🧵 My sense of justice was triggered by #Palantir corporate gaslighting two Swiss investigative journalists on LinkedIn.
-
🧵 My sense of justice was triggered by #Palantir corporate gaslighting two Swiss investigative journalists on LinkedIn.
This is something most people won’t even see, but I was angry, so I looked while my kid was still asleep.
Here’s what it looks like when tech bros attack journalists while you and I have too much food over Christmas.
Two Swiss journalists spent a year filing 59 #FOIA requests to document Palantir’s 7-year campaign to sell surveillance software to Swiss authorities (army and health services in particular).
: https://www.republik.ch/2025/12/09/warum-palantir-zum-risiko-fuer-die-schweiz-wirdThe Swiss army’s internal report concluded they couldn’t rule out US intelligence accessing data through Palantir systems, despite reassurances.
Their story hit The Guardian, and #UK MPs are now questioning ÂŁ825M in Palantir contracts.
The journalists were rejoicing on LinkedIn. It’s a big deal to have your story picked up by mainstream UK media, especially after a year of hard work.
This is where it gets ugly.
-
🧵 My sense of justice was triggered by #Palantir corporate gaslighting two Swiss investigative journalists on LinkedIn.
This is something most people won’t even see, but I was angry, so I looked while my kid was still asleep.
Here’s what it looks like when tech bros attack journalists while you and I have too much food over Christmas.
Two Swiss journalists spent a year filing 59 #FOIA requests to document Palantir’s 7-year campaign to sell surveillance software to Swiss authorities (army and health services in particular).
: https://www.republik.ch/2025/12/09/warum-palantir-zum-risiko-fuer-die-schweiz-wirdThe Swiss army’s internal report concluded they couldn’t rule out US intelligence accessing data through Palantir systems, despite reassurances.
Their story hit The Guardian, and #UK MPs are now questioning ÂŁ825M in Palantir contracts.
The journalists were rejoicing on LinkedIn. It’s a big deal to have your story picked up by mainstream UK media, especially after a year of hard work.
This is where it gets ugly.
Under the journalists profiles, where most people will never see it, Palantir’s PR machine kicked into gear via some rep.
Palantir published a “correction” claiming the journalists misrepresented their work. Except they “corrected” claims the journalists never made.
Palantir built a straw man saying they never officially participated in any RFP or formal government procurement process. And that either way, it’s not a big deal that they sometimes demo the software. So what?
What the journalists actually wrote: that Palantir engaged in 7 (seven!) years of informal contact attempts, sales conversations, and exchange meetings with Swiss officials.
Journalist Adrienne Fichter called them out in the comments: “I am still waiting for the list of wrong claims and facts in our 2 articles. We never wrote any of [what you claim].” (My edit for brevity)
The Palantir rep’s LinkedIn comment got 20 likes from his tech bro allies.
One even called the journalists part of the “bipolar ludditic left.” Casually weaponizing mental health stigma while completely misunderstanding what Luddites actually fought against (*cough* exploitation).
Meanwhile, these journalists who spent a year doing actual investigative work, who filed dozens of FOIA requests, who read through military reports and health service evaluations barely had anyone come to their defense in that same space.
They are now fending for themselves as they should, but the asymmetry is jarring.
-
Under the journalists profiles, where most people will never see it, Palantir’s PR machine kicked into gear via some rep.
Palantir published a “correction” claiming the journalists misrepresented their work. Except they “corrected” claims the journalists never made.
Palantir built a straw man saying they never officially participated in any RFP or formal government procurement process. And that either way, it’s not a big deal that they sometimes demo the software. So what?
What the journalists actually wrote: that Palantir engaged in 7 (seven!) years of informal contact attempts, sales conversations, and exchange meetings with Swiss officials.
Journalist Adrienne Fichter called them out in the comments: “I am still waiting for the list of wrong claims and facts in our 2 articles. We never wrote any of [what you claim].” (My edit for brevity)
The Palantir rep’s LinkedIn comment got 20 likes from his tech bro allies.
One even called the journalists part of the “bipolar ludditic left.” Casually weaponizing mental health stigma while completely misunderstanding what Luddites actually fought against (*cough* exploitation).
Meanwhile, these journalists who spent a year doing actual investigative work, who filed dozens of FOIA requests, who read through military reports and health service evaluations barely had anyone come to their defense in that same space.
They are now fending for themselves as they should, but the asymmetry is jarring.
That’s their game when they don’t have arguments that would hold in court:
Generate so much defensive legalese that refuting it becomes exhausting.
Make strawman arguments about claims that were never made.
Create the appearance of legitimacy through social proof (those 20 likes).
And do it all in spaces where the general public will never see it.
Palantir wants people to believe that seven years of talks were just demos or something.
Seven years is longer than some marriages!
The Swiss army doesn’t casually commission a 20-page internal risk assessment because someone had a coffee chat with a Palantir sales rep who opened a laptop for a demo.
