There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

RememberTheApollo_ ,

No. The real question is why does one man, because of his wealth, have so much power over the life and death of other people he has no interest in.

SkyeStarfall ,

Wealth and capitalism is anti-democratic. And this is a prime example.

phoenixz ,

Not directly and not necessarily.

Being a little rich isn’t a problem. Being very to insanely to disturbingly rich, that is a big problem and should be removed as a possibility by governments. Tax the shit out of people until their riches reach acceptable levels

Capitalism is only anti democratic if left unchecked. It needs to be much MUCH more limited than it currently is. But you don’t want to remove it, capitalism is -unfortunately- the most successful way of running societies. Again, you want to limit the crap out of it and right now it’s just running in stampede mode which indeed will destroy democracies

31337 ,

Disagree. The more disparity in wealth there is, the more anti-democratic. There are many small towns in the U.S. that are captured by a single large employer (who I guess is a “little rich”) through threats to move or lay-off workers, campaigning, “donations,” or just straight-up kickbacks to judges and law enforcement.

Capitalism is inherently anti-democratic. It creates an owner class and a worker class, and the owner class has a very large amount of power over the worker class. Something like a worker cooperative is inherently democratic (workers own and control their workplace/means-of-production, democratically).

As for “successful,” I suppose that depends on what metrics you use. I’d bet there have been other societies that were on a whole happier than capitalist industrial societies. I think we can do better than capitalism, and I think the survival of the human species depends on it. Capitalism requires unending growth to function, and I don’t think that’s sustainable on a planet with finite resources and a finite atmosphere that can only take so much greenhouse gasses being dumped in it before it causes a reduction in other resources, such as arable land.

phoenixz ,

Capitalism is inherently anti-democratic

No its not. At its core, capitalism is about allowing people to directly trade and find the most efficient solutions. This has led to the success of the west.

It creates an owner class and a worker class

Does it? I’ve been a worker. I’ve been a company owner (well, technically still am). So?! If you want to own something, you buy it.

As for “successful,” I suppose that depends on what metrics you use.

How about the metric of the largest super power in the world? How about the most advanced power in the world? How about the richest country in the world? Trust me, I’m not trying to woo the USA, it is VERY flawed with a shit tonne of problems, but it is BY FAR the most successful country in the world coming up with “yeah what metric” is bullshit. Ask a poor homeless person in the USA if they would perfer to extrange their lives with somebody in say, Niger, and I think I can be pretty sure they will say “HELLS NO” because as shitty as their lives are, its still a mile better than the alternative. The USA does not have famines.

I’d bet there have been other societies that were on a whole happier than capitalist industrial societies.

Yeah this is just plain naive. This is looking at the problems that our current societies have, and without knowing anything about the alternatives, saying “well the alternatives must be SO MUCH BETTER!” Yes, our capitalist system needs MUCH more checks and balances, we need to tax the shit out of the rich, we need less focus on material things and money and more focus on just being happy, we need universal and free healthcare, we need free education… So many problems we need to resolve…

But its NOTHING compared to how life was only a hundred years ago where people still got 12 kids because they knew that on average, 4 of them would not even reach adulthood because of diseases, famines, war and whatnot.

Say what you want about the US, and it has done some fucked up shit, but its been a pretty stabilizing force in the world. Without the US, the communist USSR would have overrun Europe and we’d all be enjoying the funs of famines, state terror (read about the chekists!) and just general misery.

There are no other countries that match the successes of capitalism, period…

Now, you want to talk on really how to improve societies?

Try north European countries. Socialist countries that use their capitalist systems to fund their socialist ways. THAT, I believe, is the solution. Control wealth with taxes, but let people free to do what they want. Educate people, have a shared political power system (and not the winner-takes-all shit like everywhere in the Americas) so that you have political stability, use the power from limited and capped capitalism to fund things like free healthcare, free education, a strong army for defense (unfortunately still required)… That will make hte world a better place.

31337 , (edited )

No its not. At its core, capitalism is about allowing people to directly trade and find the most efficient solutions.

No, that’s the idea of free-markets. You can have free-markets without capitalism, and you can have capitalism without free-markets (such as State Capitalism). Capitalism is about using wealth (capital) to acquire the means-of-production (capital assets), and hiring and paying workers less than the value of their labor to make profit. It is inherently anti-democratic because the workers have little-to-no say on what labor they do within the company, how their labor should be used, who should manage the various parts of the company, etc.

This has led to the success of the west.

The West has been very “successful” before capitalism. I’m more in favor of the hypotheses from Guns, Germs, and Steel (for the most part, geography, climate, and natural resources has determined the fate of the nations). There are many very poor capitalist nations after all. Most the wealth of those nations seems to be funneled into the hands of the owning class in rich nations.

Does it? I’ve been a worker. I’ve been a company owner (well, technically still am). So?! If you want to own something, you buy it.

Yes, it does. When you make money from the labor of others, you are in the owning class. I am also, personally, in the owning class. I suppose there is some gray area with 401ks and stock options, but those amounts of ownership are often very low compared to outside investors, founders, executives, so they have virtually no voting power.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Social Democracy, which northern European nations are close to, is preferable to the extremely weak regulatory and welfare state the U.S. has; but Democratic Socialism would further reduce exploitation, IMO.

