3 ms·

> the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones I can't tell if this is supposed to be humorous or not.

> the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones I can't tell if this is supposed to be humorous or not. Ukraine is involved in an existential fight for its right to be a nation and a people. It's war. A war that Ukraine did not seek out. A war brought to Ukraine by Russia. A war that has cost many Ukrainian lives and will cost still more. Ukraine is not going to care about terms of service set by a petulant man-child who has advocated for submission to Russia. Especially not when volunteers and soldiers on the ground are paying for Starlink access themselves: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/15/the-hell-with-it-elon-musk-says-spacex-will-fund-starlink-internet-in-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/15/the-hell-with-...

jhgb 4y ago
> Ukraine is not going to care about terms of service Well in that case they won't provided that service. That's how it usually goes. If it creates a significant legal liability to the service provider (which is the reason for many ToS clauses), the service provider would be absolutely stupid to not shut things down in such cases.
dotnet00 4y ago
Now say the same but for why the world insists that none of its aid be used to attack into internationally recognized Russian territory and why Ukraine isn't allowed to do so with HIMARS etc. I know this place loses its sanity whenever the bad rocket man is mentioned, but all they did is put themselves in line with the US's stated policy about the target of their aid to Ukraine.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  So the new position you've shifted to is that Starlink should be usable for all purposes within Ukraine, just like all other aid. If you can't keep a consistent position from one post to the next maybe you don't have much of an argument.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    What? My position is that SpaceX are justified in the limits they've set. That hasn't changed at all. I'm simply pointing out the most likely reasoning behind setting those limits in the first place, and clarifying that what you said about how Ukraine isn't going to care about those limits because they're in an existential war also is in conflict with what they're dealing with regarding all the other aid.
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      > My position is that SpaceX are justified in the limits they've set. They are not. > That hasn't changed at all. Of course it has. You indulged in whataboutism. You suddenly wanted Starlink to be on the same terms as other aid. That is inconsistent with your original claim. At this point you're not keeping up with your own posts.

jhgb 4y ago

> Ukraine is not going to care about terms of service Well in that case they won't provided that service. That's how it usually goes. If it creates a significant legal liability to the service provider (which is the reason for many ToS clauses), the service provider would be absolutely stupid to not shut things down in such cases.

dotnet00 4y ago

Now say the same but for why the world insists that none of its aid be used to attack into internationally recognized Russian territory and why Ukraine isn't allowed to do so with HIMARS etc. I know this place loses its sanity whenever the bad rocket man is mentioned, but all they did is put themselves in line with the US's stated policy about the target of their aid to Ukraine.

clouddrover 4y ago
So the new position you've shifted to is that Starlink should be usable for all purposes within Ukraine, just like all other aid. If you can't keep a consistent position from one post to the next maybe you don't have much of an argument.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  What? My position is that SpaceX are justified in the limits they've set. That hasn't changed at all. I'm simply pointing out the most likely reasoning behind setting those limits in the first place, and clarifying that what you said about how Ukraine isn't going to care about those limits because they're in an existential war also is in conflict with what they're dealing with regarding all the other aid.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > My position is that SpaceX are justified in the limits they've set. They are not. > That hasn't changed at all. Of course it has. You indulged in whataboutism. You suddenly wanted Starlink to be on the same terms as other aid. That is inconsistent with your original claim. At this point you're not keeping up with your own posts.