maybe if starlink was being sold to russians lmao.
starlink said they are not interested in being used for war, you expect a bunch of civilians behind it to be responsible for human death?? do you even fucking consider what that implies lol?
this is them making a statement that says “look, you’re killing people who deserve it but we’re not willing to be reliable either way for if you die bc we fuck up or if you kill other humans thanks to this tech”
could you imagine the media SHITSTORM if they agreed? “WARMONGER MUSK working responsible for innumerable deaths”
I mean, it’s his company, nothing secret about it.
Other than that - a loitering munition requiring internet connectivity on approach to target sounds awfully stupid.
And, of course, he provided that connectivity by his own initiative with his own idea as to how it should be used in the first place.
Being given a certain kind of gift many times doesn’t mean you become entitled to it.
Musk considers Russian presence in most of Ukraine aggression he wants to help foil, but a significant Ukrainian counteroffensive something he doesn’t want to help. If you accept his choice in the former, you should accept it in the latter.
Or maybe not steal fucking billions of funding intended exactly for that counteroffensive to not rely on one billionaire’s ideas of cool. Maybe Ukraine should do something about that pervasive corruption first, then blame Musk. With that amount of funding they should have been able to simply overwhelm Russia FFS.
With the comms down, the Ukrainian submarine drones packed with explosives “lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly,” Isaacson writes, according to CNN.
Wait, does this means the military drone is equipped with starlink antenna? In that case, I think it make sense for a company to not want their product to be used in a military weapon. IIRC many tech companies and even open source projects have extra clauses in their license to forbid use in military weapon. Musk should have warn Ukraine first before they launch it in the field though.
He didn’t think giving it to Ukraine (I say give but he basically got the US military to pay for it) to defend against a Russian invasion would mean it would be used by the military??
Defending is one thing, but putting it on a weapon platform is another thing. A few years ago there were a lot of discussion when one of the popular open source library (I forgot which) explicitly said they won’t allow their work to be included in any weapon system that used to kill human. A lot of people in tech were in agreement, so it’s not a stretch to imagine western tech companies typically don’t want their product to be weaponized.
Ehh, musk is a marketer who happens to own tech companies. He’s doing this either to help the brand (collect military dollars while publicly being anti-war) or to leverage more contracts (US military didn’t explicitly contract for this use, please pay me more next time).
It was an invasion, they were attacking Russia on Ukrainian soil, everything they are doing is defensive. He timed it being unavailable during a major planned offensive, he was working for the other side, you cannot defend this.
As an oligarch, he stands with the other Russian oligarch who need and benefit from this war. If the rouble is at an historical low, the ones who have money in other currencies have an historical purchasing power in Russia…
Ignoring the obvious implications of these actions, doesn’t this also fly in the face of net neutrality?
I mean, a guy who effectively serves as the ISP for millions of people, suddenly and arbitrarily deciding he doesn’t like a specific type of internet traffic, then proceeds to block their access entirely. So much for Starlink “opening access” to the full Internet…
Net neutrality is about not favoring (or disfavoring) one type of traffic over another. Turning off the internet entirely doesn’t fit that definition. If he had specifically blocked traffic from the Ukrainian drones, that would be a net neutrality violation. It’s still bad for other reasons though.
As far as I know Ukraine doesn’t have any net neutrality regulations. Since net neutrality is per country then I think it’s sort of a moot point. I also think you’d have a hard time arguing that pulling the plug violates net neutrality. You’re effectively treating all traffic the same in that there is no more traffic. I do think it would be interesting to see how that would play out though.
Aside from that Ukraine would have to go after Musk for it. Which seems like a really bad idea if you want to remain in favor with the increasingly unstable power broker that controls the infrastructure you need.
I’ll clarify that while there’s a whole legal/political aspect of “net neutrality,” I mean more so the general principle of it, in that ISPs shouldn’t be limiting or blocking traffic over any other. Obviously, Ukraine can’t go against the one providing them with their Internet and almost certainly doesn’t have anything enforcing ISP net neutrality, but still, if I were a Ukrainian on the front lines and knew that the erratic dude providing vital internet connectivity to my country can just throw a tantrum about how “Starlink shouldn’t be used for wars and drone strikes” and then coincidentally my drones just stop working… I’d be pretty angry.
