• expected_crayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    200
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yet he’s taking DoD money for Starlink in Ukraine. At what point do his antics turn from the craziness of a billionaire to espionage and being deemed a Russian asset?

    • DarkenLM@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be hilarious for the US and/or the EU freeze his assets and punch his market influence to the ground if they accuse him of espionage.

      • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nationalizing the satellites that we paid for as a national security asset sure seems reasonable here, seeing as he likely broke a contract when he disabled them.

        Imagine if Lockheed disabled an allied F16’s targeting computer during a mission; there would be hell to pay.

    • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve said in the past that something was clearly wrong when he bought Twitter. His behavior was far too targeted. It’s all way too obvious.

      • Joker@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s my fun little conspiracy theory. If I could send the CIA to do my bidding, I would have punished him by manipulating him into buying twitter. You can’t nationalize SpaceX because it would signal the failure of privatized space exploration, but you can’t have that idiot out there as a walking national security disaster looking for a place to happen. The only option if he can’t be controlled is to get him out of the way until he retires or another private competitor can become the favorite. Twitter cost him a ton of money and his reputation, exposed him as a fool, and keeps him busy with unimportant bullshit. Everyone just shrugs it off as Elon being Elon. It’s really perfect.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet he’s taking DoD money for Starlink in Ukraine.

      He is now but at the time this supposedly happened he wasn’t.

    • demlet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Musk openly stated that he spoke directly with Putin after the Ukraine invasion had started. The super wealthy have no loyalties and will sell anyone and anything to the highest bidder. I’ve said it before, every penny after $1 billion needs to be taxed at 100%. Time to reign in the oligarchs.

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is that just liquid assets, or do you also want to tax them on stock they own in companies?

        • demlet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly I don’t know. It’s really more the sentiment that I’m expressing. I’m aware that the wealthy are very good at playing shell games. No measures would catch everything.

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agree in principle but the ultra wealthy would simply find new creative ways to hide their income.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wealth taxes are fantastic in theory, but in practice have never worked. They’re too hard to implement. I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, but I just don’t think a wealth tax is the answer.

  • Heisme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        16
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
    95
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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 about peace, man, and has nothing to do with his love of authoritarian regimes.

    • Sinnz@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nothing more peaceful than supporting an authoritarian war criminal 🥰

    • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year 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
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • pastabatman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • Hobo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As far as I know Ukraine doesn’t have any net neutrality regulations. Since net neutrality is per country then I think it’s sort of a moot point. I also think you’d have a hard time arguing that pulling the plug violates net neutrality. You’re effectively treating all traffic the same in that there is no more traffic. I do think it would be interesting to see how that would play out though.

          Aside from that Ukraine would have to go after Musk for it. Which seems like a really bad idea if you want to remain in favor with the increasingly unstable power broker that controls the infrastructure you need.

            • Hobo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I for sure agree that it goes against the spirit of Net Neutrality. I also think it would be interesting to hear what a court would say. I don’t think you’re outright wrong or anything. I just think it’s sitting on the knifes edge. The fact that Ukraine doesn’t have net neutrality means we’ll never really know (At least I hope something like this doesn’t happen again in our lifetimes or ever!)

              And yeah, I certainly think the Ukrainian people have every right to want to see keel hauled for this, but I also don’t think they have the luxury of makinng enemies at the current juncture. Musk is a giant piece of shit for cutting Star Link during a critical operation. He’s a giant piece of shit for a lot of other reasons too, but this one kind of takes a giant piece of the shit cake…

              I just think Ukraine is in a very tough spot with him. Even more awkward given that he’s a single crackpot that has shown to be ready and willing to throw a monkey wrench in their operations because he felt like it.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year 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
        46
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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
            11
            ·
            1 year 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
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                • Hobo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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
              ·
              1 year 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.

                • Surdon@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Of course it is. Treason is a specific type of betrayal- a subset of betrayals if you will. That’s why there is nuance- they aren’t the same thing, because treason is more specific and doesn’t apply in this case

    • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • jnato90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year 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
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        Musk is the personification of that saying.

  • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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?

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

          So efficiency is what you care about?

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

        • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year 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.

        • teuast@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year 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
            4
            ·
            1 year 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…

          • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Notice that your example is local government and not federal. Once the Feds get involved, regulatory capture takes over.

            • teuast@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Fair with regards to Chattanooga, and regulatory capture is certainly a problem to account for. But I also mentioned the United States Postal Service, whose existence demonstrates that it doesn’t have to be that way.

              E: Also, I shouldn’t neglect to mention that the entities that would carry out regulatory capture on the US government also tried and continue to try it with Chattanooga, and have been unsuccessful, which also demonstrates that it doesn’t have to be that way.

  • sculd@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seriously the US needs to take Starlink away from Musk. Its a national security issue at this point.