No, because gunpowder has no loyalty, no terms of service, no American CEO who can be forced to testify before Congress and say interesting things about European defense customers or provide lists of who has a tattoo or not.

Not at all. It's against using Palantir specifically, not against the idea of something like Palantir "but European".

It's literally at the very top of the article:

- Stop signing new contracts with Palantir.

- Review and phase out existing contracts with the company.

- Invest in transparent, publicly accountable European alternatives.

And Palantir isn't like gunpowder, so I'm not even sure the analogy had any legs to begin with

Half of the comments in this thread are expressing how they're very against the idea of something like Palantir "but European". It seems like some Europeans really believe that handicapping themselves is a good idea.

perhaps, but civil law is a negotiated contract including rights of all involved. If a tech conglomerate invents new applications, are they now exempt from civil law?

The era of the Nation State began when courts did have real means to enforce against powerful rogues. The suggestion that simply applying a new weaponized technology overrides the legal context is regressive.

No. The means can spoil the end.

Can you explain the comparison because on its face and especially given the context in the link, I don't see the connection.