I’m also no fan of the USSR or China, and do not even consider them to be leftist governments (the State owns much of the means of production, not the workers, which is antithetical to leftism). I consider them to be authoritarian State Capitalist nations.

nosurprises ,

But wealth and capitalism is what gave regular people political power and enabled democratic transformations in the past 300 years.

SkyeStarfall ,

Not without grassroots movements and uprisings. Especially when it comes to stuff like labour laws and slavery. If factory owners got their way, we would still have worked 12 hour workdays 7 days a week. The wealth was not shared with the people, anything gained was taken by force in the form of unrest and movements. In many ways the French Revolution was the subtle threat to every nation unless they gave the people what they wanted.

Then not to mention stuff like women’s rights and civil rights, which were not given thanks to wealth, but again due to grassroot movements and civil unrest. In many ways we still are facing tons of inequality today, due to the profit incentive of the people with wealth. See rising wealth inequality for example. If wealth and capitalism is what gave regular people political power, why do we not see this trend continue today?

If anything, I’d argue we got democracy and political power in spite of capitalism and concentration of wealth. Maybe it has more to do with the developed technology than with the economic system. Stuff like the printing press and easier access to knowledge. Requiring an educated populace to operate factories and producing more complex technological items. These kinds of stuff paving the way towards people getting “funny ideas” and thinking back on their position in the world, no longer accepting what was the status quo, but instead striving for something better.

I’d even argue that today’s capitalism is a compromise, because the people in power tried their hardest to stay in power, but not the ideal that we could have had.

nosurprises ,

Maybe it has more to do with the developed technology than with the economic system.

What incentivized the development? We know for a fact that kings and other rulers of the past used to block innovations because they could undermine their political power. We have more political power now than before. It’s true that many people give up on politics, because the increasing complexity and knowledge required to make decisions make it too hard for them to follow.

Don’t look for simple answers; you can’t paint everything as either black or white. It’s a mix of both in this case, just as you described yourself. I never said that capitalism was designed to give us political power, but ultimately, it did.

So I’m not sure what you’re arguing with.

SkyeStarfall ,

Rulers also knew that if they ended up behind other countries they would end up crushed by economics or times of war. Technology was vital long before democracy got its hold in the modern age. The industrial revolution happened under the British monarchy, after all. Did they block that development? The printing press was also created under the holy Roman empire, long before capitalism, and we can see how well that went with many monarchies trying to suppress it. Maybe they tried, but they failed.

Don’t look at the answer starting from capitalism and working backwards. History is much more nuanced than “the system we have right now is the best and is what caused good things”. It very well could be that the system itself is mostly coincidental, or due to parallell historical factors.

And technology would have been developed no matter the economic or political system. As it did, and as it does. As long as people researching new things get sufficient time and resources to do so. And they do, and did, because being more technologically advanced makes you stronger compared to others.

I mean, hell, saying capitalism is what solely incentivized development is completely ignoring how many resources state actors are pouring into science even today. From the US military to the global academic network. It wasn’t very different back then, at the start of capitalism. Philosophy traces back to ancient Greece, after all, and exists everywhere in between.

My whole point is that saying that “capitalism gave us political power” is the too simple answer. And I argue against it, because it posits capitalism as this objective good that should stay when that is not certain. And it may well be what is actually standing in the way of democracy. Maybe political power would have been spread to the people quicker if it were not for capitalism, hard to say, because capitalism quickly entrenched itself in the whole world. But history can give us clues.

In the end, it’s important to not necessarily attribute too much to capitalism, because, well, we live in, and have been, surrounded by capitalism our whole lives. With no part of the world really escaping it. We don’t have anything else to compare to, as we only have one world. We are always looking from a capitalistic point of view by default. But maybe there is more to everything than just capitalism.

nosurprises ,

Don’t look at the answer starting from capitalism and working backwards.

I’ll be looking at what modern political and economic science tells us if you don’t mind.

My whole point is that saying that “capitalism gave us political power” is the too simple answer.

Yes, because we’re on a forum. This is not a place to write long essays and lecture people as if they came to you, begging for knowledge. In fact, I think it’s arrogant and disrespectful to treat people like that. Especially if we consider the fact that I’ve already agreed with you that this process was not simple and it isn’t certainly good or bad. It feels like you didn’t even read my post.

“the system we have right now is the best and is what caused good things”.

it posits capitalism as this objective good

I’ve never said any of that. I think that you have a lot of ideas and impressions from other arguments that you’ve been involved in. And you keep arguing with these ideas, adding more to what I said than there was. I’m not really interested in that kind of a conversation, sorry. I see that this topic bothers you, but please entertain yourself not at my expense.

Eldritch ,

It wasn’t capitalism. The Soviets had science, technology and progress without it. That doesn’t excuse all the bad, oppressive, authoritarian things. Just blows holes in your claims.

The same could be said for China, ignoring their atrocities. And yeah you could even say that about the US too if you ignore their copious atrocities. So it isn’t something endemic to capitalism

nosurprises ,

It wasn’t capitalism. The Soviets had science, technology and progress without it. That doesn’t excuse all the bad, oppressive, authoritarian things. Just blows holes in your claims.

The only hole here is your understanding of what Soviet Union was and why it has fallen. If anything, Soviet Union proves my point.

Eldritch ,

The hole is yours. I’m afraid I understand the reason perfectly well. It’s largely the same reason that the United States is falling right now. And the fall China is cruising towards as well.

