I know next to nothing about Palantir or the CEO or his mate Peter other than what I've read in this thread and some of the links.

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?

▲

barnabee 4 hours ago | parent [-]

My objection is that Palantir are close to a US regime that if not actually evil is at times indistinguishable from 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.

▲

ifh-hn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

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.

	▲	mexicocitinluez an hour ago \| parent [-]
		lol > 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.