It's hard to make this argument unless you're providing access globally, and that won't happen. Instead, doing this is just helping powerful repressive regimes and undermining less powerful regimes. cough China cough:
Ultimately, Starlink is censorable in China, and any country where China insists on censoring the Internet.
They can only offer Internet in Iran with the (implicit) blessing of large nations.
The specific act of offering Iran may or may not help China, but it clearly undermines Russia and helps the US.
Regardless of that, unauthorized deployment of uncensored Internet is a strong political weapon that is only available to large / wealthy nations.
(Contrast this to some sort of hypothetical censor-resistent NNTP style news source, where cheap devices sync the news with each other via local wireless connections.)
Hmm, unless the PRC can block transmissions from the Starlink satellites (or devote the resources to track down dishes in remote areas), I am not sure they can "censor" those connections?
I see your general point, though it seems to me to make a slightly-too-strong connection between the US Gov't and its policies and interests and Starlink's (that said, if the two were fundamentally at odds it doesn't seem like Starlink would be offering to provide access to Iranians...)
Haha, no it's more like Elon Musk visits his factory in China, mysteriously disappears for 3 months, his Chinese assets are sold off and he reappears 6 months later and decides to leave all his leadership positions and become a recluse.
Let's say it's not even the explicit, Musk just suddenly struggles to find suppliers for his factories in China and his deals to buy raw resources in China start to get delayed.
According to the link I posted above, they're already threatening to deploy anti-satellite capabilities specifically designed to knock out the Starlink network.
More realistically, they'd be more subtle. Perhaps Tesla would hit supply chain issues at exactly the wrong time, or they'd announce an extra $100b investment in industries directly competing with Musk's companies. Tariffs are also a thing. They could simply adjust them (up or down).
> threatening to deploy anti-satellite capabilities specifically designed to knock out the Starlink network.
If you have a working model of how it can be done without global nuclear war, there's probably a Nobel prize waiting for you. Extra credit if you can avoid knocking out every other satellite in LEO and the space stations.
Why was it USDoD decided against deploying crowbars from orbit?
(That would be hypersonic darts with only enough propellant to re-enter, and then with control surfaces to guide it to a precise target at hypersonic speed.)
Because it's ridiculous to do so when you have a bomber fleet larger than the entire rest of the world's combined, and because it's far more expensive to build and maintain than just sending a carrier group to wherever you need to strike.
But is it, really? A carrier group is very expensive, and you only have a few. Put it here, it's not there. Put it there, it's not here.
And it takes a long time to get from here to there.
Likewise, bombers. Expensive, can be shot down, take forever.
The full might of the western world will rain down on them. Or more likely we’ll just send a few toys to their opposition. Starting a war with the NATO is not a good idea
Whereas in a democracy, free speech is a threat that needs to be controlled in order to prevent "disinformation" or "platforming" dangerous elements. Funny how that works.
You said "populism" wrong. When the elites don't like a revealed preference of the people they call it "populism". When it is Right, Holy, and True, then it is Democracy.
What meets your definition of non-western censorship? Surely shutting down mobile operators and preventing communication tools that perhaps more than half the country uses meets this definition?
You realize the US government has been backing spacex because we want these capabilities? Musk is a military contractor and Iran a geopolitical rival. This is not a business decision h the is the US government showing what it’s been building towards during “the decline of America”
This is not corruption as that is a legal term that doesn’t apply. I assume you’re left leaning: as usual your worried more about how bad you’re deluded into thinking we are, all at the expense of actual suffering people (the Iranian population.)
Your worldview is sick and petty. There are people out there living under actual evil regimes stop conspiracy theorizing about how shit you don’t even understand.
If you are selling something that is destabilizing the (official US enemy) government then like here, there's a chance they will grant an exception. Especially if it's something that makes the US look noble.
44 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadhttp://web.archive.org/web/20220926152622/https://archive.ph...
But providing people with uncensored internet is probably the most productive and neutral action you can undertake.
Here is the info. Decide for yourselves, there can be no resentment later.
https://www.engadget.com/china-military-scientists-anti-star...
They can only offer Internet in Iran with the (implicit) blessing of large nations.
The specific act of offering Iran may or may not help China, but it clearly undermines Russia and helps the US.
Regardless of that, unauthorized deployment of uncensored Internet is a strong political weapon that is only available to large / wealthy nations.
(Contrast this to some sort of hypothetical censor-resistent NNTP style news source, where cheap devices sync the news with each other via local wireless connections.)
I see your general point, though it seems to me to make a slightly-too-strong connection between the US Gov't and its policies and interests and Starlink's (that said, if the two were fundamentally at odds it doesn't seem like Starlink would be offering to provide access to Iranians...)
Let's say it's not even the explicit, Musk just suddenly struggles to find suppliers for his factories in China and his deals to buy raw resources in China start to get delayed.
More realistically, they'd be more subtle. Perhaps Tesla would hit supply chain issues at exactly the wrong time, or they'd announce an extra $100b investment in industries directly competing with Musk's companies. Tariffs are also a thing. They could simply adjust them (up or down).
If you have a working model of how it can be done without global nuclear war, there's probably a Nobel prize waiting for you. Extra credit if you can avoid knocking out every other satellite in LEO and the space stations.
Providing internet to less powerful regimes isn't helping more powerful ones.
Not offering a service in China isn't helping China, It is neutral.
I don't follow your argument. It seems to be a case of "the enemy of better is best".
(That would be hypersonic darts with only enough propellant to re-enter, and then with control surfaces to guide it to a precise target at hypersonic speed.)
Likewise, bombers. Expensive, can be shot down, take forever.
I guess whatever target you hit with it would have to be worth as much as it cost to get the thing into orbit.
That will be good for SpaceX, anyway.
Try selling your service to an embargoed country and report back the results (from jail probably).
Also another instance of "breaking the law is fine if it goes with my ideals".
Rule of law is crumbling in the US. That's never a good thing.
You accidentally justified some of the methods outlined there.
Your worldview is sick and petty. There are people out there living under actual evil regimes stop conspiracy theorizing about how shit you don’t even understand.
This isn’t what SpaceX did. It asked the State Department to let it sell. State created an exception to the sanctions mechanisms open to anyone.