Let’s pretend you were right about the Soviet Union. You’d still be wrong regardless. Social and scientific progress were everywhere even before capitalism was a twinkle in the eye of the fool that coined the term. It was happening in the renesance, under any number of monarchs and even the church. Capitalism accelerated and encouraged none of it realistically.

Capitalism didn’t industrialize the United States either. The whole world was industrializing. It just happened in America DESPITE capitalism. Americas success in the 20th century has nothing to do with capitalism. It’s more a function of being as far as geographically possible from 2 of the worst wars in human history so far. Combined with untold stolen natural resources.

Eldritch ,

Wealth and capitalism replaced one group of antidemocratic oligarchs with another. Nothing more nothing less.

aidan ,

Yes, so is individual freedom.

OldQWERTYbastard ,

The academic model of capitalism has safeguards in place to prevent the shitshow we’re living in now. Leave it to us Americans to knock off those safeguards because we’re greedy as hell.

jarfil , (edited )

Because the government didn’t want to pay for it… that would be “communism”. (they’re paying now, way to be coherent!)

someguy3 ,

They all do, this action is just more obvious.

tootbrute ,

Exactly why taiwan is looking to build their own system. You can’t entrust anything to musk with his deep saudi-china links

Taiwan, meanwhile, is hesitant to use Starlink’s services for fear of Musk’s close ties with China. A dominant player in the global chips market, Taiwan feels exposed to the constant threat of Chinese invasion. Using Starlink might be one way to bolster its national and data security—especially when Taiwan suspects China of cutting its submarine internet cables. But for Taiwan to rely too heavily on Starlink might prove unwise, in the event that China pressures Musk to limit network access abruptly, as he has done in certain situations in Ukraine.

qz.com/china-taiwan-starlink-elon-musk-satellite-…

ilmagico ,

And if they do they could let Ukraine use it, as they’re likely more trustworthy than Musk.

Still, I dont see in that article where it says Taiwan is building its own system, is there another source?

tootbrute ,

This one is paywalled fortune.com/…/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-war-insp…

This one isn’t rusi.org/…/starlink-20-taiwans-plan-sovereign-sat…

erranto ,

Stop blaming your weaknesses on others. don’t get into a war you can’t win. no one owes you nothing

carpelbridgesyndrome ,

Big “she should have dressed differently” energy

erranto ,

What about The Pimps who push the weak to do the dirty work for them

your military industrial complex has never had it this good, proxy wars without local push backs, no western blood shed so even the antiwar crowd has gone silent in the west.

carpelbridgesyndrome ,

Peace at all costs has a price that should not be paid

The sane part of the anti war crowd knows that there have been peace settlements with Russia but that they don’t last. Settling with Russia is just giving them time to re-arm

SuddenlyBlowGreen ,

So Ukraine should do what when they’re attacked?

gtaman ,

Surrender and comply to their brothers /s

jcit878 ,

his dudes opinion brought to you by the cooked shit he got told to think

lolcatnip ,

Get fucked, Russia apologist.

andthenthreemore ,
@andthenthreemore@startrek.website avatar

Russia started the war you fucking donkey.

Burn_The_Right ,

So, explain to me how Elon should not be considered a strategic target now? He is materially supporting the Ruzzians by killing innocent civilians. He cannot be ignored at this point.

It seems he should be considered an obvious target by anyone who wishes to support the Ukranian defense. Maybe someone close enough to him supports Ukraine and will see a moral obligation (and opportunity) to defend Ukraine.

iforgotmyinstance ,

Russia is a sanctioned nation with a public history of cyber attacks and false flag attacks on Americans. They also openly meddled in the 2016 and 2020 elections (thank fuck they didn’t pull 2020 successfully).

Providing aid and comfort to Russian military and political figures is explicitly treason.

Burn_The_Right ,

I think I recall the punishment for treason is pretty stiff. The day he is held accountable will be a day for celebration.

GoodEye8 , (edited )

I’m amazed US DOD hasn’t torn him a new asshole considering they’re now paying to use Starlink in Ukraine. Musks ability to decide how Starlink should be used is a clear security risk.

Dark_Arc ,
@Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

They might have behind the scenes

bradorsomething ,

If he’d have just been smart and quietly sucked the government teat, he’d be set with DoD contracts.

Burn_The_Right , (edited )

Agreed! At this point, the DoD would be ignorant to not prioritize their own development of an LEO network. Once in place, they could dislodge or remove any of Elon’s floating shitballs to prioritize the safe operation of their own, citing national security. Fuck Elon.

NutWrench ,
@NutWrench@lemmy.world avatar

Starlink is a great system. The problem is its idiot owner, Musk, who is more worried how the use of Starlink in the Ukraine is going to affect his company stock. You’re in the big leagues now, Elmo. You cant “sort of” commit to a war unless you’re a rich Saudi dilettante, who wants to try his hand at international shiat-stirring.

jarfil , (edited )

The use of Starlink was restricted by US Government sanctions: no use on Russian territory or assets.

Tough luck, that also means no using it for attacking on Russian territory or assets.

Edit: Here’s a link with sources and dates.

carpelbridgesyndrome ,

Crimea is Ukraine. Also that’s not how sanctions work at all

jarfil ,

Crimea is Ukraine

Crimea is Stalin’s “present” to the Republic of Ukraine after the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars of Crimean Tatars by the USSR.

Do you support that genocide?

that’s not how sanctions work at all

These sanctions work exactly like that: no service, means no service, not “no service, but sometimes some”.

