5 ms·

Indeed —- choosing Starlink would be a security risk since Musk is totally willing to black out a country's service based on his own interpretations of situatio

Indeed —- choosing Starlink would be a security risk since Musk is totally willing to black out a country's service based on his own interpretations of situations. I have no knowledge of who has deals and who doesn't, but more countries will find themselves in this situation — if you were picking countries who might see quasi-state embargo from a Trump-aligned oligarch this week, you'd pick Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Colombia. Next week, who knows.

mrits 1y ago
There isn't a company on the planet that wouldn't stop service based on their own interpretations of situations.
- stingraycharles 1y ago
  Most companies just operate based on what the law allows them / tells them to do. There are examples of companies where the owner is very politically involved and uses their companies as a means to influence politics, of which Starlink seems to be one.
  - mrits 1y ago
    I can't think of a single case that Starlink ever acted out politically, except the popular debunked one in Ukraine
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      Not seen the debunking - can you point to something that does so. Here's a recent story from the other perspective. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown-starlink-satellite-service-ukraine-retook-territory-russia-2025-07-25/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown...
      - DrScientist 1y ago
        I'd also note the interesting timing of Trump removing intelligence sharing ( Mar 5th ? )and the key Russian counter-attack move ( March 8th-9th ) in Kursk to retake territory - essentially leading to Ukraine pretty much losing all it's Russian territory within weeks.
        exasperaited 1y ago
        Fun fact: the first impact Trump had on the Republican policy platform, before he was even President, was to remove from platform language the promise to arm Ukraine with offensive weapons. Back before the convention in the 2016 campaign. That was secured by Paul Manafort, a man who —- only months earlier -- worked as an advisor to and lobbyist for a pro-Russian Ukrainian PM (Viktor Yanukovych, essentially a Putin stooge). Paul Manafort worked for Trump for free (this is not in doubt), but appears to have had massive debts at the time, which appear to have ultimately been settled. Ukraine is the thread that runs through the entire story of Trump's political career. It is and has always been so utterly, abundantly obvious that Trump's position on Ukraine consistently has favoured and will favour Putin's, that media and journalists failing to observe it is nothing short of malpractice.
        DrScientist 1y ago
        You could also say that about Biden - the strange case of his son and his job, Biden boasting about meddling in Ukraine internal affairs around corruption investigations and the infamous Nuland-Pyatt phone call etc etc. Question I have about Ukraine - for those hawks that have consistently said Russia's army is about to collapse, and it's just one more push, or one more escalation in western involvement - is where is there red line? At what point do you stop escalating? Western nuclear capable missiles into Russia? Western boots on the ground? Western conscription to enable that? Tactical nukes? Russia appears to be winning on the ground right now. We have stopped talking of victory and now just want to freeze the front line - and Russia isn't interested. I'm sure the hawks will say we didn't commit enough - but you can't say that without being clear about where that red line is. Not in a democracy. You could argue in this case Trump was simply being clear eyed about what was actually achievable, rather than either hopelessly optimistic or having a secret agenda to escalate to an all out war with Russia that nobody would have signed up for at the start.
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    even if there is no people like elon musk, what company that can stop government to force its mandate through laws???? and not just SpaceX but every Tech company already work with Gov. Agency
- exasperaited 1y ago
  OK maybe I should have said "whims". Probably more accurate in the specific context. (Well-documented that he works this way too)
cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]

mrits 1y ago

There isn't a company on the planet that wouldn't stop service based on their own interpretations of situations.

stingraycharles 1y ago
Most companies just operate based on what the law allows them / tells them to do. There are examples of companies where the owner is very politically involved and uses their companies as a means to influence politics, of which Starlink seems to be one.
- mrits 1y ago
  I can't think of a single case that Starlink ever acted out politically, except the popular debunked one in Ukraine
  - DrScientist 1y ago
    Not seen the debunking - can you point to something that does so. Here's a recent story from the other perspective. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown-starlink-satellite-service-ukraine-retook-territory-russia-2025-07-25/ https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown...
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      I'd also note the interesting timing of Trump removing intelligence sharing ( Mar 5th ? )and the key Russian counter-attack move ( March 8th-9th ) in Kursk to retake territory - essentially leading to Ukraine pretty much losing all it's Russian territory within weeks.
      - exasperaited 1y ago
        Fun fact: the first impact Trump had on the Republican policy platform, before he was even President, was to remove from platform language the promise to arm Ukraine with offensive weapons. Back before the convention in the 2016 campaign. That was secured by Paul Manafort, a man who —- only months earlier -- worked as an advisor to and lobbyist for a pro-Russian Ukrainian PM (Viktor Yanukovych, essentially a Putin stooge). Paul Manafort worked for Trump for free (this is not in doubt), but appears to have had massive debts at the time, which appear to have ultimately been settled. Ukraine is the thread that runs through the entire story of Trump's political career. It is and has always been so utterly, abundantly obvious that Trump's position on Ukraine consistently has favoured and will favour Putin's, that media and journalists failing to observe it is nothing short of malpractice.
        DrScientist 1y ago
        You could also say that about Biden - the strange case of his son and his job, Biden boasting about meddling in Ukraine internal affairs around corruption investigations and the infamous Nuland-Pyatt phone call etc etc. Question I have about Ukraine - for those hawks that have consistently said Russia's army is about to collapse, and it's just one more push, or one more escalation in western involvement - is where is there red line? At what point do you stop escalating? Western nuclear capable missiles into Russia? Western boots on the ground? Western conscription to enable that? Tactical nukes? Russia appears to be winning on the ground right now. We have stopped talking of victory and now just want to freeze the front line - and Russia isn't interested. I'm sure the hawks will say we didn't commit enough - but you can't say that without being clear about where that red line is. Not in a democracy. You could argue in this case Trump was simply being clear eyed about what was actually achievable, rather than either hopelessly optimistic or having a secret agenda to escalate to an all out war with Russia that nobody would have signed up for at the start.
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  even if there is no people like elon musk, what company that can stop government to force its mandate through laws???? and not just SpaceX but every Tech company already work with Gov. Agency
exasperaited 1y ago
OK maybe I should have said "whims". Probably more accurate in the specific context. (Well-documented that he works this way too)

cindyllm 1y ago

[dead]