| ▲ | synctext 3 hours ago | |
Could this be about bypassing government regulation and taxation? Silkroad only needed a tiny server, not 150kW. The Outer Space Treaty (1967) has a loophole. If you launch from international waters (planned by SpaceX) and the equipment is not owned by a US-company or other legal entity there is significant legal ambiguity. This is Dogecoin with AI. Exploiting this accountability gap and creating a Grok AI plus free-speech platform in space sounds like a typical Elon endeavour. | ||
| ▲ | Schlagbohrer 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
This could simply be done by hosting in the Tor hidden service cloud. Accessing illegal material hosted on a satellite is still exactly as risky for the user (if the user is on earth) as accessing that same illegal material through the Tor network, but hosting it through the Tor network can be done for 1/1000th the cost compared to an orbital solution. So there's no regulatory or tax benefit to hosting in space. | ||
| ▲ | Someone an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
For the sake of an argument, let’s assume "The Outer Space Treaty (1967) has a loophole. If you launch from international waters (planned by SpaceX) and the equipment is not owned by a US-company or other legal entity there is significant legal ambiguity” is 100% true. To use that loophole, the rockets launched by SpaceX would have to be “not owned by a US-company”. Do you think the US government would allow that to happen? | ||
| ▲ | 9dev 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Untrue. Responsible for any spacefaring vessel is in all cases the state the entity operating the vessel is registered in. If it's not SpaceX directly but a shell company in Ecuador carrying out the launch, Ecuador will be completely responsible for anything happening with and around the vessel, period. There are no loopholes in this system. | ||
| ▲ | zbentley 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
In addition to all the sibling comments explaining why this wouldn't work, the money's not there. A grift the size of Dogecoin, or the size of "free speech" enthusiast computing, or even the size of the criminal enterprises that run on the dark web, is tiny in comparison to the footer cost and upkeep of a datacenter in space. It'd also need to be funded by investments (since criminal funds and crypto assets are quite famously not available in up-front volumes for a huge enterprise), which implies a market presence in some country's economy, which implies regulators and risk management, and so on. | ||
| ▲ | inglor_cz 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
You cannot escape national regulations like that, at least until a maritime-like situation develops, where rockets will be registered in Liberia for a few dollars and Liberia will not even pretend to care what they are doing. It may happen one day, but we are very, very far from that. As of now, big countries watch their space corporations very closely and won't let them do this. Nevertheless, as an American, you can escape state and regional authorities this way. IIRC The Californian Coastal Commission voted against expansion of SpaceX activities from Vandenberg [1], and even in Texas, which is more SpaceX-friendly, there are still regulations to comply with. If you launch from international waters, these lower authority tiers do not apply. [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-08-14/california... | ||
| ▲ | habinero 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
No. There is no "one weird trick" when it comes to regulation. The company is based in the US, therefore you just go after that. Anyway, promising some fantasy and never delivering is definitely a typical Elon endeavor. | ||
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
You misspelled 'hate speech'. | ||