If you want an exception, you ask the US Government, not some rando running the service.

Maalus ,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    jarfil ,

    You may want to look up the meaning of “tankie”, then re-read my comment, followed by some basic history notions, like the link I’ve provided.

    Atomic ,

    It’s very impressive how someone can be so wrong yet so confident at the same time.

    Kittengineer ,

    Musk didn’t allow it. Full stop. It’s not so,e government sanction thing.

    Even quotes you reference are from Musk, himself, sharing why he decided so. Musk said he chose not to activate it because he’d be apart of escalating the war…

    jarfil ,

    Musk said he chose not to activate it because he’d be apart of escalating the war…

    …which was against US Government policy.

    Please read all the links before cherry picking only some of them.

    Kittengineer ,

    What against US policy? Escalating the war? We already are sending tons of military equipment, some used in counter offensives.

    Post the link and full article you got that from, I’d like to read but many of the links are pay walled.

    Here’s what I read from one of the links you referenced, I would think Musk would say it’s against US policy if that’s the reason he chose not to activate Starlink

    “There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol,” Musk wrote on X, the platform previously known as Twitter.

    “The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor. If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation,” Musk wrote.

    An excerpt about the raid from American author and journalist Walter Isaacson’s upcoming biography on Musk, titled “Elon Musk,” was published by CNN. Ukrainian submarine drones loaded with explosives were approaching a Russian naval fleet in the Crimean city of Sevastopol when they lost connection and “washed ashore harmlessly,” according to Isaacson.

    Musk was concerned about Russia responding to the naval attack with a nuclear weapon, Isaacson wrote in the book, according to CNN. Ukrainian officials

    jarfil ,

    What against US policy?

    You can check the list of sanctions imposed on Ukraine/Russia, which regions, types of activity and subjects, along with the exceptions and licenses at:

    ofac.treasury.gov/…/ukraine-russia-related-sancti…

    You may notice that US citizens have been forbidden from providing telecommunications services, including via satellite, in the conflict areas since early 2022, requiring a special license to operate.

    Starlink didn’t have such license, and only got a DoD agreement in mid 2023.

    In late 2022, Musk would’ve had to break that policy in order to allow the drones to be controlled into the conflict zone.

    As for him saying so… I don’t think he’s the type to paint himself as subservient to the government, even if he is; more like the megalomaniac type claiming to have stopped WW3 barehanded, even if he literally did nothing.

    Kittengineer ,

    So the only one saying Musk didn’t activate Starlink was because of US sanctions is you, and not even Musk himself.

    There’s not article, just you deducing from the US sanctions list.

    jarfil ,

    What’s your point, that I should write an article? 🙄

    Kittengineer ,

    It is a little incredulous that somehow only you have figured out the real reason Musk didn’t activate Starlink.

    With so many articles coming out, no officials making a statement, hell even a biographer shadowing Musk at the time. Even Musk gives alternate reasons and doesn’t say it, even if it would save him from a lot of bad press.

    jarfil ,

    Indeed, quite incredible. Maybe I don’t get paid by the click, don’t have an agenda, and don’t blindly follow those who do? Guess only time will tell.

    AchillesUltimate ,

    That’s a remarkably interesting link, thanks for sharing.

    banneryear1868 ,

    Great example of people downvoting the truth away. The spectacle of American politics can no longer address material truths, outside of merely referencing good or bad actors.

    Elon’s negative image is proof because he used to be widely considered as someone solving the climate crisis through free market capitalism, but the truth is he never changed and has always been this way, and the system he operates in where people need cars is the problem.

    It’s also a given that Americans are blind or refuse to acknowledge the effects of their government’s sanctions on the world, the private business interests that benefit, and the way they exploit people like themselves in other countries and use them as pawns.

    prettydarknwild ,
    @prettydarknwild@lemmy.world avatar

    that’s why we cannot trust billionaires and big corporations

    a9249 ,

    That’s treason,… is it not?

    Duamerthrax ,

    Technically, no. But I doubt that Musk will be getting any contracts in Ukraine after the war. Probably ruined any other future business in any of the other countries in a similar situation as Ukraine bordering Russia as well.

    Atomic ,

    He’s not ukrainian so I don’t see why or how it would be treason.

    Just a very shitty move.

    PeleSpirit ,

    He helped a country we have sanctions against.

    severien ,

    That’s just twisting of reality.

    I hate Musk, but Starlink has been immensely important to Ukraine, I remember Michael Kofman saying that if there’s one wonder weapon in this war, it’s the Starlink.

    What Musk did was refusing to help more. Shitty move, but it’s absurd to call it “helping Russia”. You also aren’t helping Russia because you don’t send all your discretionary income to Ukrainian army.

    PeleSpirit ,

    He was paid for a service and he turned it off, that’s way different than “helping more”. Don’t be a Musk apologist, he’s got billions to go to that cause.

    severien , (edited )

    Musk provided terminals and connections initially for free, a contract with US for compensation was awarded only later.

    The policy to provide coverage only in Ukraine controlled area was there all along, so that was clearly part of that contract.

    Again, I very much dislike Musk, but then I also dislike when hate obscures facts.

    Hildegarde ,

    That is not treason.

