4 ms·

Not too surprising, given that Starlink operates in Iran without a permit, "space pirate radio" style, and has something of a habit of making the access free wh

Not too surprising, given that Starlink operates in Iran without a permit, "space pirate radio" style, and has something of a habit of making the access free when major protests happen and the government imposes a network blackout. Iranian government and Starlink have no love for each other, clearly. It's a pattern by now: whenever a government wants to do something awful, it shuts down internet access - so that no one can hear it, see it or coordinate a response. And Starlink becomes a lifeline that the regime would rather people didn't have. This is why all of those "national great firewalls" shouldn't exist in the first place. If you give a government a capability to restrict access to whatever it wants and enact a network blackout whenever it wants, it's a matter of time until it gets abused.

ece 9mo ago
It's weird how Apple and Google don't get it, while SpaceX does.
- ACCount37 9mo ago
  Starlink isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't go for "it's so not our problem, we'll just make sure that every single VPN exit point Iranians use is GeoIP'd as Iran in our systems" like Google tends to, or "let's lick every authoritarian boot, we control the app distribution and our users will suck it up" like Apple does. Not even Starlink has the balls to oppose the likes of Russia and China directly - they aren't operating there without a permit, sadly. But at least they don't kneel before every two-bit dictatorship and cave to every single "we want you to do censorship on our behalf" demand. Way better than what most tech companies do now.
  - ozlikethewizard 9mo ago
    I'm unfortunately inclined to not look at their actions so favourably. They operate solely in jurisdictions where the US state supports open destabilization, and dont where the political ramifications would be too high for the US. Makes them little more than an extension of the US imperialist structure. And this makes sense for an organization thats so highly reliant on federal support, vs Apple and Google who only have to just stay somewhat in the states good graces.
    - ece 9mo ago
      As a private platform, SpaceX did try to draw a line with where their service could be used in Ukraine, but we're talking about Iranian protestors now, a different matter I think. If they were offering a firewall as a service, then what you're saying would be more true. Apple and Google have done more than just stay in good graces of governments by getting rid of apps governments don't like, they haven't enforced their terms against X, and given tens of millions to Trump's ballroom.
    - scottyah 9mo ago
      > They operate solely in jurisdictions where the US state supports open destabilization Could you expand on that? Are you saying that the US state wants destabilization in every place that Starlink is accessible? Like the UK, Australia, and USA itself? Which group are you considering the "US state" for that?
      - ozlikethewizard 9mo ago
        I assumed the context of the conversation was given to be understood, my bad. In the context of Starlink operating in nations for the purpose of bypassing internet censorship, as is the context of the conversation, starlink only operates were the US sanctions it to (iran) to further its imperialist goals, and it does not operate where it would hurt the US politically (russia). So pretending that starlink is operating from some kind of moral high ground rather than just SpaceX and most of Musks companies are heavily reliant on federal support so are at their beck and call is weird idolising of a corporate entity.
- dzhiurgis 9mo ago
  Imagine if Starlink came with special channel to X.com. UK would loose their minds.
  - immibis 9mo ago
    Is x.com blocked in the UK?
    - smsm42 9mo ago
      Not yet, but soon. Possibly even this year.
      - KellyCriterion 9mo ago
        Curious: Will this be implemented on DNS level?
        smsm42 9mo ago
        DNS level is too easy to circumvent - you just set your server to 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8, and it's enough just one of them refuses to kowtow to Ofcom. More likely it'd de on routing level. Which has obvious problems unless they build full-blown DPI firewall and implement VPN blocking (they may consult China for that) but to cut off the most lazy users it'd be effective.
        ece 9mo ago
        X will be in the same category as rt.
  - GJim 9mo ago
    You may wish to look what is happening closer to home before engaging in such low level trolling.
freefaler 9mo ago
They "operate" in Iran because of OFAC issues general licenses under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR Part 560) permitting non-commercial personal communications, including satellite internet for free expression. Starlink activation in 2022 protests and recent events exploited these, as Musk sought formal exemptions for "internet freedom." And no Tesla factories in Iran I suppose helps too :)
- tmaly 9mo ago
  It has to be free in case of OFAC sanctions otherwise if you are generating revenue from commercial activity in sanctioned regions, you get huge fines.
NedF 9mo ago
[dead]
lovich 9mo ago
[flagged]
- thegrim000 9mo ago
  The claim you're making has been thoroughly debunked countless times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russian-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russian-Ukrain...
  - lovich 9mo ago
    Assuming this section is accurate > In 2022, Elon Musk denied a Ukrainian request to extend Starlink's coverage up to Russian-occupied Crimea during a counterattack on a Crimean port, from which Russia had been launching attacks against Ukrainian civilians; doing so would have violated US sanctions on Russia.[18] This event was widely reported in 2023, erroneously characterizing it as Musk "turning off" Starlink coverage in Crimea.[19][20] SpaceX executives repeatedly stated that Starlink needed to remain a civilian network;[21][22][12] in late 2022, as Starlink was being used as a tool in combat in Ukraine, SpaceX announced Starshield, a Starlink-like program designed for government customers.[23][21] Musk is reported to have said that Ukraine was "going too far" in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.[24] I will walk back the last half after the word “or” in my claim here > Musk manipulates those connections for whatever he perceives as his own benefit or he wouldn’t be turning off the connections in Ukraine[1] The first half is still him manipulating those connections for whatever he perceives as his own benefit
immibis 9mo ago
The reason national great firewalls shouldn't exist, is that national great firewalls are bad. We don't have to blame potential future badness when we can blame definite present badness.
kennykartman 9mo ago
Playing a bit the devil's advocate here, but > This is why all of those "national great firewalls" shouldn't exist in the first place This is a kind of colonialist thinking that is, IMO, a problem in the western society. There are indeed drawbacks in a lack of freedom, but assuming that a government should not be able to filter the content diffused to the population is wrong in principle. You don't get to choose what is right or wrong in every part of the world: that is a very USA-centric way to view the society and easily leads to "export freedom and democracy" acts. It's a very USA-friendly way to frame things. Not necessarily the right way to frame things.
- skandinaff 9mo ago
  But wouldn't the position of a strong government be to trust it's people, and allow them to see the whole spectrum of information available in the world, and give them essentially the right to decide what's "right or wrong"? I don't see how being free from any information filtering on behalf of some benevolent leader is USA-centric?
  - none2585 9mo ago
    Speaking as an American - clearly the general population is unable to determine what's right or wrong.
  - kelipso 9mo ago
    I don’t think it can be disputed that there is a lot of propaganda and misinformation in the internet. One logical conclusion to this would be to protect people from that via censorship. Many recent examples of the US doing this as well (Covid, Russia, etc.). Of course, the US delegates this to its cooperations, so it can publicly say its hands are clean. People do remember the Twitter files though, and the US government has massive spying and monitoring capabilities, so its hands are not actually all that clean.
  - kennykartman 9mo ago
    The USA centric view I was referring to is the one where lack of freedom is wrong, since it benefits the USA ideology of maximal freedom. Which is not in generally shared by all western countries (in Europe socialism and state ownership is much more present, for instance), and it's not necessary the most accurate view of real USA (there might be more "free" countries, like Switzerland), it's just that it benefits the perceived image of USA. With this in mind, no, I don't share the view that a strong government should trust the people: people can easily be steered by foreign parties that want to gain soft power (example: Russia and recent anti-EU propaganda in Poland, Romania and Georgia). It's very hard to draw a line between what is "right" and what is "too much", but I don't think that excessive freedom is an obvious route to an healthy society (that is, a society that has peace and people are happy).