I for sure agree that it goes against the spirit of Net Neutrality. I also think it would be interesting to hear what a court would say. I don’t think you’re outright wrong or anything. I just think it’s sitting on the knifes edge. The fact that Ukraine doesn’t have net neutrality means we’ll never really know (At least I hope something like this doesn’t happen again in our lifetimes or ever!)
And yeah, I certainly think the Ukrainian people have every right to want to see keel hauled for this, but I also don’t think they have the luxury of makinng enemies at the current juncture. Musk is a giant piece of shit for cutting Star Link during a critical operation. He’s a giant piece of shit for a lot of other reasons too, but this one kind of takes a giant piece of the shit cake…
I just think Ukraine is in a very tough spot with him. Even more awkward given that he’s a single crackpot that has shown to be ready and willing to throw a monkey wrench in their operations because he felt like it.
That’s fair, and the article doesn’t explain exactly how Elon was able to “cut off connectivity” to the drones, but regardless I think his own stance on how Starlink should be used can be reasonably interpreted as him favoring one form of traffic (‘Netflix and chill’, ‘online school’, ‘good peaceful things’) over another (‘war’, ‘drone strikes’).
It’s not that easy as just checking a box that says “enable decryption”. Not saying they can’t decrypt traffic, but it’s not trivial if you don’t have the private keys.
You don’t need to know what the message is about when you know where it comes from and where it’s going. A lot of security breaches come from that king of knowledge.
As much as I despise Musk for being a total piece of shit, this isn’t treason. Technically, we aren’t even allies with Ukraine. The argument could certainly be made that this works against the interests of the United States, but that alone isn’t treason because it isn’t a crime for citizens to oppose the US, especially when it’s private property the US is being lent. Because at that time, the US hadn’t signed a contract with Musk yet.
If he did this again, then it would be a breach of contract, but still wouldn’t be treason. People being charged with treason is very rare, because it’s a such a high bar to meet.
No he’s not by definition. He isn’t Ukrainian so he can’t commit treason against the Ukrainian people. He didn’t commit any treasonous acts against the US or our allies here either (Ukraine is not an US ally last I checked).
I despise Musk and pretty much everything he stands for. I think it’s borderline societal insanity to allow private industry to put satellites in space and think it takes a certain kind of awful megalomaniac to think they can control that infrastructure single handedly. But saying he’s treasonous for this? That cheapens the word when you use it against people that ARE treasonous. For instance when certain ex-Presidents decide to steal classified documents despite numerous warnings…
I didn’t say he was a traitor. I said he is treasonous in his actions. Please, people – There is a difference. And BTW, Musk’s actions, by assisting a terrorist regime currently trying to commit a genocide upon a country of people, are equally as treasonous to anything trump has done.
treason (noun): The betrayal of allegiance toward one’s own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.
You can’t commit treason against a country if you aren’t a citizen of that country by definition.
This scenario happens to me all the time. People usually just assume that someone else adding details or pedantic corrections means they’re invalidating your whole argument rather than trying to strengthen it (ultimately, I assume)
This is the very definition of treason. What you’re talking about is messing with words. The bare fact is that musk betrayed the trust you could have with him or any business he has any power into.
In brief, it may not be a legal crime in your country, but it is the very definition of betrayal. He acted against the interests of nato and in favour of an enemy of nato. You can hardly deny that, but the law and this scumbag are about technicalities, not morale or justice.
You can only commit treason against your own country, or at most against a coalition of allied forces. Since Ukraine is not a NATO member, he couldn’t commit an act of treason against the NATO either (if that’s even a thing), since the NATO has not formally allied with Ukraine either. They have sanctioned Russia and condemned the war, but have not openly declared Russia an enemy.
You see, that’s exactly the technicalities I’m talking about. Nato is allied to Ukraine. They sent so much stuff, they are training their soldiers, they are providing real time intelligence and secret services are all in on this. They’re not participating directly in the war, but they definitely are allies and it’s hypocritical to deny it.
I don’t know the difference in English between betrayal and treason though. But I’m pretty sure it’ll be technicalities too.
I mean, the differences between most words are “technicalities,” but that doesn’t make them meaningless. It is the technicalities and nuance that makes them useful. Treason is an act of betraying or undermining a state that you belong to, and is not necessarily morally right nor wrong- but obviously extremely negative from the states perspective.
Of course it is. Treason is a specific type of betrayal- a subset of betrayals if you will. That’s why there is nuance- they aren’t the same thing, because treason is more specific and doesn’t apply in this case
Add comment