    PeleSpirit ,

    Are you saying it doesn’t meet the definition or he can’t be tried for it. I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer but this is the definition. Elon’s actions=treason. Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.[1] This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one’s native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.[2]

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

    Hildegarde ,

    If you read the wiki page, you’ll find that citation [1] is about Roman and Germanic law, and citation [2] is a dictionary. Neither of which are relevant to this case.

    But even if your definition were relevant, Elon Musk did not commit treason because he is not a Ukrainian citizen, and owes no allegiance to them.

    Elon Musk has US citizenship. But under US law, this isn’t treason either. Treason is defined in the constitution as “levying war against the U.S.” not the case here, or “or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

    You could argue this rises to the level of aid or comfort, but Russia is not an enemy in the eyes of the constitution. They would have to engage in open hostilities for that to be the case. The war in Ukraine is not open hostility against the US.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I can do better research than copying the first paragraph from the first searh result.

    Treason is a serious crime STOP diminishing that word by misusing it.

    vandermouche ,

    For Ukraine yes this treason. But in USA if you an oligarch with a lot of money you can do what you want. I won’t be suprise if the republicans will promote to stop the war by not sending ressources to Ukraine. You know, to promote democracy and free world…

    AA5B ,

    I think there’s even a decent case to make this distinction, that Starlink is for communication but not attacking. The problem is making the decision unilaterally, in secret, with no warning, and contrary to customer expectations, with timing that uniquely benefits an enemy of civilization

    iforgotmyinstance ,

    Russia is an enemy aggressor nation. Helping their military and their government without U.S. Congress approval is treason.

    meldroc ,

    The US law Musk violated would be the Logan Act…

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

    x4740N ,
    @x4740N@lemmy.world avatar

    Either elon is a ficking idiot or has Russian allies

    FaeDrifter ,

    Bourgeois solidary does not know national borders.

    Atomic ,

    Both? He’s been trying to meddle and play “peacekeeper” this entire time. Except his version of peace is. Let the Russians keep everything they’ve taken, take the L and deal with it so I can continue to sell products and services there.

    AA5B ,

    As a fan of some of Musk’s technical vision and how he’s revolutionizing society, I stringly believe he’s an effing idiot. People have given him so much praise, adulation, money, that he thinks he’s right and is easy to manipulate.

    He’s a sucker who should go back to what he’s good at. Step back from the war and attempts at diplomacy, put Twitter on fire sale to someone who can fix it, and go back to your core. Let’s get cyber truck and semi out in force. Let’s deliver Roadster v2 and get to work on that rumored $25k cybercar. Let’s continue the revolution. Let’s get Starship/Superheavy flying, and continue through to Mars. Let’s continue the revolution of humans stepping out into the solar system. While he’s at it, it’s time to bail on some of the less successful sideshows. Stop wasting time and money trying to make a go of residential solar: great idea but if you can’t deliver something people can adfird, it’ll never work

    SwingingTheLamp ,

    SpaceX literally has somebody whose job it is to wrangle Musk, and keep him from fucking things up. They get great things done in spite of him, not because of him.

    meldroc ,

    The real person in charge of SpaceX and keeping it successful is Gwynne Shotwell.

    ChicoSuave ,

    The US should nationalize Starlink. If private business decisions are going to undermine world stability then those decisions are antithetical to any kind of peace and need to be treated as the threat that they are. A single person picking sides shouldn’t result in a casual body count that Elon never is punished for but it now does and he looks to be getting away with actual manslaughter.

    bradorsomething ,

    The response we’ll see is the DoD making their own Starlink, but with $500 toilet seats and $100 hammers. Aw, forget the Starlink, we’ll just do those.

    Grant_M ,
    @Grant_M@lemmy.ca avatar

    Musk needs to be charged with war crimes along with his kremlin allies.

    Adalast ,

    Maybe not war crimes, but definitely charges for directly attacking a sovereign state’s military assets while engaged in an active operation. There has to be something in international law about this sort of behavior. Well, maybe not, since the ability for a single citizen to have the power to directly attack an entire military action is unprecedented. Seriously, what is stopping him from jamming any signal he wants if he can manage this? Will a full constellation be able to suppress wifi over a large area? Cell towers? Standard radio signals? Would it be able to be selective?

    This action of his constitutes a privately owned and operated military-grade weapon which actually threatens even the super powers.

    Imotali ,
    @Imotali@lemmy.world avatar

    Actually there is in American law. He actively aided and abetted an enemy of the state he is a citizen. That’s called treason.

    Adalast ,

    Oh… I’m crossing my fingers. That said, we don’t have the best track record with treason proceedings recently.

    Imotali ,
    @Imotali@lemmy.world avatar

    I mean… Jan 6 says all you need to know about whether he’ll ever be charged.

    downpunxx ,
    @downpunxx@kbin.social avatar

    The US has spent at least 80 Billion dollars arming and supporting Ukraine in it's defense against Russian genocidal aggression and Western expansion that puts the entire NATO block in jepordy, why is Elon fucking Musk allowed to put his thumb on the scale in favor of the enemy? Why isn't anyone in the Biden administration tearing him a new asshole form stem to stern, why isn't anyone in the Biden administration publicly discussing nationalizing Starlink. We're literally throwing money into conflict (for absolutely necessary, vital, and justified reason) that one man is deciding the outcomes of, and the United States government is just ..... what .... ok with this?

    chemicalprophet ,

    I’m just some dumbfuck but,…money?