ece 9mo ago

It's weird how Apple and Google don't get it, while SpaceX does.

ACCount37 9mo ago
Starlink isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't go for "it's so not our problem, we'll just make sure that every single VPN exit point Iranians use is GeoIP'd as Iran in our systems" like Google tends to, or "let's lick every authoritarian boot, we control the app distribution and our users will suck it up" like Apple does. Not even Starlink has the balls to oppose the likes of Russia and China directly - they aren't operating there without a permit, sadly. But at least they don't kneel before every two-bit dictatorship and cave to every single "we want you to do censorship on our behalf" demand. Way better than what most tech companies do now.
- ozlikethewizard 9mo ago
  I'm unfortunately inclined to not look at their actions so favourably. They operate solely in jurisdictions where the US state supports open destabilization, and dont where the political ramifications would be too high for the US. Makes them little more than an extension of the US imperialist structure. And this makes sense for an organization thats so highly reliant on federal support, vs Apple and Google who only have to just stay somewhat in the states good graces.
  - ece 9mo ago
    As a private platform, SpaceX did try to draw a line with where their service could be used in Ukraine, but we're talking about Iranian protestors now, a different matter I think. If they were offering a firewall as a service, then what you're saying would be more true. Apple and Google have done more than just stay in good graces of governments by getting rid of apps governments don't like, they haven't enforced their terms against X, and given tens of millions to Trump's ballroom.
  - scottyah 9mo ago
    > They operate solely in jurisdictions where the US state supports open destabilization Could you expand on that? Are you saying that the US state wants destabilization in every place that Starlink is accessible? Like the UK, Australia, and USA itself? Which group are you considering the "US state" for that?
    - ozlikethewizard 9mo ago
      I assumed the context of the conversation was given to be understood, my bad. In the context of Starlink operating in nations for the purpose of bypassing internet censorship, as is the context of the conversation, starlink only operates were the US sanctions it to (iran) to further its imperialist goals, and it does not operate where it would hurt the US politically (russia). So pretending that starlink is operating from some kind of moral high ground rather than just SpaceX and most of Musks companies are heavily reliant on federal support so are at their beck and call is weird idolising of a corporate entity.
dzhiurgis 9mo ago
Imagine if Starlink came with special channel to X.com. UK would loose their minds.
- immibis 9mo ago
  Is x.com blocked in the UK?
  - smsm42 9mo ago
    Not yet, but soon. Possibly even this year.
    - KellyCriterion 9mo ago
      Curious: Will this be implemented on DNS level?
      - smsm42 9mo ago
        DNS level is too easy to circumvent - you just set your server to 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8, and it's enough just one of them refuses to kowtow to Ofcom. More likely it'd de on routing level. Which has obvious problems unless they build full-blown DPI firewall and implement VPN blocking (they may consult China for that) but to cut off the most lazy users it'd be effective.
        ece 9mo ago
        X will be in the same category as rt.
- GJim 9mo ago
  You may wish to look what is happening closer to home before engaging in such low level trolling.

