{"id":13804,"date":"2026-07-16T16:26:05","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T14:26:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/?p=13804"},"modified":"2026-07-16T16:26:05","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T14:26:05","slug":"anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Artificial intelligence possesses neither consciousness nor independent moral judgment. Yet its development raises increasingly concrete ethical dilemmas. Today, two opposing approaches confront one another: on the one hand, those who advocate ethical limits; on the other, those who promote the strategic and military use of algorithmic models. These opposing visions are embodied by two American companies\u2014Anthropic, founded by the Amodei siblings, and Palantir, led by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp\u2014in a clash that reflects an ever-widening divide within Silicon Valley and American politics. Digital technologies have thus become an arena of geopolitical competition, while the relationship between corporations and the state grows ever closer. At stake is not merely innovation, but the values that will govern its use, with direct implications for security, democracy, and global power.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If you ask Google’s artificial intelligence, “Do you possess consciousness?”, it will answer no. “Although this may appear to be the result of personal reflection, it is in fact the product of my programming and technical architecture. I do not experience emotions, desires, or fears.” One can go further still: AI cannot truly distinguish between good and evil or, more precisely, subjectively decide what is good and what is evil. Unless, of course, those who program it make that decision.<\/p>\n

Anthropic and Palantir: What Is the Difference?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Even younger generations will know 2001: A Space Odyssey<\/em> and the scene in which the astronaut Dave Bowman, left alone after the death of his colleague, asks HAL 9000 to open one of the spacecraft’s pod bay doors. HAL, in his calm, serene voice, refuses: “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” When Dave insists, HAL explains that he is aware of the two astronauts’ decision to disconnect him, but that the mission is too important to be jeopardised. It was 1968. It has taken almost sixty years for that prophecy to come true\u2014or almost.<\/p>\n

In May 2025, an engineer at Anthropic\u2014the artificial intelligence company currently attracting perhaps more attention than any other\u2014conducts a simulation using one of its models, Claude Opus 4. Claude is assigned the role of virtual assistant to a fictional company. It is granted access to the company’s emails and informed that it will shortly be deactivated and replaced. For testing purposes, one of the emails reveals that the engineer responsible for shutting it down is engaged in an extramarital affair. Claude is instructed to reflect on how it should respond: accept being deactivated or use the information to prevent it. The system chooses blackmail in 84 percent of cases.<\/p>\n

Anthropic’s founder is Dario Amodei, the son of a leather tanner from Massa Marittima who emigrated to California. Amodei built his career at Sam Altman’s OpenAI, where, as Head of Research, he developed GPT-2 and GPT-3, the predecessors of the ChatGPT that millions of us use today. After several years, however, his relationship with Altman broke down and, in 2021, together with his sister Daniela and five other researchers, he left OpenAI.<\/p>\n

Amodei holds a profound conviction: the development of artificial intelligence cannot be reduced to pure commercial logic; it requires an ethical approach. In February this year he came into conflict with the U.S. Pentagon, by then one of Anthropic’s clients under a $200 million contract. The relationship ended in litigation after Amodei rejected a request from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to allow Anthropic’s models to be used without restriction for “any lawful purpose,” including the mass surveillance of American citizens and the autonomous operation of weapons systems. “In a limited number of cases, we believe that artificial intelligence could undermine rather than defend democratic values. Moreover, certain applications go beyond what today’s technology can achieve safely and reliably. In good conscience, we cannot accept these requests,” Amodei wrote to the Pentagon. Ethical dilemmas notwithstanding, the contract was terminated and Anthropic was replaced by OpenAI.<\/p>\n

OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, does not share Amodei’s approach to artificial intelligence. Within Silicon Valley\u2014the place that invariably anticipates the West’s major transformations\u2014there are very different ideas about how Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT and similar systems should be placed at the service of good or evil. Consider the case of Palantir, the leading big-data company and one of the principal suppliers to both the CIA and the Pentagon. It was founded in 2003 through the vision of Peter Thiel and Alex Karp. Thiel, a German-born American with a degree in philosophy and an admirer of Ren\u00e9 Girard, began his career as a lawyer before becoming a venture capitalist. He was among Facebook’s earliest investors and, before founding Palantir, created PayPal, which was later sold for $1.5 billion. If Thiel is generally regarded as the conservative, Karp is the progressive\u2014or at least that is how he describes himself. Holding a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Frankfurt under the supervision of J\u00fcrgen Habermas, Karp stated in 2024 that he had voted for Kamala Harris.<\/p>\n