    JokeDeity ,

    Money from the guy who moves his companies to dodge taxes?

    demlet ,

    Oh, ha ha, not tax money, bribes to the right politicians, silly…

    Poggervania ,
    @Poggervania@kbin.social avatar

    Pretty much - Muskrat most likely privately funds (read: bribes) enough government officials to either stand by and do nothing or actively interfere.

    This advisor should also consider the lack of response from the US itself as part of the problem - Muskrat is helping out an enemy, but uhhh… what the fuck did the government do to curb that shit from happening in the first place?

    Slwh47696 ,

    Friendly reminder to everyone that all politicians are corrupt pieces of shit that will sell you out in a heartbeat. I don’t know what the solution is but anyone who isn’t rich is getting absolutely fucked by our own governments.

    mondo_brondo ,

    Yes. Because a lot of powerful people stand to make a shitload of money off this conflict. The longer it goes, the more weapons it requires. The more weapons it requires, the more money they make.

    Crozekiel ,

    I don't feel like nationalizing Starlink for the USA is best for everyone. It is a world-wide network, I feel like it would be better as something that isn't controlled by any single country (but, obviously I agree it should not be controlled by a single billionaire fuck-boy either...).

    Grellan ,

    Go check out who runs GPS. Starling being nationalized isn’t happening, but if it did the service would likely keep on keeping on.

    Crozekiel ,

    GPS is quite a bit different. The satellites just orbit and send the same information out. The user device doesn't have to send anything back - the "communication" is only 1-way. Also, GPS is significantly further out from the planet and involves a lot less satellites, so it is not really feasible to turn them off specifically targeting a small area or an individual target - you'd have to black out a huge chunk of the planet to reliably block "an enemy" from using it.

    jarfil ,

    And that is why Russia also uses GPS.

    spaghettiwestern OP ,

    One thing that seems to be the case with Biden’s administration - there’s a lot going on behinds the scenes that we’re not aware of.

    You’re right, there should be some life changing repercussions for Musk. Hopefully we’ll find out those are in the works.

    AlwaysNowNeverNotMe ,
    @AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social avatar

    That would require holding a billionaire accountable in some way though?

    pennomi ,

    If we’ve learned anything from the Trump indictments, it takes many years to build a watertight case against somebody with lots of legal resources.

    Do we need to hold Musk accountable? Yes. But also we need to do it in a way that he can’t wriggle out of, and that means years of legal work first.

    cloud ,

    It’s not so hard to understand why, have fun doing simple math…

    butterflyattack ,

    Isn’t most of that $80 billion in the form of weaponry ordered from US manufacturers? Or maybe I’ve misunderstood. I thought much of the cash hasn’t really left America.

    But yeah, musk needs to be stopped. No one person should have so much power, it makes a joke of democracy.

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    Most of it is actually old equipment they’re taking out of storage. Of course the US likes to have stuff like that around for various contingencies, one of which is the exact thing it’s being used for now. So new equipment will be bought for the US military and existing equipment will be placed into a storage a little sooner than usual.

    But a big chunk of that price tag is ordinance, and yeah that needs to be re-ordered right away.

    But at any rate, yeah nearly all of it is from US manufacturers, though there may be a few parts and things from allies like Canada.

    AFKBRBChocolate ,

    It’s insane to me that the CEO of a private company can directly engage to change the outcome of a battle without the whole population completely losing their shit over it. This asshole turned off his product to intentionally prevent our ally from succeeding in a battle against our enemy. And his reason is that he was trying to prevent escalation. How the fuck is that his call to make?

    bennieandthez ,
    @bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    concentrating wealth and power on individuals is literally the point of private property 😅

    atzanteol ,

    Another “liberal” who hates democracy…

    Why isn’t Biden just confiscating a private company??? Are you serious?

    SkyeStarfall ,

    Billionaires are not democratic.

    atzanteol ,

    And what do you think calling for the state to take control of a business that disagrees with it’s policy goals is?

    SkyeStarfall ,

    Nationalization? That’s not a new concept.

    atzanteol ,

    So you’d be okay with trump nationalizing a company because it disagrees with his foreign policy?

    SkyeStarfall ,

    I wouldn’t be okay with trump in the first place, so I don’t see how that’s much of a gotcha.

    atzanteol ,

    Of course your don’t. You’re a partisan.

    SkyeStarfall ,

    Yes I support my position over others, what a revolutionary concept

    atzanteol ,

    “I don’t know what a partisan is”

    dragonflyteaparty ,

    How are these things in any way related?

    Democracy - the people voting on laws; representative democracy - the people voting for representatives to vote on laws

    Nationalizing a company that provides a fundamental, necessary world wide service because one man decided he could determine the outcome of a battle.

    Hmm… not really sure how these two things are related.

    atzanteol ,

    Sure. 😉

    fishos ,
    @fishos@lemmy.world avatar

    Why with all those billions are we relying on a private company for military communications? I’m not excusing Musk AT ALL, but communications are insanely important in a conflict. Why are these governments spending all of this money and not just doing it themselves? If the military ordered supplies from Walmart and Walmart didn’t deliver them, wouldn’t we be asking the government instead “why the hell did you do that?”

    bennieandthez ,
    @bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Spoiler: they dont want the war to end.

    PlatypusXray ,

    I wonder what would happen if a national intelligence agency was tasked with eliminating a billionaire. Could private security, however sophisticated, really deflect assassination attempts from a state? That has nothing to do with Elon Musk, though. He is way too beloved and cherished to ever become a target.

