I’m just saying it wouldn’t hurt to make things clear when posting the article link to a global website.

you genuinely don't care that critical national infrastructure - literally our ability to put stuff into orbit - is compromised by this penny ante shitbird. I get it, fanboys don't use logic.

Sure thing sport. I must be a tankie lol. You toolbag

There is no such thing as something being "globalized" The UN for instance is a debating club where the majority of the seats represent individual dictators who dominate but do not speak for their countries citizens.

The idea of 50 countries collectively providing 0% of the funds should determine the mission is somewhat laughable. Also no country on earth has a process by which foreign dictators can seize or direct a company run out of their nation.

Such an effort would be likely to fail AND take longer than the current administration is likely to exist.

A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.

No, we should regain control of our nation from fascists (this does not mean just replace the President), then nationalize SpaceX and Starlink, and make telecoms public utilities.

I don't like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you're asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We've always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they're deemed important? If that's the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what's stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

There's a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that's quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they're only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they're our entire industry. The company's stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

SpaceX is a private business that's stable, reliable, and competitive. They're doing exactly what they're supposed to. It's easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I'm in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial.

No I would not like taxpayer dollars to buy out Elons shit shows.

Hard pass. Thanks no thanks jacobin

Ukrainians didn't want to be under Russian rule.

The Secretary General Nikita Khruschyov of the Soviet Union was Ukrainian... The claims of Russification of the Soviet Union are wildly exaggerated by western sources as proven by the fact that Kazakhstan is its own country with its own culture, as are Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus...

mental gymnastics you're doing to excuse Russia allying with Hitler

go ahead. Answer point by point to my comment that i showed you, I'm looking forward to that instead of vibes-based claims.

Like you can find examples of time were colonial countries """liberated""" foreign nations in much the same way, putting them under a different boot and treating them marginally better than the last guy

What's the life expectancy in Russia or China vs what is it in Indonesia or Myanmar? What's the le expectancy in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan compared to Afghanistan or Pakistan?

Where am I shifting the goalposts exactly?

"because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP", like I said before, I very much doubt the Ukrainians would agree with your take on this.

"if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we’re talking global breakdown of internet via starlink" ??
Do you think anyone is advocating we should replace all internet connections with Starlink?

"Then there’s also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost," Should I copy-paste about Ukraine again?

"ecological damage" negligent amount compared to actually wasteful industries

I didn't say it was a bad thing, I wanted to know about some of the broader implications, e.g. govt ownership doesn't remove legal obligations. I doubt the govt could continue to offer service under the previous T&C, some sections would need revision. And Starlink's T&C are slightly different in some countries, as are the operating conditions. Some countries who are nominally friendly with Starlink/SpaceX to allow ground stations, POPs, etc, might not be so keen on the US govt controlling things.

These are just some of the things that popped into my head when I read the article.

Friend, the magazine this article is from is named Jacobin, after that political movement.

It is a US-based magazine, and it's not very popular, so it's understandable that you haven't heard of it. But it does pay to read the article before commenting.

Jacobin (magazine, wikipedia link)

sure thing bud. I'm not going to waste my afternoon going through your shitstream to point out how you're wrong, I simply have better things to do with my life. in fact, gonna block you now, QOL plus

I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.

no, it's simply business as usual, nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and fuck you america, that's the way it has to be because reasons.

I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don't you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don't you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?

Do you really think soldiers sailors and airmen (and spacemonkeys) should have to rely on that HORSE DRUG ADDICTED PRICK for their mission critical infrastructure?

If you do, fuck right off, you're either a musk fanboy or stockholder.

Either way, get bent.

ok freedumb, I get it, you're not reading, just responding. gonna block you now

how can you be so casually apathetic about saddling our soldiers sailors airmen and spaceforce with the products of a horse drug addled asshole?

nytimes.com

(www.nytimes.com)

What kind of prick tells these people VOLUNTEERING TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY "hey man, the ketamine kid is the only way!" - how are you comfortable or confident in the products produced when he's tripping balls in the oval office?

meh. this is a pointless argument, I'm never going to convince these elon fanboys their hero is a prick

I'm sorry were you talking to me? Because nothing in your response had anything to do with what I actually said.

I never claimed to like Elon. I don’t.
I never expressed support for this administration’s policies. I don’t.

My argument is about the moral, ethical, and historically dangerous precedent of nationalizing a private company.

That drug-addled sycophant stood before the most powerful political body on Earth wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt while the Vice President of the United States told President Zelensky to put on a suit.

Unbelievable.

Where the hell do you get off making wild, baseless assumptions about things you barely understand? What exactly prevents you from engaging in civil discourse like an adult, instead of spouting off like you did in that comment?

Fine if we’re slinging assumptions now, here’s mine:
You strike me as a fedora-wearing, vape-huffing, woman-hating neckbeard. Am I wrong? Don’t care. That’s the image your words paint.

A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn't want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn't pay him what it's worth to take it over.

What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It's all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don't like, but after we give them that power what's to stop them from seizing other businesses?

XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.

Let's not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn't made a precedent for changing the rules.

I disagree.

1. You already have a government space agency. Maybe give them more funding so they don't have to rely on space-x to get their stuff into orbit?

2. There's a national telecom network already in place. It at least has the potential to be faster and more reliable, if it isn't already... At least compared to low earth orbit satellite coverage.

There's no good reason to continue providing Elon or his companies with any government handouts. Pull that funding and give it to.... I dunno, students who have more debt than homeowners with a mortgage..... NASA.... Literally anything that helps people?