Swiss health authorities don’t just write detailed evaluations with redacted conclusions because of “casual chats.”
When their systematic attempts to insert themselves into Swiss infrastructure didn’t work (the Swiss, smart people, said no 9 —nine! —times) Palantir just kept going unabated.
-
That’s their game when they don’t have arguments that would hold in court:
Generate so much defensive legalese that refuting it becomes exhausting.
Make strawman arguments about claims that were never made.
Create the appearance of legitimacy through social proof (those 20 likes).
And do it all in spaces where the general public will never see it.
Palantir wants people to believe that seven years of talks were just demos or something.
Seven years is longer than some marriages!
The Swiss army doesn’t casually commission a 20-page internal risk assessment because someone had a coffee chat with a Palantir sales rep who opened a laptop for a demo.
Swiss health authorities don’t just write detailed evaluations with redacted conclusions because of “casual chats.”
When their systematic attempts to insert themselves into Swiss infrastructure didn’t work (the Swiss, smart people, said no 9 —nine! —times) Palantir just kept going unabated.
These researchers aren’t wealthy. They stake their professional reputations on this work. If they get it wrong, their careers suffer real consequences.
The Palantir rep has dozen other tech companies that would hire him tomorrow. If this job doesn’t work out, there’s always the next one. The stakes are fundamentally different.
Adrienne Fichter and Marguerite Meyer did rigorous investigative journalism. They documented their sources. They filed FOIA requests. They read government reports. They interviewed officials. That’s what it looks like to speak truth to power.
When Palantir published their “correction,” they didn’t back down. They pointed out *exactly* what was false about Palantir’s response.
That, right there, is the difference between journalism and PR, if anyone still needed proof.
-
These researchers aren’t wealthy. They stake their professional reputations on this work. If they get it wrong, their careers suffer real consequences.
The Palantir rep has dozen other tech companies that would hire him tomorrow. If this job doesn’t work out, there’s always the next one. The stakes are fundamentally different.
Adrienne Fichter and Marguerite Meyer did rigorous investigative journalism. They documented their sources. They filed FOIA requests. They read government reports. They interviewed officials. That’s what it looks like to speak truth to power.
When Palantir published their “correction,” they didn’t back down. They pointed out *exactly* what was false about Palantir’s response.
That, right there, is the difference between journalism and PR, if anyone still needed proof.
If you think this is a niche #schweiz national interest story, think again, because Palantir are spreading their influence all over Europe.
Their software is used by ICE to track and deport migrants in the U.S., and in military targeting systems.
German civil society organizations are now citing the Swiss findings in their fight against Palantir’s expansion into German police forces.
Scrutiny is essential at this stage.
When journalists investigate and document *with proof*, the playbook comes out: Deny, obfuscate, claim they’re “misrepresenting” work that they don’t want scrutinized, mobilize the allies on LinkedIn, and bury critics in corporate double-speak.
Adrienne Fichter and Marguerite Meyer did excellent work. They deserve our support, not tech bros calling them “luddites” while Palantir rewrites what they actually reported. I *will* repeat their names so they’re not just “some journalists” somewhere.
Their investigation speaks for itself. So does Palantir’s response. That tells you everything you need to know about who’s operating in good faith.
-
If you think this is a niche #schweiz national interest story, think again, because Palantir are spreading their influence all over Europe.
Their software is used by ICE to track and deport migrants in the U.S., and in military targeting systems.
German civil society organizations are now citing the Swiss findings in their fight against Palantir’s expansion into German police forces.
Scrutiny is essential at this stage.
When journalists investigate and document *with proof*, the playbook comes out: Deny, obfuscate, claim they’re “misrepresenting” work that they don’t want scrutinized, mobilize the allies on LinkedIn, and bury critics in corporate double-speak.
Adrienne Fichter and Marguerite Meyer did excellent work. They deserve our support, not tech bros calling them “luddites” while Palantir rewrites what they actually reported. I *will* repeat their names so they’re not just “some journalists” somewhere.
Their investigation speaks for itself. So does Palantir’s response. That tells you everything you need to know about who’s operating in good faith.
-
@kkarhan@infosec.space INDECT, something I haven't heard in a while. What happened to it?
@diemkay@hachyderm.io -
@kkarhan@infosec.space INDECT, something I haven't heard in a while. What happened to it?
@diemkay@hachyderm.io@0mega @diemkay After it got international coverage [i.e. on #AJEnglish] (thanks to #Netzblockierer) and mass #demonstrations in places like #Germany it got canceled.
-
@0mega @diemkay After it got international coverage [i.e. on #AJEnglish] (thanks to #Netzblockierer) and mass #demonstrations in places like #Germany it got canceled.
@kkarhan@infosec.space Nice ​:neocat_cool:​ (at least for the riddance of INDECT).
I hope we'll similarly get rid of Palantir ​:neocat_happy:​
@diemkay@hachyderm.io -
A arbeitstitel@nrw.social shared this topic
T t3z@rollenspiel.social shared this topic