    Bytemeister ,

    On the one hand, we have “reaper” missiles that are basically flying guillotines, that can strike with enough accuracy to kill a particular person in a particular car seat while not harming the other occupants.

    On the other hand, how many times did we fuck up killing Castro?

    j4k3 ,
    @j4k3@lemmy.world avatar

    Nationalize his assets and deport him to South Africa

    CryptoRoberto ,

    Tesla was built off the backs of the US taxpayer. It’s so crazy to me that he’s too dumb to realize being a toxic right winger is bad for business. He gets tax payer funds from the Democrats, his customers definitely skew left of center. I always thought Tesla was insanely over valued, but with all his bullshit and the major car manufacturers giving them competition now Tesla is bound to collapse…

    Jaysyn ,
    @Jaysyn@kbin.social avatar

    Xesla has shaved $40k of the MSRP of their top end models since January.

    I wonder why that is?

    JokeDeity ,

    You mean aside from them literally losing features over time, adding bullshit recurring payments for basic technologies, and promising for like a decade that every year was THE YEAR full auto pilot would come out? Well aside from that stuff, it’s probably all that stuff the guy above said.

    solidgrue ,
    @solidgrue@lemmy.world avatar

    Hey, my distrust of autopilot lies in the competency of the surrounding Human drivers. They cray-cray. Not that I own a Tesla, mind. I don’t, and won’t.

    But autopilot on these streets? Pass.

    GreyEyedGhost ,

    I trust a well-programmed computer with decent sensors more than an ad hoc chemical computer with mediocre and limited sensors hauled around in a meatbag. And when we have one of those, I will get it.

    nilloc ,

    They do it to get under the new lower tax rebate limits for cars. Luxury cars are (rightly) getting less tax breaks than they used to. And Tesla is lowering prices to make sure their customers still get the rebates (which is still a huge reason anyone buys electric cars at this stage).

    The irony is that Muskrat was railing against rebates and wanted them to be cancelled, but when sensible lowering of limits made his cars uncompetitive, he could magically lower the price to keep the competitive.

    AlwaysNowNeverNotMe ,
    @AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social avatar

    He did it to shore up support from manchildren since like 3 of his sex scandals hit the news in one week.

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    Yeah but in the era of supply side economics, selling bullshit to shareholders is what matters. The product is unimportant, what the shareholders think other shareholders think about the future of the product is what’s important to a business now.

    Shareholders skew right (some psychotically so when you consider the Saudis), and that’s who Musk is selling bullshit to.

    KingThrillgore ,
    @KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

    I wouldn’t be opposed to a law change where if a company that takes subsidies breaks the law, the state can nationalize it at no cost. That would solve a lot of issues.

    tryptaminev ,

    why only when they took subsidies?

    Companies that violate laws repeatedly or in particularly grave cases should always bs subject to seizure, if the management and bodies representing the shareholders did not adress the issues as soon as they had to know about it.

    For publicly traded companies it is a bit tricky, but if the sourxe of problems is a majority shareholder then they should just seize his stocks.

    Chainweasel ,

    South Africa is where his families money is from and he can still have power there.

    Guantanamo Bay is where he belongs

    holmesandhoatzin ,

    Send him to that big garbage island in the Pacific.

    CouldWellGo4aCuppa ,

    The UK?

    prashanthvsdvn ,

    When was UK in Pacific?

    glibg10b ,

    Nah, we don’t want him either

    captain_aggravated ,
    @captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Or extradite him to Ukraine.

    Flatworm7591 ,
    @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/4cf70b1c-aba4-4920-8ae8-a8311686624c.png

    someguy3 ,

    Ha. You can make the R and L smaller.

    (And he’s not a communist, exact opposite of it.)

    kier ,

    Musk is everything but a communist

    the_crab_man ,

    Starlink wasn’t enabled in that region to begin with.

    spaghettiwestern OP ,

    Lol! That’s why disabling it prevented Ukraine from launching an offensive, right?

    CorruptBuddha ,

    In the CNN article I read they say musk was specifically asked to expand the network for the operation. It seems like a weird spin.

    the_crab_man ,

    He did not disable it, he refused to enable it in that region.

    jarfil ,

    He did not disable anything, he refused a foreign (Ukrainian) request to enable it, that was contrary to his country’s (US) stance at that moment: sanctions forbidding him to provide any service over Russia or Russian assets.

    spaghettiwestern OP ,

    Others say he disabled the system. Malicious narcissist & pathological liar says he didn’t. If Musk disabled the system it makes him look very bad and may result in a major government response that would harm Musk and his business.

    Gee, I wonder who is telling the truth?

    jarfil ,

    This isn’t “who said what”, these are facts:

    • Musk had no contract with the DoD
    • The US imposed sanctions on private businesses from offering services to Russia
    • Starlink blocked all service over Russia and Russian assets
    • Ukraine asked Musk to extend the service over Russian assets
    • Musk followed US’s rules
    • Shit happened
    • Suddenly, the US DoD scrambled to get a contract for Starlink… wonder why?

    As much as I dislike Musk —and I wouldn’t be surprised if he used this to negotiate a better contract—, this one was a total fuckup by the US DoD, and in part by Ukraine for not pressuring the DoD into signing a contract much sooner.

    spaghettiwestern OP ,

    Where do you get your "facts’? Especially like the “shit happens” addition to explain an admitted action by Musk. Very creative.

    jarfil , (edited )

    Facts come from history, most are recorded for everyone to check, particularly these ones are public. You may even find the exact dates for each one.

