apply AI to “adjudicate the truth of journalism.” Pay $2,000 to contest allegations in a published story or various social media sources.
Hacker News occasionally indexed Palestinian voices but this was a breath of fresh air compared to outlets like USA Today. I'm actually constantly conflicted about the sources I consume and still seek alternatives. If they want me to view more of their content, including more authoritarian surveillance technology is not the right move.
That is not helpful, and a very good way of falling down rabbit holes just because you find a source that agrees with you on one subject. That’s how you get manipulated and radicalised.
It’s much better to have a variety of sources, even if you occasionally disagree. It keeps you grounded and reminds you that other people have other opinions.
I cannot stress this enough: do not get polarised because of a single issue. That is how rational discourse dies.
Despite all the negative attention about "palantir taking your data", this kind of data privacy is actually why so many organizations choose Palantir over the large AI providers. Palantir uses OSS AI models which don't feed back into the large lab training data and sets up firewalled instances per customer to give them total data sovereignty.
(and no, I have no financial stake in Palantir)
You can’t “convert the sheer scale of our audience into known, orchestrated first-party relationships” without compromising your privacy.