this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
372 points (96.3% liked)

World News

32072 readers
1445 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 141 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I’d like to see more substantial consequences for consciously and deliberately sabotaging a war operation using a service the pentagon paid him to provide.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If any of us did that we’d be behind bars

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

Buddy we wouldn't even make it to trial.

[–] EmpathicVagrant 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But he was slammed in a headline! There’s no way any other consequence could even be achievable.

/s

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't worry, I'm sure our leaders are formulating a strongly worded condemnation of their own. One might even venture to suggest they could hold a hearing about it, or assign a task force to investigate! Canceling his government contracts or charging him with anything are obviously off the table, though.

[–] EmpathicVagrant 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course that’s off the table, there’s simply no way any kind of law enforcement in our country would ever consider such violent response to actions made by a citizen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

By a wealthy citizen, you mean.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, he's not a representative of any state, so technically assassination wouldn't be an act of war...

I'm not advocating, just pointing out that as an individual, his position is a bit more precarious than I think he realizes.

[–] LeadSoldier 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And as much as I liked President Obama, he did set the precedent by targeting and killing a (bad) US citizen.

[–] FilthyHookerSpit 8 points 1 year ago

He didn't sabotage it though, as another user pointed out (with sources) he had already turned off starlink awhile ago and didn't want to turn it back on for just this strike.

https://lemmy.world/comment/3259657

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The richest man in the world facing consequences for his actions? Not in this timeline.

[–] PunnyName 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why we shouldn't allow corporations to control information, or information services. They need to be publicly owned.

[–] FiftyShadesOfLatte 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Starlink is a US defense contractor. These decisions should not be Elons to make.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Starlink is unfortunately a Musk property

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Musk can't be licensed to run a telecommunications company and just do that. It must be stipulated by contract.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who regulates spectrum in disputed territory? As an operator you have to pick who you're willing to piss off more, Russia has nukes and the capability to physically disrupt the Starlink network.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The International Telecommunications Union which is part of the UN. More importantly, US law is applicable, and it says you can't do such a thing unless you stipulate in ontract that you can.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A furious Ukrainian official has blasted Elon Musk after it was revealed the SpaceX and Starlink founder sabotaged a stealth attack on Russia when he refused to grant access to satellites.

According to Musk’s biographer, that meant during an undercover Ukrainian operation in the Crimean coastal region of Russia, the Twitter owner ordered satellite communications be shut down.

In an excerpt viewed by CNN, Musk’s biographer Walter Isaacson writes that Ukrainian drones packed with explosives were headed towards a Russian naval fleet before the tech titan made the order.

Although some of Musk’s backers on the platform supported his decision, others believe Musk—an unelected figure now playing a major role in a global conflict—isn’t qualified to make such calls.

Continuing the conversation on the social media site—which Musk purchased last year for $44 billion—the entrepreneur called for a truce between Ukraine and Russia: “Every day that passes, more Ukrainian and Russian youth die to gain and lose small pieces of land, with borders barely changing.

“Elon, you make great cars (and a lot of money), but that doesn’t qualify you in any way to tip the scales in an existential fight for freedom for the people of Ukraine,” responded Bill Browder, a human rights campaigner and CEO of investment fund Hermitage Capital Management, adding: “Russia started this war, Ukraine is defending itself.


The original article contains 766 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

neither ignorance nor ego, elon musk is simply a big wet sloppy nazi cunt. simple.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago

In this case he stymied the Nazis though.

[–] Motavader 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Musk is an absolute sociopath, but there's actually a logic to this.

Apparently the US has extremely tight export controls for telecomm tech used for war, and Starlink was concerned that by Ukraine using it in an offensive way it would result in the US or other countries classifying Starlink as military tech, thereby limiting where they can export it. That would be really bad for Starlink, of course, which is why they specified at the beginning that Ukraine should only use it for civilian goals (hospitals, schools, government, etc).

I assume the contract between Starlink and the Pentagon covers that, but I haven't researched that far.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

What you're describing could not be done in an unbiased way. For example, you're hinging everything on the distinction between whether something is offensive or not, but whoever decides that is in fact making a political and military decision.

Starlink had the option to decline the customer on the whole. We don't want to let them off the hook because they intentionally created a situation where they had and used the power to affect individual battles in real time.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Oh lawd they slammin

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I had an epiphany today: Jonathan Coulton's the future soon is a song about Elon #Musk.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Always nice to see JoCo in the wild. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was listening to the Doubleclicks' Lasers and Feelings and had a realization that it could be the counterpart to The Future Soon.

Then I went back to listen to it and had a second epiphany about the narrator of the latter being Musk :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=mPxkz0tFs4I&

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Pretty funny. Thanks.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=NeV9gsl5jR0

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Wow this comment section looks like a Raytheon board meeting.

[–] whispering_depths -2 points 1 year ago

if it wasn't this bitches would be complaining that he's providing internet for war shit lol