It’s awesome but also worrying. Elon is a political timebomb. I wouldn’t put it past him to selectively deny people usage based on political alignment, sex etc. At least for now there are much worse geosynchronous competitors, but some future state where one doesn’t exist is worrying.

▲

lmm 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

Musk is at least a named individual, somewhat accountable for his decisions. Yes him having the ability to cut people off is worrying, but I'm less worried about him doing it than e.g. the Internet Watch Foundation, or whoever cut off Kiwi Farms (where we still don't really know who's actually responsible).

▲

71bw 10 months ago | parent [-]

>(where we still don't really know who's actually responsible)

Keffals and Fong-Jones

▲

lmm 10 months ago | parent [-]

Allegedly. Even assuming they were the people who wanted that to happen, we don't know how/why they have the authority and who to vote out if we don't like their decision, whereas Musk is expected to be appointed by the duly elected president who made it clear to the electorate that this was his plan.

	▲	71bw 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		>we don't know how/why they have the authority Oh we know damn well. The good old "scream so loud the issue cannot be ignored anymore" issue. Especially with Fong-Jones' background in tech with access to a lot of vocal influencer figures in the field. Not to mention the big amount of brain-melted teens who immediately assume anything said about anyone who dares to express negative opinions about what the aforementioned teens believe as true and create a supposedly warranted lynch mob against them.

▲

hcurtiss 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Wouldn’t put it past him? Can you offer even a single example?

▲

sd8f9iu 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

There are countless examples of Musk selectively banning people on Twitter based on political belief, such as this one [1]. And of course, he banned the @elonjet account, even after specifically saying he would not [2]. More specifically to StarLink, he banned Ukrainian forces from using them around Crimea [3].

[1] https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/twitter-suspends-journ...

[2] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1589414958508691456

[3] https://archive.is/jfdy4

▲

omeid2 10 months ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

sd8f9iu 10 months ago | parent [-]

I don't want private businessmen making decisions like that.

	▲	inemesitaffia 10 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		He agrees with you. Believe it or not. You're also arguing SpaceX should have waited for a Pentagon contract to deliver to Ukraine
	▲	ahmetrcagil 10 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, it is unelected corrupt officials' job after all.

▲

dyauspitr 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

2022, cut out crimea.

▲

throwaway290 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

I believe by the time Starlink arrived in Ukraine Crimea was already occupied and post "referendum" and providing service there would be like providing service to Russia, no?

▲

aguaviva 10 months ago | parent [-]

No, because the "referendum" was meaningless and had no effect on the peninsula's sovereignty.

Which since 1991 has been and remains Ukrainian.

▲

throwaway290 10 months ago | parent [-]

my question was rhetorical.

it is nonsense to say it was sovereign and at the same time belongs to ukraine since 1991

what it is, is an occupied territory of ukraine fully controlled by russia with russian military on it

that's whom starlink service in Crimea would benefit

▲

aguaviva 10 months ago | parent [-]

I didn't say "it was sovereign" (all by itself). I referred to "its sovereignty", in terms of who it belonged to (both in 1991 and now). The two contexts are entirely different.

what it is, is an occupied territory of ukraine fully controlled by russia with russian military on it

And yet -- still entirely under Ukrainian sovereignty. It seems you're a bit unclear as to what the term means. It doesn't mean "military control".

Point mean: just because the Russian currently military sits on the Crimea, doesn't mean it's "part of Russia".

And no, it's not just a symbolic difference. It's a hugely, hugely important one.

my question was rhetorical.

Indeed, it looks like you're shooting into the wind here. I'll have to leave to explore these topics on your own.

▲

throwaway290 10 months ago | parent [-]

Whether to provide Crimea with Starlink or not depends on who sits there. Similar reason why all Crimeans got under sanctions immediately after annexation. Not just Starlink but every other Western company respecting sanctions stopped doing business with Crimea. Same with Donetsk and Luhansk.

No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine. People care about the "effectively".

Legally always depends on who you ask. Some will tell you that Taiwan is part of PRC for example. Maybe at least half of the world will. However Taiwan is not under sanctions because effectively it isn't under PRC.

> Indeed, it looks like you're shooting into the wind here

I am just trying to reduce you some confusion by explaining some basics. Starlink was not yet in Ukraine when Crimea was annexed and the world mostly sat and just watched it happen. Therefore the musk-man could not "cut out crimea". There's nothing to argue about. Just don't spread misinfo please, there's enough of it.

▲

aguaviva 10 months ago | parent [-]

No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine.

That's objectively just not true at all.

Legally always depends on who you ask.

Also not true at all.

Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus, and in any case completely lacking in any intrinsic substance.

But that doesn't mean what they're saying is even potentially valid, and that the matter "depends" on what they say.

See also: "Nothing is true" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42244709

Therefore the musk-man could not "cut out crimea".

I never said anything about Musk or Starlink. If you think I did, then we're definitely talking past each other.

▲

throwaway290 10 months ago | parent [-]

I replied to a guy who said Musk turned off Starlink in Crimea. Which is false. If we are not talking about that then I don't know what we're talking about.

> That's objectively just not true at all.

I'll clarify. For the purposes of doing business there no one cares if it's legally Ukraine.

> Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus

Yes I can find a Crimea full of them and probably half the world at large who will say it is legally Russia now.

I properly talked to one Crimean only in my life and he voted for Russia in referendum. he said most people did because higher salary etc. When war began he left the country tho. Maybe he realized his mistake but probably just didn't want to get killed.

International consensus is fluid and ephemeral (maybe even precisely because people like putler)

	▲	aguaviva 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		If we are not talking about that then I don't know what we're talking about. My assumption was it was simply the context I chimed in on -- in regard to the region's sovereignty status and the bogus 2014 referendum. Will hopefully get to the other stuff later. But just to get that squared away for now.

▲

inemesitaffia 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Not true and still off today.

I've not seen anyone claim they used to be able to use equipment in Crimea at some point in the past and now it doesn't work.