2 ms·
And by virtue of being one or two of the richest people in the world, they have the right to do what they want in the atmosphere, pay no-one for it, and profit.
by throw_a_fay 6y ago
And by virtue of being one or two of the richest people in the world, they have the right to do what they want in the atmosphere, pay no-one for it, and profit.
I think Jesse Pinkman said it best, "dolla dolla bills yo"
EDIT: It's not whether the technology is useful or not, it's about whether you are be ok with a handful people using natural resources in the pursuit of more wealth and influence, with no regard for the consequences. If you can't see any parallels in history, then :shrug:
- oh_sigh 6y agoNo, not by virtue of them being some of the richest people in the world. A million people could all pitch in $5,000 and form a satellite internet company if they wanted, and it would play by the same exact rules that spacex/bezos/whoever is currently out there. Who would you suggest gets paid for putting satellites up? Who does American Airlines, or the random dude in the Cessna pay in order to fly over my house? And yes, they can profit, just like telecom and other companies that use satellites do. > with no regard for the consequences The consequences being globally available internet, at the cost of a couple hundred scientists having a harder time doing the observation. If you can't see the upside because of the downside, then :shrug:
- perl4ever 6y agoI think the issue some want to call attention to is not the consequences that have occurred so far, it's the process of disregarding consequences. It's like how people have been upset recently about secret police; it can't be reduced to the specific actions that we know about, it's the process being unacceptable to some.