• Heisme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    148
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The spin at the end is just fluffy bullshit. Starlink, from the get go, has had bandwidth reserved for military operations albeit US military operation but military operations nonetheless. The real question here is how and why did he know that operation was happening and what other operations has he known about/thwarted/or knowingly or unknowingly passed along information about.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      11 months ago

      Maybe the same FSB agents that were driving his paranoia. Assuming they knew about the attack, they could get a bigger win by stopping it and removing Starlink from the equation at the same time, than by stopping the attack with military means.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        Definitely. He used terms such as “Lenin’s mistake” when talking about Ukraine which is rather specific to Russian nationalist ideology. You don’t stumble across such a thing by accident.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Even if it didn’t, you have to think about military applications of your tech…

    • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      “There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol,” Musk posted on X, the platform formally known as Twitter that he owns. Sevastopol is a port city in Crimea. “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.”

  • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    “How am I in this war?” Musk asks Isaacson. “Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes.”

    Musk, transparent as ever, makes sure to tell his biographer that it’s just about peace, man, and has nothing to do with his love of authoritarian regimes.

    • Sinnz@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nothing more peaceful than supporting an authoritarian war criminal 🥰

    • dirthawker0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Didn’t his company supply a bunch of Starlinks because of the war? Was he expecting Ukranians needed to watch more Netflix and do more school stuff while getting bombed out by the Ruzzians? What a crock

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, that was when he expected Russia to win easily. Probably figured he’d get a little bit of good PR, then Russia wins and then he could say “I tried to help, but I guess it just didn’t work out for Ukraine.” Just didn’t go the way he expected I guess.

        That and I don’t think he was quite so far down the fascist rabbit hole back then.

    • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Once the killers have done all the killing they want, peace becomes paramount. Once they’ve stolen everything they can steal, then theft becomes a crime. A man with a gun kicks in your door, starts eating the food from your fridge and fucks your wife. He’s doing good peaceful things and if you resist you’re a warmonger.

    • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      Maybe if he had any actual knowledge instead of just buying shit and slapping his name on it, he would know that the Internet was originally DARPAnet and was designed for expressly military purposes prior to being co-opted by capitalists.

  • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Musk was reportedly motivated to foil the attack out of concern that a strike on Crimea would constitute a “mini-Pearl Harbor” and lead to Russia retaliating with nuclear weapons

    So glad the blue-checks get to dictate our foreign policy now.

    What was all that DoD money for? A suggestion box?

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      To be fair the Ukrainian army knew that they were not supposed to use Starlink for military purposes. The company entered into a contract with the Ukranian government particularily for civilian use.

      But yeah, I still agree with you.

      • Huschke@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

        Musk is the personification of that saying.

    • pastabatman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t know if this is the same, but it’s been previously acknowledged that they shut off service at the contested borders.

          So Russia says they own this region now, all starlink would be down there.

          Not sure if that’s still the case

      • criitz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hm, I don’t think I’d agree. He chose to block this specific traffic. Even if he did it by turning off the internet in the region.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Why are enemies of the United States allowed to own national security infrastructure?

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I don’t think what he did was illegal per se, but he is definitely positioning himself against US geopolitical interests, which is a really bad idea if you are a US citizen, living in the United States. If he were to give away any military secrets that pass through star link, which I’m sure Russia will inevitably ask him to do, he will get arrested for espionage. He should tread very carefully.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You got down voted but you’re absolutely right. We, as a collective society, have allowed billionaires and those with obscene amounts of money to operate above the law. We’re seeing it play out over and over through different actions of the rich, and those that get charged usually get lighter sentences or are not convicted. It’s honestly a large scale problem that is not being addressed.

        • slinkyninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Cut off their funding. Billionaires don’t earn legit money, they harvest it off the money printer and give it to themselves and all their friends.

          Don’t allow these nazis to keep issuing themselves new currency and then forcing everyone else to trade with it in order to sustain their lifestyles.

    • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        This guy aided the Kremlin. He’s helping russians in their genocide of Ukrainian children. Fuck that pile of shit and lock him up.

          • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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)

          • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            I never claimed he was. But he’s guilty of being an ally of russia

              • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                I accused him of being treasonous – which he ABSOLUTELY IS. End of discussion.

                • Hobo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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…

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • viking@infosec.pub
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Treason =/= betrayal.

          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.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • Surdon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

  • Wollang@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    11 months ago

    Took longer than I thought it would for Musk to do this. Been waiting for it since he threw his little fit about starlink in Ukraine was costing him money.

    Then he said he’s talked to Putin directly.

    Seriously someone reign this dude in, somehow, before he really fucks shit up.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      So the article says this is from a year ago so I’m thinking this may have actually been from around that time and the complaints about money was a smoke screen to cover him being a little traitor and we just haven’t heard about it because this is coming from a book with someone once again waiting to blow the very important whistles until they can make money off of it.

    • jnato90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Agreed I read the title as something you’d see a villain nonchalantly do in a comic book/movie series.

    • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I agree with this idea quite vehemently. Honestly, all ISPs should be seized as public utilities and all necessary utilities should be state or locally run with federal oversight. That includes water, power, gas, garbage/recycling, internet, and potentially even cell phone service. There could be room to argue for premium versions being available should people want to pay for them, but regular access to water, power, high speed internet, and cell connectivity are basic necessities these days. For example, the government run version will get you up to 500mbps reliably, but you have the option to pay a private company for fiber gigabit if you really want to.

        • ironhydroxide@partizle.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          So efficiency is what you care about?

          The only thing capitalism actually tries to do efficiently is make more profits.

        • PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          The fun thing with governments in a democracy is that it’s still a free market of ideas and you vote with your vote, instead of voting with your wallet which increasingly has little meaning when dealing with these billionaires.

          • HTTP_404_NotFound@lemmyonline.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Turns out, people get quite angry when the person they voted for doesn’t win.

            Then, you end up with people wanting to change how democracy works.

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              people get angry when the person with the most votes doesn’t win (which has happened 3 times in living memory) and then want to change how it works.

            • PerCarita@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              It takes an enormous amount of buy in. Democracy is a fragile system even at the best of times. It takes a lot to take people who disagree with each other to talk and haggle with each other long enough to make sensible things happen. And it can feel world-ending when your choice loses.

              In times of crisis or uncertainty (like these past 10-15 years) some people might think they need a strongman to lead them. The problem with strongmen of course is that they surround themselves by yes-men and they never seem to know when to stop. I can sympathise with the people who want this, but I can’t say I agree with the impulse.

        • teuast@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Compared to capitalist corporations, unironically yes. It also has the distinct advantage of not being explicitly profit driven by design.

          The government might not be able to build Estonia-level broadband infrastructure to the whole country overnight, but put it in the hands of capitalists and you get Comcast, and I think I speak for all of us when I say fuck Comcast. Put it in the hands of government, even a local city government, and you get Chattanooga municipal gigabit on a publicly owned fiber network that’s faster and cheaper than pretty much anything you can get anywhere else in the country. Imagine what the USPS could be if we’d given it an ISP division in 2006 instead of doing the IRL Postal Act of 2006.

          • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            well spoken.

            A friend who used to work at DOE said there were 3 phases of power plant production. First, a government entity takes over the construction, and builds a system that will meet demand for 30 years, at the expense of the tax payers. Then, the infrastructure is sold to private corporations, who promise cheaper rates. The corporations ride the robust design for the full remainder of the 30 years, doing as little maintenance as possible. They then take the earnings and leave the debilitated system, which is picked up by a government entity, who begins doing the work necessary to build a system that will meet demand for 30 years, at the expense of tax payers…

        • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          The regulatory parts of the government that don’t get gutted by the conservatives every couple years do better than the corporations. If the FDA and EPA were allowed to have their teeth back, things would be in a much better place overall. The trick is to strip out corporate interest and influence from government.