I didn’t say I am against change. I said I am against one man owning a monopoly on a common good.
replyIf technological progress requires monopolies and the road toward serfdom is that really a path we want?
I wonder what you mean by "moving humanity forward". Just technological advancements without other considerations? In my opinion it should at least require reducing human suffering, and if ao he has done more harm than good
replyThere are millions of people in Africa and rural areas around the world who have access to the internet because of these satellites. This massively reduces human suffering. Millions of people can now get medical information, farming, manufacturing techniques, talk to experts around the world. Connecting people to the wealth of human knowledge has a huge impact on reducing suffering. It also just directly saves lives by connecting people in an emergency to people who can help. Additionally, Ukraine would have lost the war a long time ago if these satellites didn’t exist. You could go on for a long time listing the ways these satellites reduce suffering.
replyGovernment could be the creator of this just like it was with GPS. We are very tolerant of government innovation and infrastructure when it’s a military resource. But when it’s a pure public good everyone claims it’s wasteful or less efficient than the private sector.
replyWhy do we need to let this be a monopoly controlled by one person. A king in a board room is still a king.
I agree with this. But imo its pretty clear that cheap and easy access to the internet on the entire globe is a clear win.
replyThe guy in charge of it has demonstrated that he'll cut people off from accessing it on a whim, though, so it's not really cheap and easy access for the entire globe. It's access for the selected people.
replyIt came on a whim and you didn't complain about that.
replyYou get what you pay for and the service got paid for ultimately.
If it was important enough, it would have been paid for.
They also have cut off people who paid, though. It's currently being paid for and had another cutoff for Ukraine in early February.
replyEarly February 2026 was at the directive of the Ukrainian government in response to hostile Russian use.
replyPlease just stop this thing you're doing. It's nakedly markedly dishonest
I understand that you want Russia to have access to it without interruption but until there is some sort of "International law" regarding those newer ways of providing Internet, politics will win.
replyKilling Russian access was good, no?
replyDoesn't that hold for all internet providers? I'm not familiar with SpaceX cutting people of, but that doesn't sound out of line compared to industry.
replyOther Internet providers at least have true boards of directors, shareholders with decision power, etc. One person doesn’t have the power to snap their fingers and make decisions based on how much ketamine they’re on at the time.
replyI'm sorry that I don't agree with you that a out of touch board of directors or shareholders are better from the get go than Musk.
replyAlmost all of us already have that, and the rest can as well.
replyThe problem is not 'space' - it's getting ourselves sufficiently organized.
The brief history of the internet suggests to me that this is not a clear win.
replyIt's already pretty cheap, global and universally available.
replyThey don't mean technological advancements.
replyIt's the same neo-liberal aggression couched in rhetorical trickery.
No, this is not really moving forward, it's just a traffic jam and pollution in an otherwise pristine space - for money.
replyIt's just the money.
If we were actually going to Mars, then yes, but somehow he made himself the 'First Trillionaire' - without even so much as getting out of Earth's orbit.
This is NFT progress, in that, there is some plausible economic value in NFTs, but in reality, it's just a hustle.
hey mom wants you to get off the couch and come for dinner, meatloaf is ready
replyWe don't need to have space literally transformed into junkyards to make progress, and there is nothing going wrong with going a lower pace if it means reduced impact on the rest of society.
replyYour focus should be on junkyards on earth, which are exponentially greater in number on a surface area that is a fraction of the surface area of observable space. You’re complaining about a potentially artificial speck of light in the sky while plastic litters the highway you commute on, and India produces literal rivers of trash.
replyOrthogonal issues. Will the trash on earth be reduced if we start littering low orbit with junk?
replyChange is inevitable but not all changes are.
reply> I love seeing artificial objects in space, because it shows that we, humanity, are finally getting there.
replyThe problem is that nobody asked the other 8.3 billions people what they think about seeing stuff in the sky. For the benefit of 1/1000th of humanity (~10 million starlink users).
Who is envious of his trillions? I'm certainly not. I am very annoyed at someone who buys elections, literally promising a million dollars for a vote, and then running in and gutting key portions of the US government, and playing fast and loose with our data - at a bare minimum.
replyWe will be investigating him for decades and he deserves every second of it.
He is not a trillionaire anymore, though.
replyI think you're missing the wood for the trees. He's still insanely wealthy.
replyGetting where, exactly?
reply> I love seeing artificial objects in space,
replyKind of fucked up lol
> rather than someone who is starting wars to profit from insider trading...
Your moral and ethical bar is Trump?
Do you like looking at city skylines? I'm not a misanthrope so I like seeing humanity's progress.
replyI do happen to be a misanthrope, but I suspect a lot of people who aren't also have distaste for your expression of joy at seeing the night sky full of satellites.
replyI do like big cities and their skylines though, sure.
[flagged]
reply> or be glad that it's at least someone getting rewarded for moving humanity forward
replyForward back to fascism. No thanks. He already caused astonishing harm.
Yea but it introduces a lot of issues for space travel and other satellites. The useful space in space we have is extremely limited. A single company shouldn't be able to just clutter space at will.
reply1. That's not true.
2. It's not "at will" if you actually read the article you're commenting under you'd see it is about them _applying for a license_ to do something.
replyTaken literally you are technically correct, but...
1. Space is big, but LEO is not that big and if a single company clutters it enough, other organisations might start bumping into issues like 'if i don't get sign off from starlink corp, i might hit one of their satelites on the way up and my insurance wont cover that so I cant afford to launch given the risks of being sued by elon'.
2. Applying for a licence in this context, mostly means greasing the right palms (preferably the pudgy bruised ones).
replyIt introduces no issues for space travel. And what exactly do you want to happen here? LEO to stay empty because no one else is able to fill it and for spacex to not to try to expand because the regulatory process isn't perfect according to your standards?
replyYes.
reply[dead]
replyThe best way to create change is to create the conditions where change is necessary. If Elon causes Kessler syndrome in low earth orbit, it will quickly be illegal to launch satellites without permits.
replyKessler syndrome isn't possible in the StarLink orbit.
replydid you read the article? it is already illegal to launch satellites without permission, hence the article (above the fold in the summary) is stating SpaceX applied for permission :)
replyAsking permission from whom? The entire world or just the corrupt bonkers folks?
replySomeone said it would "quickly be illegal to launch satellites without permits", then you/they found out that is already illegal, and you nitpicked about who you need permission from.
replyIt feels like there's no feasible solution here that would please you guys.
Should we all democratically vote on every satellite launched into space individually? It's already our elected representatives that approve it.
Does it really? Every time I heard the "we'll run out of space" FUD argument it was followed by a drastic increase of satellites in orbit with no issue...
replyWe're also facing a climate and pollutant crisis as a species so we seem only capable of thinking in the short term. We're not doing that well right now after only a brief period of industrialisation.
replyWe're doing extremely well compared to an unimaginably long period of pre-industrialization.
replyIn the short-term. Thanks for proving my point on perspective.
replyYes, so let's think long term. How do we keep it rolling? Perhaps we will need to continue to advance our technology, especially moving industries to space where there is no ecosphere.
replyThere is nothing more abundant than the extra room there is in space!
replyEarth orbit is more constrained, but it's very far from full. Geostationary orbits are about 20% full, but the rest is practically empty still.