Does Palantir Want A War?

+ Google Employees Protesting The Company

Welcome back to DailyPalantir! Today’s newsletter is going to be about the current state of geopolitical conflicts and what that means for Palantir, along with the protests going on at other tech companies…let’s get into it.

Google Protests

48 hours ago, Google employees decided to protest offices in California and NYC. Their demand: for Google to abandon the $1.2B cloud contract the company has with the Israeli military.

Since then, Google has fired those employees. The reason I thought this story was so interesting was because the Google employees somehow felt they were justified in asking Google to not provide cloud computing to Israel. Palantir explicitly supports Israel, so there is a massive dichotomy between the two companies.

We have seen employees at Palantir protest against the company for their work with ICE, but we have not seen public information that they have internally protested around Israel. If they did, Karp had one message for them: leave.

Now, Google has not explicitly taken sides in the conflict. They likely feel they are too large and should stay neutral. However, the employees staging this protest does speak to the issues Google has had in the past when it came to defense contracting — and it absolutely should bring into question if governments are able to trust them.

We saw this with Project Maven.

Project Maven, also known as the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Function Team (AWCFT), was an initiative launched by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) with the goal of implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning technology to interpret vast amounts of video data. The project aimed to enhance military decision-making on the battlefield by automating the analysis of drone footage, thereby improving target recognition and surveillance operations.

Google initially secured a contract with the DoD for Project Maven, which involved using their AI technology to analyze drone footage. This partnership sparked controversy within Google, leading to significant internal protests from employees who were concerned about their work being used in military applications that could lead to harm or casualties. The backlash was rooted in ethical concerns about AI's role in warfare and fears that it contradicted Google's corporate values encapsulated in their famous motto "Don't be evil."

As a result of this internal dissent and public scrutiny, Google decided not to renew its contract for Project Maven upon its expiration. This decision highlighted a broader debate within Silicon Valley about tech companies' involvement in defense work and whether they should provide their expertise and technologies for military use.

Palantir, who has been more open than many Silicon Valley leaders about working with government agencies including those in defense sectors, stepped into roles similar to what Project Maven required. Palantir had already been working on projects involving data analytics for government clients prior to Google's exit from Project Maven. Unlike Google, Palantir has not shied away from defense contracts; instead, they have embraced them as part of their business model while emphasizing their commitment to ethical guidelines.

Alex Karp’s problem with Silicon Valley

This whole situation brings into question the fundamental problem Alex Karp and Palantir have with Silicon Valley — which is why they left to make their HQ in Denver.

Karp believes that many companies in Silicon Valley have shied away from working with the US government on defense-related projects due to a combination of ideological differences and concerns about public perception. He sees this reluctance as a failure of the tech community to recognize its potential role in addressing national security challenges.

Karp argues that technology companies have a responsibility to support their country’s defense efforts, especially given that these firms often benefit from the infrastructure and stability provided by government institutions. In his view, when tech companies refuse to work with defense agencies or distance themselves from military contracts, they are not only neglecting an opportunity to contribute positively but also allowing less scrupulous actors who may not prioritize ethical considerations to fill the void.

The problem Karp identifies is twofold: there is both an aversion within Silicon Valley towards engaging with military projects and a tendency for some tech leaders to dismiss or criticize those who do choose such engagements. This stance can create an environment where technological advancements are not fully leveraged for national security purposes. For Karp, this represents both a missed opportunity and a misalignment between technological capability and societal needs.

In contrast, Palantir has actively sought out work with government agencies including those in defense sectors—a decision which has sometimes put them at odds with other Silicon Valley entities but aligns with Karp's belief in civic duty. He maintains that if technology developed within Silicon Valley can be used ethically to protect citizens and enhance national security operations without infringing on privacy rights or civil liberties, then it should be done so proudly rather than apologetically. Through this lens, Alex Karp positions Palantir not just as another company seeking profit but as one striving towards what he perceives as responsible corporate citizenship within the realm of technology’s intersection with public service.

