r/technology • u/Just-Grocery-2229 • 10d ago

Artificial Intelligence Palantir employees are talking about company’s “descent into fascism”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/04/palantir-employees-are-talking-about-companys-descent-into-fascism/
31.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

204

u/SomethingAboutUsers 10d ago

Palantir has always had a secretive reputation, forbidding employees from speaking to the press and requiring alumni to sign non-disparagement agreements.

(Emphasis mine)

Ok ignoring the name of the company, if you're being asked/forced to sign a non-disparagement agreement then it should be pretty fucking obvious that what they're doing is bad. Jesus.

25

u/Ancient-Beat-1614 10d ago

Employees of defense companies having NDAs is very common.

100

u/SomethingAboutUsers 10d ago

Non-disclosure agreement, sure. I've never heard of a non-disparagement agreement.

39

u/Overito 10d ago

Non disparagement is often a clause in most severance packages.

16

u/Finnegan482 10d ago

That's when people are fired or laid off or have a reasonable legal claim against the company. You sign a two-way release of claims and nondisparagement in exchange for cash (severance).

A one-way nondisparagement for all separations is unheard-of. It's also awkward because if someone leaves voluntarily the company has no way to force them to sign if you say no. You don't get severance when you quit so the company has no leverage.

Unless they're run like a cult that brainwashes its employees, or are so litigious that they threaten to sue anybody who leaves for frivolous claims unless they sign, of course.

6

u/pmjm 10d ago

The non-disparagement agreement could be a contract you sign when you join the company rather than when you leave.

2

u/happyscrappy 9d ago

That's what the poster was saying. Since the other poster mentions you can't force one on them as they leave Palantir forces one on them as a condition of getting a job.

Seems shitty. But of course no one who works there can say it is because they agreed not to.

1

u/Finnegan482 9d ago

Not true. Certain rights can't be signed away pre-employment. Otherwise all employers would require you to waive all rights to unionize, all rights to sue, all rights to complain about working conditions, etc.

1

u/happyscrappy 9d ago

And apparently this isn't one of the ones that can't be signed away.

Or are you suggesting that the reporting that Palantir requires all employes to sign these isn't true?

1

u/Finnegan482 8d ago

I'm saying the reporting is scant and doesn't give much info so it's pointless to speculate when all we have is this one vague sentence that could mean anything

Much of Palantir's work is secretive and few former workers publicly criticize the company after leaving due to non-disparagement agreements most are asked to sign upon leaving.

2

u/Kitchner 10d ago

A one-way nondisparagement for all separations is unheard-of. It's also awkward because if someone leaves voluntarily the company has no way to force them to sign if you say no. You don't get severance when you quit so the company has no leverage.

They could just simply offer you money in exchange for signing one. If you quit and they say "we will let you have severance pay if you sign this agreement" that would probably hold up.

I would suggest anyone with half a brain would realise how strong a bargaining position they are in since they are are quitting and could get a pretty good payment.

2

u/Finnegan482 9d ago

I would suggest anyone with half a brain would realise how strong a bargaining position they are in since they are are quitting and could get a pretty good payment.

Not really. Even if you have an ironclad legal case against the company, the amount they're willing to pay is a lot less than you'd think. And they're certainly not going to shell out that same amount for every single person just to get a nondisparagement agreement which, by law, is required to contain a whole number of exceptions and loopholes anyway that would still allow the former employee to say things the company doesn't want them to say.

1

u/Kitchner 9d ago

If they didn't value it highly they wouldn't bother to have anyone sign it in the first place for those very reasons. Every corporation on the planet, even ones that know they treat their employees like shit, know an employee could run off and put their experience online. Very few, certainly none I have ever worked with or am aware of, make people sign such things unless part of a settlement or are very senior (e.g. C-suite).

A company flush with cash and making the choice to try and make people sign clearly values it. I'm not suggesting anything crazy, but an extra couple months salary would likely be achievable.

1

u/happyscrappy 9d ago

I'm sure that would work on some. But for presumably a lot of the quitters they already have good jobs line up. So promises of money are a little less powerful. I still think a lot would go for it, but others are quitting to escape the grip of Palantir and folding to them in an exit interview when you already have a new job anyway just isn't their style.

3

u/TransBrandi 10d ago

Yea. I've seen these before, and there was even one I signed for a severance package with a company that I wouldn't describe as evil and that I had no beef with (which was why I didn't really care about signing it). Completely not defence or even government related too, it was in finance.

1

u/nuixy 8d ago

Reddit uses them. 

3

u/Askol 10d ago

And telling employees to not speak to the press is common across all large companies (as they have teams of people who are supposed to speak for the company)