Donald Trump’s allies at Palantir, a parasitic “private” company funded by tax dollars and created by the CIA, have taken a beating in the media in recent days. With the exception of the usual pro-regime voices at the legacy media, coverage of Trump’s growing alliance with Palantir—a tech firm that’s helping the administration compile and analyze ever larger hoards of data on Americans—media coverage has been overwhelmingly negative.
Even the traditionally pro-Trump corners of social media and the “alternative” online media have begun to see what the Palantir deal is about. It’s about providing new AI tools to the federal government to more closely monitor Americans and their daily habits in a way never before possible.
[For background on this issue, see: “Trump Is Building a Bigger Deep State with the Help of “Libertarian” Peter Thiel.“]
Consequently, Trump’s allies—some of the corporate, tax-farming class of Big Tech faux “entrepreneurs”—have taken to social media to stick up for themselves and their incessant push for more tax dollars.
A case in point is Joe Lonsdale, who self-identifies as an entrepreneur, although his “business model” is often little more than “get taxpayer money.” Lonsdale denounced one of his critics as “retarded,” called a few others as “fat guy in mom’s basement” and then went on to claim that what Palantir is doing is totally harmless.
Lonsdale is a co-founder of Palantir, along with regime apologist and merchant of death Peter Thiel, so Lonsdale has a personal financial stake in running apologetics for Palantir.
As is so common among taxpayer funded “private” profiteers, Lonsdale plays the victim, pretending his company has been somehow been subject to unfair criticism. (For a similar ruse, see Dominion Voting Machines, a company that is totally taxpayer funded but is suing its taxpaying critics for “defamation.”
His claims of Palantir’s innocence, however, are rather unconvincing. Lonsdale writes:
“Palantir’s not a “database”; it’s a platform created by 1000s of the most talented and patriotic Americans to partner with our DoD to stop attacks and defeat bad guys, while protecting liberty & privacy.”
Like most of what Lonsdale has to say on this matter, the claim that Palantir is doing nothing wrong because it’s not a database, is obfuscation. It’s true that Palantir is not itself a database, but that’s hardly relevant. Palantir exists to help the federal government compile and analyze database information at a level never before contemplated. The whole point of Palantir is to make it easier and faster for the federal government to violate your Fourth Amendment rights, and then use that collected data against you.
As was typical for Lonsdale’s predecessors during George W. Bush’s Global War on Terror, Lonsdale claims that it’s all just to capture “the bad guys.” This is a variation of “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from violations of privacy.” That’s long been the mantra from the FBI and other enemies of freedom. This is apparently Lonsdale’s position as well.
Lonsdale continues: “There are hundreds of similar types of software and efforts in the USA throughout the west.” This is a typical excuse used by advocates of shredding the Bill of Rights like Lonsdale: “other governments do it. We’re just doing what other regimes do! So what are you afraid of?”
In this disinformation campaign to buttress the reputation of regime-aligned Big Tech spy firms, Lonsdale was joined by Wendy Anderson, a former Palantir exec who now self-describes as a “defense tech exec.” Translation: tax-funded corporate welfare queen.
At any rate, she’s rushes to the defense Palantir, claiming she is only and innocently motivated by a desire for “honest and accurate reporting.” Sure.
She goes on to claim that Palantir is not really doing anything of note at all and is merely “a data integration platform that connects to existing systems.” Yes, that’s exactly what its critics have been saying. Palantir exists to take the government’s data on millions of Americans and funnel it into a platform that is easy to analyze and weaponize against Americans. This is not different from what Anderson is saying. The only difference is that Anderson is disingenuously trying to make it sounds like no big deal.
Like Lonsdale, she then uses the “other people are doing it” defense, saying: “Many companies and government agencies use similar tools to work with data across multiple systems. This isn’t unique or nefarious technology.”
Yes, it is nefarious. “Data integration” designed to expand government manipulation and analysis of your personal data is nefarious. That’s what privacy advocates have been saying for decades. It’s likely that Anderson truly believes it’s fine, though. Like Lonsdale, it seems beyond her comprehension that people in power could use these tools for tyrannical purposes. Why? Well, possibly because she’s friends with the people in power. When one is part of the ruling class—or at least adjacent to it—one is likely to view the ruling class as innocent and “the good guys.”
This attitude seems to inform Anderson’s next comment. She states that Palantir’s critics “conflate what software CAN do with what it IS doing. Yes, data integration tools can theoretically be misused - so can Excel, SQL databases, or any data tool. The [New York Times] article provides no evidence of misuse, only fear about possibilities.”
Again, Anderson appears impervious to the notion that it makes sense to not give powers to governments that governments can easily misuse. Making it extremely easy for the regime to weaponize your personal data is extremely dangerous. This is why people who understand how governments work are wary about such things. For Anderson however, the fact that she hasn’t observed the government abuse this power is evidence that it’s nothing to worry about. It’s difficult to know if she actually believes this, but naturally, it’s the attitude we should expect from someone who is a “defense tech exec.” Their tax-fueled profits depend on creating new tools to make government more powerful. There’s a lot of money to be had in doing so.