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.
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.
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.
> you could unilaterally change the world without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who are never going to agree with you through technological means
If that's not "technofascism" then idk what is. Trying to spin that as culture war bullshit is disingenuous.
See quote at 13m14s in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ95Gmvg_D4
So the answer your question: Meta spends millions on lobbying to influence elected officials, because it knows has to work within the democratic system.
> Google and Facebook absolutely changed the world, not through politics, but by creating technology.
But it sounds like we're on the same page that they did change the world in part through politics?
But back to the main point, quoting someone saying you can change the world though technology instead of democracy and trying to use such a statement as evidence that they want to abolish democracy is nonsense.
Why begin with surveilance though?
Palantir started with analytics because the founders believed the US was making poor use of data, and needed better tools.