4 ms·

Would they provide a usable broadband alternative to the broomstick-up-butt treatment I get from the telcos? Hell yes I'd take them. Oh they'd steal my data? W

Would they provide a usable broadband alternative to the broomstick-up-butt treatment I get from the telcos? Hell yes I'd take them. Oh they'd steal my data? Well, so does everyone on this site and the telco I have now. Consider this, Mr Geopolitical power. Do you want the US with this weapon, or sit on our ass and let China deploy one now that SpaceX has shown how powerful it is? This is the single greatest Western soft power weapon since the iPhone. And you're begrudging it? Come on.

UmbertoNoEco 4y ago
I am latin-American Mr "I think Anglo is the world default", in our region the US has been a much more pernicious force in history than China,by several orders of magnitude. I understand we are just simple apes that love to think tribally (the logical part of our brain is shut off) but I would expect one is aware enough to understand there are other "tribes", specially when worldwide one's group does not reach double digits as % of population.
- weaponizedlinux 4y ago
  Playing the "Holier-than-thou and I think Americans are assholes" card combo by itself is not countering their point.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    It is correct that Starlink is not motivated to act for your benefit, any more than for this individual. Your interlocutor has long experience with such things. So do we, really; are Starlink's incentives aligned any different from AT&T's? A few years back, AT&T took a half $billion from US taxpayers to build out fiber to rural neighborhoods. One comes to within 1/10 mi of my house. But they were not obliged to light any of it. They did not. That fiber sits dark, more than a decade on.
ncmncm 4y ago
This is not the US. This is a privately held corporation answerable to nobody. Whose benefit do you imagine they will exercise their power on behalf of? Yours? US voters'?
- concordDance 4y ago
  US corporations are significantly controlled by US laws. These laws can do things like stopping them serving enemy countries. (The recent Russia sanctions are an example) That is power.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    I think I see your point, here: that, being a US company, the US can give it directions regardless of what the company would have chosen to do; and even in places the company is not compelled by law, it may be in their interest to stay on good terms with the feds where for a company based elsewhere it might not.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > This is not the US. This is a privately held corporation Just like all other ISPs. As well as tech companies. What's your point? That Starlink is bad because it isn't a government-owned entity? Or are you opposed to the idea that a non-government entity can provide a strategic advantage/soft power to the US government? Asking because neither of those two points seem to be able to withstand much scrutiny.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    My point is simply that anyone expecting Starlink will treat you better than AT&T does, and to act on behalf of the US, is very unfamiliar with both history and Elon Musk. A hell of a lot of Tesla customers paid $thousands for self-driving, since, what, 2016? Tesla just laid off its whole self-driving department. What are the odds they will now issue refunds? Care to bet?
    - filoleg 4y ago

UmbertoNoEco 4y ago

I am latin-American Mr "I think Anglo is the world default", in our region the US has been a much more pernicious force in history than China,by several orders of magnitude. I understand we are just simple apes that love to think tribally (the logical part of our brain is shut off) but I would expect one is aware enough to understand there are other "tribes", specially when worldwide one's group does not reach double digits as % of population.

weaponizedlinux 4y ago
Playing the "Holier-than-thou and I think Americans are assholes" card combo by itself is not countering their point.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  It is correct that Starlink is not motivated to act for your benefit, any more than for this individual. Your interlocutor has long experience with such things. So do we, really; are Starlink's incentives aligned any different from AT&T's? A few years back, AT&T took a half $billion from US taxpayers to build out fiber to rural neighborhoods. One comes to within 1/10 mi of my house. But they were not obliged to light any of it. They did not. That fiber sits dark, more than a decade on.

ncmncm 4y ago

This is not the US. This is a privately held corporation answerable to nobody. Whose benefit do you imagine they will exercise their power on behalf of? Yours? US voters'?

concordDance 4y ago
US corporations are significantly controlled by US laws. These laws can do things like stopping them serving enemy countries. (The recent Russia sanctions are an example) That is power.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  I think I see your point, here: that, being a US company, the US can give it directions regardless of what the company would have chosen to do; and even in places the company is not compelled by law, it may be in their interest to stay on good terms with the feds where for a company based elsewhere it might not.
filoleg 4y ago
> This is not the US. This is a privately held corporation Just like all other ISPs. As well as tech companies. What's your point? That Starlink is bad because it isn't a government-owned entity? Or are you opposed to the idea that a non-government entity can provide a strategic advantage/soft power to the US government? Asking because neither of those two points seem to be able to withstand much scrutiny.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  My point is simply that anyone expecting Starlink will treat you better than AT&T does, and to act on behalf of the US, is very unfamiliar with both history and Elon Musk. A hell of a lot of Tesla customers paid $thousands for self-driving, since, what, 2016? Tesla just laid off its whole self-driving department. What are the odds they will now issue refunds? Care to bet?
  - filoleg 4y ago