• The world is experiencing a new form of authoritarianism supported by algorithms, private platforms, and mass information control.

The idea that large digital platforms are not media outlets, but simply technological intermediaries, is still repeated in many journalism schools and academies. It is claimed that they do not produce content, that they only connect users and organize information. But that distinction never existed, and now that truth is scandalously evident.

An article published a week ago in Truthdig, titled "Palantir Just Unmasked Itself to the World," raises precisely that point: that the American company Palantir Technologies no longer hides the fact that its ambition is not only commercial or technological, but profoundly political.

The catalyst for the analysis was the recent publication of a 22-point manifesto spearheaded by Palantir and its CEO, Alex Karp, in which the company argues that Silicon Valley owes a "moral debt" to the U.S. military. The document openly advocates for a closer alliance between Big Tech, the Pentagon, and security agencies, and presents the development of artificial intelligence for warfare as a strategic responsibility of private U.S. companies.

The analysis comes from Truthdig, a highly regarded American publication specializing in investigative journalism and critical analysis, focusing on topics such as militarization, digital surveillance, corporate power, and US foreign policy. Founded by journalist Robert Scheer, it has published works by authors such as Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, and Cornel West, with a particular emphasis on the relationship between Silicon Valley, the military-industrial complex, and new forms of social control.

The text describes how the company founded by Peter Thiel and led by Alex Karp has become one of the main pillars of the new American security model. This model merges artificial intelligence, mass surveillance, and data analysis with military logic and social control. Palantir doesn't manufacture tanks or missiles. Its business is something more sophisticated: processing enormous amounts of information to identify patterns, select targets, monitor populations, and anticipate behavior. In other words, transforming data into political and military power.

The war against Iran has shown the extent to which these companies are already a central part of contemporary conflicts. Various reports on U.S. and Israeli operations have pointed to the growing use of artificial intelligence platforms capable of integrating satellite imagery, intercepted communications, financial transactions, and digital activity to construct comprehensive maps of military and civilian networks. Companies like Palantir are precisely involved in this technological architecture.

The logic is both simple and dangerous. The more data a system has, the greater its capacity to classify people, detect potential threats, and automate decisions. The problem is that these decisions are no longer exclusively in the hands of public institutions subject —at least in theory— to democratic controls. Now they also involve private corporations with their own ideological and economic interests.

That's why some analysts are starting to talk about "digital fascism." Not in the classic sense of uniforms, military marches, and concentration camps in broad daylight, but as a new form of authoritarianism supported by algorithms, private platforms, and mass control of information. A less visible but potentially more profound power, because these technologies no longer just observe reality: they organize it. They decide what information circulates, what threats deserve attention, who is a suspect, which conflicts should be escalated, and even who should be killed. Artificial intelligence is ceasing to be a technical tool and becoming a ruthless political actor.

What's unsettling is that much of this process is unfolding without genuine public debate. While millions of people use digital applications in their daily lives, a few corporations are accumulating capabilities that once belonged exclusively to states.

The Truthdig article serves as a warning. Palantir no longer even attempts to appear neutral, and that is perhaps the most important point of all.