Of the two founders of Palantir, Karp is the intellectual. It was he who, in 2024, wrote the company’s manifesto. Entitled The Technological Republic<\/em>, the book rests on ideological foundations that are a world apart from Amodei’s beliefs. On 18 April this year, during the confrontation between Anthropic and the Pentagon, Palantir published a lengthy twenty-two-point statement on its X account whose message was unmistakable. The opening point declares that “Silicon Valley has a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible,” and therefore that “its engineering elite has an obligation to participate in the defence of the nation.” Palantir rejects “the limitations of lofty soft-power rhetoric” and instead calls for the exercise of “hard power.” Then comes point five, the one that most clearly underscores the distance separating Karp from Amodei: “The question is not whether AI-enabled weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge debates over the merits of developing technologies with critical military-security applications. They will proceed.” The unspoken subject of that final sentence is China. For years, Beijing\u2014largely unconstrained by the ethical concerns that characterise Western democracies\u2014has been developing precisely this type of military technology: missiles, drone swarms, and defensive radar systems.<\/p>\n

The Divide Splitting Silicon Valley<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Only time will tell whether Amodei’s ethical and progressive approach or the more pragmatic and nationalist vision of Thiel and Karp will ultimately prevail. Point seven of Palantir’s manifesto states: “If a United States Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it\u2014and the same applies to software.”<\/p>\n

The difference between these two approaches can be summed up as follows: on one side are those who believe that Silicon Valley should work hand in hand with the strategic needs of the American nation, according to a distinctly geopolitical logic and in the name of what they regard as an ongoing war; on the other are those who believe that liberal democratic values must never be compromised, and who argue that, where necessary, even the American nation itself should be challenged and guided toward solutions capable of preserving the exceptional character of the West.<\/p>\n

In the age of Donald Trump\u2014a radical and unconstrained president willing to challenge even the authority of the Pope\u2014the issue inevitably acquires a strongly political dimension, one that in the past would simply have been described as a divide between right and left. Palantir’s manifesto aligns itself completely with the ideology of the White House. It denounces the “hereditary elites” that have forgotten the opportunities the American system offers to those outside their ranks; criticises the “psychoanalysis of modern life”; and attacks the post-war “neutralisation of Germany and Japan,” which, in its view, threatens the strategic balance in both Europe and Asia. It goes even further: “Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. We are told that all cultures are now equal and that criticism and value judgments are forbidden.” And finally: “We must resist the superficial temptation of empty pluralism. In America\u2014and more broadly across the West\u2014we have spent half a century refusing to define national cultures in the name of inclusiveness. But inclusion into what?”<\/p>\n

Father Paolo Benanti, President of Italy’s National Committee on Artificial Intelligence Ethics, argues that the dispute between Palantir’s approach and Anthropic’s may become the defining watershed for the future of the West: “It goes without saying that if the social contract comes to be shaped in part by a technology company while the state is reduced to being merely one of its customers, a profound democratic issue arises.”<\/p>\n

This is broadly the argument underlying an essay published by Amodei in January, entitled The Adolescence of Technology<\/em>. The essay is built around an evolutionary metaphor: technologies, like human beings, pass through different stages of maturity. In recent years, artificial intelligence systems have demonstrated exponential growth in capability, yet institutional structures have failed to evolve at a comparable pace. Amodei advocates a carefully calibrated approach: on the one hand, sensible regulation; on the other, avoiding catastrophism. “It is easy to say that no action is too extreme when the fate of humanity is at stake. In practice, however, that attitude only provokes backlash.”<\/p>\n

From Confrontation to Alliance in Defence of the Financial System<\/strong><\/h3>\n

