[flagged]
Why? Because they are getting support.
From what I can tell the objections are all political in nature, and whether people like what the company has done previously.
In the context of the NHS contract I've seen little to suggest the software is going to make anything worse... How could it?
Combine that with people like Peter Thiel (who has publicly stated beliefs that are deeply incompatible with free and democratic society) in positions of power/influence there, and opening up our citizens' and/or government's data to that company feels particularly risky[0].
So yes, I guess it's "political", but at some level everything is. We don't get to "just" make technology.
[0] Honestly, right now I would put most or all large US tech companies in the same bucket (though for now, less vehemently so) as large Chinese or Russian companies when it comes to sharing nationally important data or assets. We have to assume they're potentially compromised by a government that (by its own statements) can no longer be assumed to remain friendly. Palantir just happens to be both very visible and particularly risky in this regard.
I'd also say that the NHS has a proven track record of failed IT projects, so if this company can improve the situation then I can't see the issue. Unless of course the UK gov mess up the contract, which can't be ruled out.
At some point you have to look at this objectively without politics bias.
> In the 2025 book The Technological Republic, Karp and Zamiska argue that American technological dominance requires deeper integration of Silicon Valley and defense interests. Karp contends that China operates with fewer ethical constraints than American defense companies, making technological leadership essential for national security. The authors stress that deterrence through technological dominance could prevent many wars. Bloomberg noted that the atomic bomb the Manhattan Project produced was ultimately used. The New Republic called Karp's formation of Palantir an embrace of techno-militarism to advance American global supremacy through hard power and targeted violence.[44][45][46] The Wall Street Journal said Palantir had a "pro-America ethos" from its inception, highlighting
For the love of God do a modicum of due dilligence before commenting.
> I would say, in my opinion, that it's better in the US than in China/Russian hands. The US at least seems most aligned with the UK in terms of political freedom than the two communist states.
And I quoted the CEO of Palantir quite literally wanting to be more like China.
Ad the specific part about "The US at least seams most aligned with the UK in terms of political freedoms" is funny because
> he New Republic called Karp's formation of Palantir an embrace of techno-militarism to advance American global supremacy through hard power and targeted violence
doesn't sound like the US will be aligned for too much longer.
And that's not even touching the current political climate of hte US. You know we're deporting college kids for op-eds and trying to remove news licenses that are mean to the President?
A significant disadvantage of the US and UKs democracy, more so in the US, is the short term thinking. China and Russia don't have that problem. They're more stable in that respect. They can execute real long term plans. Like businesses can. Nothing wrong with seeing advantages where they exist even if the way they go about it is disagreeable.
I'm not much of a history buff either but the US has been advancing it's global supremacy of "hard power and targeted violence" since at least the second world war. Palantir is nothing new.
And none of this has anything to do with an IT system in the NHS. What alternatives are there? Personally given the choice between palantir and a russian/Chinese company I'd go with palantir. Hopefully it works.
When it came to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust, IBM also just "did the databases".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Karp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
You could have at least read Palatir's wiki before commenting.
Here are some hightlights:
> Karp and Zamiska argue that American technological dominance requires deeper integration of Silicon Valley and defense interests.
> Karp contends that China operates with fewer ethical constraints than American defense companies, making technological leadership essential for national security
> According to the Journal, for two years the company continuously revised its technology based on the demands of analysts from the intelligence agencies, introduced to them by In-Q-Tel.[1
Do you need more? That's a single paragraph.
> They’re basically just a consulting company that turns your random excel sheets and old databases into something you can search.
What does responding with what Palantir really does have anything to do with my objections to them?
At least argue in good faith.