Performative Corporate Activism

Not only does Karp have a problem with Silicon Valley, but in the context of Israel, he and Palantir uniquely have a problem with tech CEOs speaking about every social issue under the sun but remaining quiet about Israel, even though in private they express support for the country.

Karp believes that CEOs and companies often speak out on social issues when it is popular or convenient but remain silent on others that may be more controversial or carry greater risk to their business interests. Karp's specific issue with the silence on Israel stems from his view that there is a moral imperative to support democratic nations facing significant threats, such as terrorism.

Karp's stance is rooted in a broader critique of what he sees as performative activism—where corporate leaders publicly align themselves with certain causes for branding purposes rather than out of genuine conviction. This approach can lead to inconsistencies when those same leaders do not speak up about other important issues like those affecting Israel, which Karp views as critical given the country’s strategic importance and shared democratic values with Western nations.

In Karp’s perspective, CEOs have a platform and influence that come with a responsibility to address crucial moral causes consistently and courageously. His decision to take out a full-page ad in The New York Times following an act of terrorism in Israel was an example of taking public action aligned with his private convictions—a move he felt was necessary despite potential backlash or controversy.

Say what you want about Palantir — you can’t say they are honest in their stances and give you the choice on if you want to invest in them, knowing every belief they have, before you invest.

Does Palantir Need War to Thrive?

I think this is an interesting question. The concept of defense contracting was brought up on a recent episode of the All-In podcast, a popular tech podcast. The idea was that if you invest in these companies, you are demanding for war in order for those companies to get paid.

I don’t see it this way.

The notion that Palantir needs or wants a war to make money is a misunderstanding of the company's business. Palantir's platforms are designed to handle large and complex datasets to deliver insights for decision-making processes across diverse environments—not solely within the context of military conflict.

Palantir's client base is broad and not limited to defense or intelligence sectors. So, they don’t just rely on government contracts since they have a pretty large commercial business.

Secondly, while it’s true that part of their business involves working with military agencies—providing technology that supports defense operations—the use cases extend far beyond active warfare scenarios. For instance, their software aids in humanitarian assistance efforts by organizing logistics during natural disasters or tracking disease outbreaks globally.

Moreover, the ethical framework under which Palantir operates includes guiding principles about how their technology should be used. CEO Alex Karp has been vocal about his commitment to responsible innovation—ensuring that their products are not only effective but also align with democratic values and human rights protections.

Karp is not sitting waiting for a war. His 2022 Stanford interview was almost prophetic — in January he discussed how the world was becoming less globalized and that now it was a battle around different sets of values. A month later, Russia invaded Ukraine. Now we have fears of China doing the same to Taiwan. If we want to protect those values, the only thing you can do is increase your capabilities on the defense side — especially with software. That’s what companies like Palantir and Anduril have been trying to convince Silicon Valley to understand for years.

Have there been defense contractors that simply wanted a war to prop up the military industrial complex? Yes, I think the 2003 Iraq War is an example of that.

However, this is not about going to war. This is about having the defense capabilities to deter a war from happening. There is a reason I wrote about Germany wanting Palantir’s software back a few weeks ago — increased terror threats means you need defense software to handle those threats. If that software doesn’t exist, those threats can become real.

Investing in Palantir is a way to support that software existing and being real in the world — not hoping for a war to create the demand needed for those products to exist.

Overall, I believe investing in Palantir is investing in a software company with values. Those values extend primarily around the concept of giving more than taking. When it comes to governments, they want to actually provide value vs. take from them. When it comes to commercial clients, they want to make those clients feel that they can’t live without Palantir’s products before trying to take money from them.

A company that actually cares, will be explicit about what they care about, and deliver on their promise of caring, is a company I am proud to invest in.

That’s it for today - see you tomorrow!

This newsletter will always be free and never have paywalled content. Thank you for reading daily!