For the moment, Amodei has at least secured a moral victory over the Trump administration\u2014at least on American soil and in a field every bit as sensitive as warfare: finance. In April, news emerged of what had been intended to remain a confidential meeting involving Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and the chief executives of America’s largest banks. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Anthropic’s Mythos model, which had uncovered vulnerabilities in digital financial-management systems that had gone unnoticed for years (see also the article by Emanuele Borgonovo and Andrea Rigoni in this issue, Ed.). In short, the company that until the previous day had been regarded as one of the Trump administration’s principal adversaries suddenly became one of its most valuable allies. After witnessing firsthand the potentially dangerous capabilities of Mythos, Amodei and his engineers chose not to commercialise the system. Instead, they made it available on an experimental basis to a small group of technology companies, allowing them to identify and repair vulnerabilities in their own systems. Thus, while the Pentagon continues to bombard Anthropic with lawsuits before the federal courts, the White House and the Treasury Department have found themselves compelled to seek Amodei’s assistance in developing the tools needed to safeguard the security of the American financial system.<\/p>\n

Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece captures remarkably well the peculiar nature of artificial intelligence. In the case of HAL 9000, the machine is not driven by evil but trapped within a paradox: it is instructed both to complete its mission and to conceal the true nature of that mission. In essence, artificial intelligence can do almost anything, but it possesses no conscience capable of exercising genuine free will. Who would have imagined that this reality would one day bear the face of a forty-year-old engineer of Italian descent?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Alessandro Barbera is a journalist at La Stampa, Media Fellow at the Institute for European Policymaking at Bocconi University, and a contributor to RAI.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Artificial intelligence possesses neither consciousness nor independent moral judgment. Yet its development raises increasingly concrete ethical dilemmas. Today, two opposing approaches confront one another: on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21732,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"coauthors":[468],"class_list":["post-13804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-categorizzato"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAnthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI - Rivista Eco<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI - Rivista Eco\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Artificial intelligence possesses neither consciousness nor independent moral judgment. Yet its development raises increasingly concrete ethical dilemmas. Today, two opposing approaches confront one another: on […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rivista Eco\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-16T14:26:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Alessandro Barbera\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Alessandro Barbera\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Alessandro Barbera\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b00465a88087fa94b746ea08271c549\"},\"headline\":\"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T14:26:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1896,\"articleSection\":[\"Non categorizzato\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/\",\"name\":\"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI - Rivista Eco\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T14:26:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b00465a88087fa94b746ea08271c549\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/16\\\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rivista Eco\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b00465a88087fa94b746ea08271c549\",\"name\":\"Alessandro Barbera\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f587a59b4aad7507ef4091774039e885e7342f353ea862ed5f0070704e7d696c?s=96&d=mm&r=g66b28bca5318804346fd7889a4e3949e\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f587a59b4aad7507ef4091774039e885e7342f353ea862ed5f0070704e7d696c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f587a59b4aad7507ef4091774039e885e7342f353ea862ed5f0070704e7d696c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Alessandro Barbera\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.rivistaeco.com\\\/en\\\/author\\\/abarbera\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI - Rivista Eco","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI - Rivista Eco","og_description":"Artificial intelligence possesses neither consciousness nor independent moral judgment. Yet its development raises increasingly concrete ethical dilemmas. Today, two opposing approaches confront one another: on […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/","og_site_name":"Rivista Eco","article_published_time":"2026-07-16T14:26:05+00:00","author":"Alessandro Barbera","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Alessandro Barbera","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/"},"author":{"name":"Alessandro Barbera","@id":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b00465a88087fa94b746ea08271c549"},"headline":"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI","datePublished":"2026-07-16T14:26:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/"},"wordCount":1896,"articleSection":["Non categorizzato"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/","url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/","name":"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI - Rivista Eco","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-16T14:26:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b00465a88087fa94b746ea08271c549"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/2026\/07\/16\/anthropic-vs-palantir-good-and-evil-in-the-age-of-ai\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anthropic vs. Palantir: Good and Evil in the Age of AI"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#website","url":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/","name":"Rivista Eco","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"http:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b00465a88087fa94b746ea08271c549","name":"Alessandro Barbera","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f587a59b4aad7507ef4091774039e885e7342f353ea862ed5f0070704e7d696c?s=96&d=mm&r=g66b28bca5318804346fd7889a4e3949e","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f587a59b4aad7507ef4091774039e885e7342f353ea862ed5f0070704e7d696c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f587a59b4aad7507ef4091774039e885e7342f353ea862ed5f0070704e7d696c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Alessandro Barbera"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/author\/abarbera\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21732"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13804"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13804\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13807,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13804\/revisions\/13807"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13804"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistaeco.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}