Partiful's Palantir Problem: Can the Gen Z Party App Escape Its Data-Mining Shadow?

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Partiful, the wildly popular event-planning app beloved by Gen Z, has a party foul that won’t go away: its cofounders’ past at Palantir, the controversial data-mining firm. As the app grows into a cultural phenomenon, users are asking whether a free service tied to such a polarizing origin story can truly be trusted.

The Rise of Partiful

Founded in 2019, Partiful has become the go-to platform for a generation that found Facebook events stale and party-planning fragmented. The app’s Y2K-era aesthetics, neon text, and remixed memes struck a nostalgic chord — even among users too young to have lived through that era. Google named it App of the Year in 2024, and it has been downloaded over 4.3 million times in the last year, according to analytics firm Appfigures.

What Partiful offers is deceptively simple: create an event, invite friends, and the platform texts them reminders to show up. But its social layer — where attendees can RSVP, share photos, comment, and see mutual friends — has made it sticky in ways traditional event platforms never were. As CEO and cofounder Shreya Murthy told The Verge, “Partiful is a fundamentally social experience.”

The Palantir Connection

The elephant in the room — or rather, the party — is that Murthy and cofounder Joy Tao both previously worked at Palantir, the data-analytics giant cofounded by Peter Thiel whose clients include U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Israeli government. Tao joined Palantir through an acquisition of her startup Poptip.

Neither founder worked on government-facing contracts — their clients included auto manufacturers, hospitals, and shipping companies — but the association has proven stubborn. Social media comment threads under any Partiful mention inevitably raise the Palantir link. Some incorrectly claim Palantir owns Partiful; others worry about where user data might end up.

“People who have issues with the company, I understand why,” Murthy said, emphasizing that Partiful has no financial or data-sharing relationship with Palantir. Both founders sold their Palantir stock after its IPO and say they do not follow the company closely today.

Data Privacy in the Spotlight

Partiful sits on a rich trove of social data: it maps not just who your friends are, but who you actually see in person, where you go, what you celebrate, and soon, what tickets you buy. The app can surface mutual connections between users who have never met — a feature some find useful and others unsettling.

When TechCrunch reported last year that Partiful wasn’t stripping metadata from user-uploaded photos — potentially exposing precise location data — concerns intensified. The company has since addressed the issue, but for privacy-conscious users, the damage to trust was done.

Murthy insists the company does not sell user data and never will. “The single most valuable thing that we can do is use it to continue to make the experience better for our users,” she said. “If we violate user trust, they will stop using the platform.”

The Business Model Question

Until recently, Partiful operated entirely without revenue, funded by over $20 million in venture capital — led by Andreessen Horowitz, which has increasingly invested in defense tech. The startup operated in classic “growth at all costs” mode, with its social media account once tweeting that “Partiful will not make money.”

That changed in June 2026, when Partiful introduced ticketing, allowing hosts to sell tickets directly on the platform. The core product will remain free under a freemium model. Critics see the monetization shift as inevitable, while supporters view it as a sign of maturity for a company that has already proven product-market fit.

Alternatives and Backlash

The Palantir connection has spawned competitors. Mansoor Siddiqui created Ephemeral Social (originally at fuckpartiful.com) as a privacy-first alternative with auto-deleting events and fee-free ticketing. Jessica Hallock of NYC Noise maintains a dedicated page explaining why her organization refuses to use Partiful, citing concerns about the founders’ background and data handling.

Still, Murthy and Tao are betting that good product experience outweighs founder backstory. “We’re not affiliated in any way,” Murthy stressed. “It was a part of our lives a decade ago, and it’s not a part of our lives now.”

What’s Next

Partiful’s ambitions extend far beyond birthday parties. Murthy envisions a platform that powers everything people do in the real world: movie tickets, group trips, booked experiences, and interest-based communities. With Apple launching its own competing Invites app in 2025 — already downloaded 9.7 million times — Partiful faces external competition too.

The question that lingers is whether a social platform founded by Palantir alumni can convince a privacy-aware generation to trust it with the most intimate data of all: who they spend their time with, and where. For now, the party keeps going — but the shadow on the dance floor hasn’t dissipated.

Smart Glasses and the Rise of the AI Wearable Surveillance State

Tue, 07 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

The Verge’s senior wearables reporter Victoria Song has published a compelling deep dive into what she calls the “wearable surveillance state” — the growing ecosystem of AI-powered smart glasses, rings, pendants, and pins that can record audio and video with alarming discretion. The piece, titled “I spy”, uses Netflix’s A Man on the Inside — where Ted Danson plays a widower secretly recording retirement home residents with smart glasses — as a jumping-off point to explore the real-world privacy crisis brewing around these devices.

Meta’s Smart Glasses Push Reignites Privacy Debate

Two weeks ago, Meta launched cheaper smart glasses without Ray-Ban branding, this time partnered with Kylie Jenner as brand ambassador. The move was meant to broaden the appeal of its Ray-Ban Meta glasses line, which has exceeded expectations since launching in 2023. But instead of generating excitement, the launch sparked a fresh wave of backlash on social media. On Threads — Meta’s own platform — posts calling the glasses “for perverts” have racked up tens of thousands of likes.

The sentiment is not new. Investigations by The New York Times and Wired have revealed that Meta is mulling over facial recognition features for its glasses, reigniting concerns that smart eyewear could become a surveillance tool in the wrong hands.

The Discomfort of Being a Wearables Reviewer

Song’s article draws from her own months-long experience testing AI wearables including the Ray-Ban Meta Optics, Meta Glasses, and the Vocci AI note-taking ring. She describes the internal conflict of using devices that are, by design, discreet to the point of being covert. While recording interviews at tech conferences with the Vocci ring proved invaluable for her journalism, she also found it disturbingly easy to surreptitiously record friends and family without their knowledge.

“These past few weeks, I’ve been testing the Ray-Ban Meta Optics, the new Meta Glasses, and Vocci, an AI note-taking ring,” Song writes. “These posts ring in my head as I wear and use these devices in public.”

What Makes These Different From Smartphones?

Defenders of smart glasses point out that smartphones have cameras and microphones too. But Song argues the difference is one of perception and practicality. Smart glasses and AI rings are worn continuously, making their recording capabilities less visible and harder to detect. While AirTags at least have Apple’s unwanted tracking alerts to mitigate misuse, AI wearables currently lack equivalent safeguards. LED recording lights — meant to signal when devices are active — are easy to overlook in bright conditions, can be tampered with, and are often not bright enough.

Can Privacy Be Designed Into Smart Glasses?

The piece explores potential solutions, including modular camera attachments (like Xreal’s), physical shutters, and mandatory audible recording cues. Meta’s VP of wearables, Alex Himel, acknowledged the company is aware of attempts to tamper with privacy lights and promised “more robust privacy updates soon.” However, he resisted the idea of modular designs, arguing they’d make the glasses “heavier, clunkier, and wouldn’t look as good.”

A Crossroads for AI Wearables

Song concludes that the AI wearable surveillance state is not inevitable — but the industry is at a crossroads. Private venues are already beginning to restrict Meta glasses wearers, and Zenni Optical is selling anti-facial recognition lenses. Legislators are circling, and public sentiment is shifting.

“If they won’t be proactive, legislators will eventually catch up,” Song writes. “Even if you have the best intentions, it feels pretty lousy being entrusted with strangers’ privacy.”

The full piece is well worth a read for anyone considering buying smart glasses or AI wearables — and a sobering reminder that the age of discreet, always-on recording devices is already here.

Privacy on Know the Tech