🧵 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.
-
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.
@adfichter / https://www.linkedin.com/in/adriennefichter
@marguerite_jay / https://www.linkedin.com/in/marguerite-meyer-a828539
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.
What you can do:
1. Read the original investigation. Judge for yourself:
https://www.republik.ch/2025/12/09/warum-palantir-zum-risiko-fuer-die-schweiz-wird2. Support #InvestigativeJournalism. These reporters aren’t getting rich doing this work. They’re doing it because someone needs to document what powerful companies don’t want documented. A year spent in FOIA requests is not nothing.
3. *Do* pay attention to the LinkedIn drama
The tactic of replying to critical journalism where the general public won’t see is deliberate. They’re trying to discredit journalists among decision-makers and industry insiders. Make this stuff visible if you can.4. Make your politicians answer questions about government contracts. If the Swiss said no NINE times after careful evaluation, why did the UK say yes? Who benefits from these deals? This matters for #DataSovereignty and national security.
Once again, support #InvestigativeJournalism. They are fighting battles most of us will never see.
Thanks for reading.
-
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.
@adfichter / https://www.linkedin.com/in/adriennefichter
@marguerite_jay / https://www.linkedin.com/in/marguerite-meyer-a828539
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.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
What you can do:
1. Read the original investigation. Judge for yourself:
https://www.republik.ch/2025/12/09/warum-palantir-zum-risiko-fuer-die-schweiz-wird2. Support #InvestigativeJournalism. These reporters aren’t getting rich doing this work. They’re doing it because someone needs to document what powerful companies don’t want documented. A year spent in FOIA requests is not nothing.
3. *Do* pay attention to the LinkedIn drama
The tactic of replying to critical journalism where the general public won’t see is deliberate. They’re trying to discredit journalists among decision-makers and industry insiders. Make this stuff visible if you can.4. Make your politicians answer questions about government contracts. If the Swiss said no NINE times after careful evaluation, why did the UK say yes? Who benefits from these deals? This matters for #DataSovereignty and national security.
Once again, support #InvestigativeJournalism. They are fighting battles most of us will never see.
Thanks for reading.
First of all: thank you so much for this thread and your support. It means a lot to us. Specially since - as you said - the LinkedIn Drama is viewed algorithm-based just by a few people (his bubble and my bubble).
I just want to share all those credits with the WAV Kollektiv (Balz Oertli, Jennifer Steiner, Lorenz Naegeli), who were together with Marguerite Meyer my colleagues for this investigation and were working persistently on the FOIA requests processes including mediation meetings with representatives of authorities.
Yes this surrealistic comment battle happened all in our christmas holidays. I connected with Bowman on LinkedIn and saw then where he posted this ridiculous blogpost in the comments sections everywhere.
To be honest: I was more amused about Bowman's helpless attempt to discredit us. Basically it's speaking for itself. He has no arguments, he just doesn't like the adjectives. And the decision-makers and people working for the public sector hopefully will get the right message by reading this.
But you are right as well: This is not and should not be normal. This is a massive attack against our (very well documented) investigation and our journalistic integrity. And with you're boosting other people finally woke up now (who are not part of my Linkedin bubble) and replying to Bowman as well. (I guess the lack of defence for us was also due to the holidays time, or no one want to mess up with those guys, I have no idea...).
One remark additionally: The drama might no stay on LinkedIn, there might be a next chapter. But I am not yet supposed to talk about it. I will let you know.
All I can say: we must have made them very nervous, since lawmakers in Germany and UK are questioning the contracts. It is possible that authorities are hesitating to sign new contracts. So we have triggered something that they are starting this PR campaign against us (I don't remember another media company being mentioned on their blog).
I am not 100 % sure Switzerland will keep saying NO, there are massive lobbying efforts and influence operation going on here as well.
And it is actually the exception (saying NO to a US company) not the rule: looking at F35 jets, Microsoft Cloud and other US Technology Cloud saving and processing lots and lots of of sensitive military data and personal data of citizens of Switzerland.
We will continue our reporting on #Palantir. Thank you again for making this attack visible to a larger community on Mastodon.
-
First of all: thank you so much for this thread and your support. It means a lot to us. Specially since - as you said - the LinkedIn Drama is viewed algorithm-based just by a few people (his bubble and my bubble).
I just want to share all those credits with the WAV Kollektiv (Balz Oertli, Jennifer Steiner, Lorenz Naegeli), who were together with Marguerite Meyer my colleagues for this investigation and were working persistently on the FOIA requests processes including mediation meetings with representatives of authorities.
Yes this surrealistic comment battle happened all in our christmas holidays. I connected with Bowman on LinkedIn and saw then where he posted this ridiculous blogpost in the comments sections everywhere.
To be honest: I was more amused about Bowman's helpless attempt to discredit us. Basically it's speaking for itself. He has no arguments, he just doesn't like the adjectives. And the decision-makers and people working for the public sector hopefully will get the right message by reading this.
But you are right as well: This is not and should not be normal. This is a massive attack against our (very well documented) investigation and our journalistic integrity. And with you're boosting other people finally woke up now (who are not part of my Linkedin bubble) and replying to Bowman as well. (I guess the lack of defence for us was also due to the holidays time, or no one want to mess up with those guys, I have no idea...).
One remark additionally: The drama might no stay on LinkedIn, there might be a next chapter. But I am not yet supposed to talk about it. I will let you know.
All I can say: we must have made them very nervous, since lawmakers in Germany and UK are questioning the contracts. It is possible that authorities are hesitating to sign new contracts. So we have triggered something that they are starting this PR campaign against us (I don't remember another media company being mentioned on their blog).
I am not 100 % sure Switzerland will keep saying NO, there are massive lobbying efforts and influence operation going on here as well.
And it is actually the exception (saying NO to a US company) not the rule: looking at F35 jets, Microsoft Cloud and other US Technology Cloud saving and processing lots and lots of of sensitive military data and personal data of citizens of Switzerland.
We will continue our reporting on #Palantir. Thank you again for making this attack visible to a larger community on Mastodon.
… and the very large elephant in the ongoing #Palantir saga room is #Thiel’s war-profiteering support for #Israel & its #genocide in #Gaza!
“- Much of Palantir’s work uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology for surveillance, weapons and warfare for the West and its allies.
- Palantir has an office in Israel and has officially partnered with the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) to support the ongoing war on Gaza through the use of its technology”
https://corporatewatch.org/palantir-international-tech-despot/
-
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
D derhagen@snabelen.no shared this topic
T tanyakaroli@expressional.social shared this topic