freefaler 9mo ago

They "operate" in Iran because of OFAC issues general licenses under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR Part 560) permitting non-commercial personal communications, including satellite internet for free expression. Starlink activation in 2022 protests and recent events exploited these, as Musk sought formal exemptions for "internet freedom." And no Tesla factories in Iran I suppose helps too :)

tmaly 9mo ago
It has to be free in case of OFAC sanctions otherwise if you are generating revenue from commercial activity in sanctioned regions, you get huge fines.

NedF 9mo ago

[dead]

lovich 9mo ago

[flagged]

thegrim000 9mo ago
The claim you're making has been thoroughly debunked countless times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russian-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russian-Ukrain...
- lovich 9mo ago
  Assuming this section is accurate > In 2022, Elon Musk denied a Ukrainian request to extend Starlink's coverage up to Russian-occupied Crimea during a counterattack on a Crimean port, from which Russia had been launching attacks against Ukrainian civilians; doing so would have violated US sanctions on Russia.[18] This event was widely reported in 2023, erroneously characterizing it as Musk "turning off" Starlink coverage in Crimea.[19][20] SpaceX executives repeatedly stated that Starlink needed to remain a civilian network;[21][22][12] in late 2022, as Starlink was being used as a tool in combat in Ukraine, SpaceX announced Starshield, a Starlink-like program designed for government customers.[23][21] Musk is reported to have said that Ukraine was "going too far" in threatening to inflict a “strategic defeat” on the Kremlin.[24] I will walk back the last half after the word “or” in my claim here > Musk manipulates those connections for whatever he perceives as his own benefit or he wouldn’t be turning off the connections in Ukraine[1] The first half is still him manipulating those connections for whatever he perceives as his own benefit

immibis 9mo ago

The reason national great firewalls shouldn't exist, is that national great firewalls are bad. We don't have to blame potential future badness when we can blame definite present badness.

kennykartman 9mo ago

Playing a bit the devil's advocate here, but > This is why all of those "national great firewalls" shouldn't exist in the first place This is a kind of colonialist thinking that is, IMO, a problem in the western society. There are indeed drawbacks in a lack of freedom, but assuming that a government should not be able to filter the content diffused to the population is wrong in principle. You don't get to choose what is right or wrong in every part of the world: that is a very USA-centric way to view the society and easily leads to "export freedom and democracy" acts. It's a very USA-friendly way to frame things. Not necessarily the right way to frame things.

skandinaff 9mo ago
But wouldn't the position of a strong government be to trust it's people, and allow them to see the whole spectrum of information available in the world, and give them essentially the right to decide what's "right or wrong"? I don't see how being free from any information filtering on behalf of some benevolent leader is USA-centric?
- none2585 9mo ago
  Speaking as an American - clearly the general population is unable to determine what's right or wrong.
- kelipso 9mo ago
  I don’t think it can be disputed that there is a lot of propaganda and misinformation in the internet. One logical conclusion to this would be to protect people from that via censorship. Many recent examples of the US doing this as well (Covid, Russia, etc.). Of course, the US delegates this to its cooperations, so it can publicly say its hands are clean. People do remember the Twitter files though, and the US government has massive spying and monitoring capabilities, so its hands are not actually all that clean.
- kennykartman 9mo ago
  The USA centric view I was referring to is the one where lack of freedom is wrong, since it benefits the USA ideology of maximal freedom. Which is not in generally shared by all western countries (in Europe socialism and state ownership is much more present, for instance), and it's not necessary the most accurate view of real USA (there might be more "free" countries, like Switzerland), it's just that it benefits the perceived image of USA. With this in mind, no, I don't share the view that a strong government should trust the people: people can easily be steered by foreign parties that want to gain soft power (example: Russia and recent anti-EU propaganda in Poland, Romania and Georgia). It's very hard to draw a line between what is "right" and what is "too much", but I don't think that excessive freedom is an obvious route to an healthy society (that is, a society that has peace and people are happy).