I acknowledge there's an issue here, but I don't think it makes sense to label it "pollution". When something is polluted it generally means using it can lead to some form of harm, directly or indirectly. I fail to see how confusing satellites for stars stars causes harm, per se (though of course it would suck to be an astronomer).

▲

akarlsten 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Starlink constellations will lead to a world where there is absolutely nowhere you can go where you cant see man-made junk. No truly pristine wilderness anywhere without being able to see formations of glowing dots helping "off-grid" idiots stream Netflix. It's spiritually harmful if nothing else.

Also who said pollution has to be harmful? Light pollution is a thing, and this is the same class of problem.

Why dont they dip the satellites in vantablack to make them truly invisible?

	▲	richwater 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You argument seems to hinge on Starlink not being a massive improvement to how non-broadband connected folk get internet. Your crusade against "offgrid" idiots is intentionally dense as it ignores the millions of people who will be able to access the internet.

▲

robotresearcher an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You don’t see the harm, but it would suck to be an astronomer?