    The “shit happens” is Ukraine botching a military operation because they asked a private US citizen to break US law. You may have confused “action” with “inaction as ordered”.

    Edit: Here’s a link with sources and dates.

    spaghettiwestern OP ,

    Thanks for the link. So many people online just pull stuff from their ass it’s a surprise when sources actually exist.

    I see nothing in those links regarding the DoD contract specifics and I think you’re making assumptions about how US law is applied in foreign war zones involving our allies and hostile adversaries. US law is amazingly flexible in just about any situation that can be said to involve our or our allies national security. The Defense Department has withheld almost all information about the Starlink contract, and from what I can see even the date it was signed hasn’t been made public. All I can find at multiple sites is that a contract has been signed with almost zero additional information.

    From the WA Post:

    The Defense Department acknowledged the decision but withheld virtually all details about the agreement, including how much it will cost U.S. taxpayers and when the contract was signed.

    From Ronan Farrow’s excellent New Yorker article:

    SpaceX, Musk’s space-exploration company, had for months been providing Internet access across Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to plan attacks and to defend themselves. But, in recent days, the forces had found their connectivity severed as they entered territory contested by Russia.

    At a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, Musk even appeared to express support for Vladimir Putin. “He was onstage, and he said, ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace—we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’ ” Reid Hoffman, who helped start PayPal with Musk, recalled. Musk seemed, he said, to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker.” A week later, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, which called for new referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine, and granted Russia control of Crimea, the semi-autonomous peninsula recognized by most nations, including the United States, as Ukrainian territory. In later tweets, Musk portrayed as inevitable an outcome favoring Russia and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia.”

    By then, Musk’s sympathies appeared to be manifesting on the battlefield. One day, Ukrainian forces advancing into contested areas in the south found themselves suddenly unable to communicate. “We were very close to the front line,” Mykola, the signal-corps soldier, told me. “We crossed this border and the Starlink stopped working.” The consequences were immediate. “Communications became dead, units were isolated. When you’re on offense, especially for commanders, you need a constant stream of information from battalions. Commanders had to drive to the battlefield to be in radio range, risking themselves,” Mykola said. “It was chaos.” Ukrainian expats who had raised funds for the Starlink units began receiving frantic calls. The tech executive recalls a Ukrainian military official telling him, “We need Elon now.” “How now?” he replied. “Like fucking now,” the official said. “People are dying.” Another Ukrainian involved told me that he was “awoken by a dozen calls saying they’d lost connectivity and had to retreat.” The Financial Times reported that outages affected units in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk. American and Ukrainian officials told me they believed that SpaceX had cut the connectivity via geofencing, cordoning off areas of access.

    The senior defense official said, “We had a whole series of meetings internal to the department to try to figure out what we could do about this.” Musk’s singular role presented unfamiliar challenges, as did the government’s role as intermediary. “It wasn’t like we could hold him in breach of contract or something,” the official continued. The Pentagon would need to reach a contractual arrangement with SpaceX so that, at the very least, Musk “couldn’t wake up one morning and just decide, like, he didn’t want to do this anymore.” Kahl added, “It was kind of a way for us to lock in services across Ukraine. It could at least prevent Musk from turning off the switch altogether.”

    I find it laughable that Musk would assert that Putin wants peace and that Ukraine should negotiate. Putin can achieve peace by unilaterally withdrawing his forces and restoring pre-war borders. In other words Musk wants peace on his and Putin’s terms and that means victory for Russia.

    We don’t know the specific timelines of what else has gone on with Musk and Ukraine yet. We do know that Musk lies constantly about things as important as major government contracts, buying out major corporations, taking companies private, the capabilities of Telsa vehicles and even about things as mundane and ridiculous as showing up for a cage match with Zuckerburg. It strains credulity to suggest he’s not lying about what he’s done with Starlink if telling the truth might make him look bad. Given his history of openly siding with Putin and pushing Ukraine to surrender significant parts of their country, it is more than reasonable to assume he’s lying in support of that goal too.

    jarfil ,

    Not sure if it was in an article or on TV, but at some point there was a map showing Starlink coverage over Ukraine, and how it faded towards the borders in order to go down to zero in the conflict areas. Obviously the moment Ukrainian forces started to push, they went into the blackout areas and were SOL.

    Regarding the DoD agreement… I’m not sure where I’ve read it, but apparently he asked the DoD to foot the bill for Starlink around the end of 2022… and then when the agreement was drafted and they were about to pay for it, he decided that “nah”, he’d follow providing the service for free. I highly suspect that was a weasel way to negotiate better terms and/or amount, knowing that the DoD needed a contract to hold him accountable, and that they were actually willing to pay.

    You’re not wrong in not trusting the guy, nobody should; according to his recent biography, he seems to take everything as a big game with the main objective of making more money.

    spaghettiwestern OP ,

    What I find especially disturbing about this entire scenario is that Musk is literally choosing to protect the Russian war machine instead of the people who are being attacked - including seniors, women, infants and children. Taking steps to protect an aggressor while actively preventing a country from defending its non-combatant citizens from unprovoked attacks is just plain evil.

    I expect Musk will have a movie made about him someday. It won’t be flattering.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •