I’d like to see more substantial consequences for consciously and deliberately sabotaging a war operation using a service the pentagon paid him to provide.
But he was slammed in a headline! There’s no way any other consequence could even be achievable.
/s
Don’t worry, I’m sure our leaders are formulating a strongly worded condemnation of their own. One might even venture to suggest they could hold a hearing about it, or assign a task force to investigate! Canceling his government contracts or charging him with anything are obviously off the table, though.
Of course that’s off the table, there’s simply no way any kind of law enforcement in our country would ever consider such violent response to actions made by a citizen.
Well, he’s not a representative of any state, so technically assassination wouldn’t be an act of war…
I’m not advocating, just pointing out that as an individual, his position is a bit more precarious than I think he realizes.
And as much as I liked President Obama, he did set the precedent by targeting and killing a (bad) US citizen.
He didn’t sabotage it though, as another user pointed out (with sources) he had already turned off starlink awhile ago and didn’t want to turn it back on for just this strike.
Why we shouldn’t allow corporations to control information, or information services. They need to be publicly owned.
Or there need to be lots of competing services owned by different companies. That worked reasonably well until companies that are essentially monopolies became the norm, and it’s not just news agencies that are a problem. The high inflation we’ve been seeing is largely caused by record profits that little or no competition allows.
“Capitalism worked pretty well until capitalism happened.”
The only way you’re getting lots of competing services from competing companies is with a LOT of government regulation of the market. Otherwise the rational behaviour for everyone involved in a free market inevitably leads to monopolies.
If you’re looking for a compromise between “everything is state run” and “late stage capitalism” then you can always go with something like the Canadian “Crown Corporation” model, where you create a not-for-profit company whose charter requires them to provide the best possible service at the best possible price. Then you let them compete with the market. Sasktel in Saskatchewan is a great example of this. Canada has famously terrible telecoms pricing, but in Saskatchewan rates are much, much cheaper than the rest of the country, because everyone has to compete with the floor set by Sasktel.
Government used to actively dismantle companies that acted as monopolies. There doesn’t need to be a lot of government regulation until things get to that point, but you’re right - Everybody wants to rule the world.
I mean it would just convert malicious failures into more frequent and unintentional ones.
Starlink is a US defense contractor. These decisions should not be Elons to make.
Musk can’t be licensed to run a telecommunications company and just do that. It must be stipulated by contract.
Who regulates spectrum in disputed territory? As an operator you have to pick who you’re willing to piss off more, Russia has nukes and the capability to physically disrupt the Starlink network.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A furious Ukrainian official has blasted Elon Musk after it was revealed the SpaceX and Starlink founder sabotaged a stealth attack on Russia when he refused to grant access to satellites.
According to Musk’s biographer, that meant during an undercover Ukrainian operation in the Crimean coastal region of Russia, the Twitter owner ordered satellite communications be shut down.
In an excerpt viewed by CNN, Musk’s biographer Walter Isaacson writes that Ukrainian drones packed with explosives were headed towards a Russian naval fleet before the tech titan made the order.
Although some of Musk’s backers on the platform supported his decision, others believe Musk—an unelected figure now playing a major role in a global conflict—isn’t qualified to make such calls.
Continuing the conversation on the social media site—which Musk purchased last year for $44 billion—the entrepreneur called for a truce between Ukraine and Russia: “Every day that passes, more Ukrainian and Russian youth die to gain and lose small pieces of land, with borders barely changing.
“Elon, you make great cars (and a lot of money), but that doesn’t qualify you in any way to tip the scales in an existential fight for freedom for the people of Ukraine,” responded Bill Browder, a human rights campaigner and CEO of investment fund Hermitage Capital Management, adding: “Russia started this war, Ukraine is defending itself.
The original article contains 766 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
