Iโm stuck with star link as of present. I would defiantly like for a competent and competent competitor in the market. Competition is the core of capitalism and the driving force behind development.
But also, we cannot have so many god-damn satellites polluting the night sky. Starlink should never have been allowed to get up there as a private actor in the first place.
Itโs a tricky situation, as international cooperation would be extremely difficult to maintain, especially during situations like the Ukraine war. But having private companies compete to fill the orbit with space waste as soon as possible is hardly a good solution either.
Thereโs so much more room out there than there is here on this finite planet.
There are a number of concerns, from hindering science by blocking pictures taken by Hubble to flat out malfunctioning and crashing into the ISS. For every new satellite the risk increases. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/satellites-spacex-problem-space-pollution
The states has been moving towards authoritarian corporate control for a long time though. The freedom cities controlled by big tech, setup in whatever country they want, operating outside โlocalโ regulations, with services via satellite and protection via US military, very much fits with what Starlink has done. Techs push for โrare earthโ (uranium) is likely about powering these sorts of cities, without needing to rely on a โcountriesโ power grid โ to make them autonomous and impervious to local issues.
A few big military powers to allow for the โconstant enemyโ setup similar to 1984, with a corporate backend to prop up oligarchs that can act based on the whims of the oligarch without fear of repudiation.
Authoritarianism is on a big upswing lately, and egalitarian ideals are busy eating themselves alive โ mired in demographic politics. And the conspiracy gremlin in me says itโs been intentional on the part of the democrats/progressive sorts, as theyโre just as beholden to โrichโ authoritarian leaning tech people as the right wing/republican sorts.
Competition is the core of capitalism
Lemmy tells me that exploitation is the core of capitalism. Not so?
Lemmy seem to misunderstand that exploitation is a byproduct of human nature and change the system isnโt going to help that (see: USSR). The purpose of government is supposed to be to keep the capitalist system in check in regards to preventing such exploitation. The average Lemmy tankie seems to want to monopolise exploitation to the government itself and remove your freedom to leave to a less exploitative arrangement.
