Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.9k
  • This post did not contain any content.

    Any political take from Jacobin can be safely ignored.

  • You haven't put your eggs in any basket. SpaceX are a private company. The government owns NASA, they can pour money into that and hire people to do what SpaceX are doing. Hell, they could poach people from SpaceX!

    Why do you think they haven't already done this? Because the government don't care about it. If someone else will do it they can use them to provide their services via ludicrously expensive contracts, and give them massive subsidies, as is the Government way.

    The government taking over SpaceX is not something anyone with even half a brain should be wanting. It makes ZERO sense. It doesn't matter who owns it privately, just not the government because they will fuck it up and/or neglect it - like they did with NASA and most of their other projects.

    You haven’t put your eggs in any basket.

    $38 billion in government funding. huh.

    what reality do you live in?

  • You haven’t put your eggs in any basket.

    $38 billion in government funding. huh.

    what reality do you live in?

    That's not putting eggs in a basket, that's just wasteful government as always. The same government that you guys want to take control of SpaceX lol.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Don't give bail-outs to billionaires.

  • Stuff it tankie. Nobody gives a shit.

    Stay uneducated, loser

  • And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?

    Dude… nationalize just means the US takes ownership of the company. They keep all the employees they keep all the customers. It runs like normal under new ownership. The taxpayers now own it. it’s a great idea.

    You see too long we have been using public funding and allowing rich people to privatize the gains. It’s time to privatize those games and take back what we invested in as US citizens. We will still offer you eurocucks Internet since apparently it is more important than having a moral fiber in your body

  • And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?

    Seriously this comment doesn’t make any sense. It’s like you do not understand what you are commenting on and yet here you are with four up votes and now have my down vote and go forth and use a dictionary before you comment next time

  • No, they're fine remaining as private companies. If the government wants to better control over the companies then they can pass regulation and if they want total control then they can build their own alternatives. Nationalization of companies should never be used as a political weapon.

    I agreed with this sentiment six months ago, but now I like public hangings and nationalizing companies

  • Those are different to taking over private companies. The government should, imo, compete against private enterprise in those areas, in turn bringing prices down and making it better for the taxpayers.

    NASA is government owned. Look at the state of it. Do you think the government taking over SpaceX would really be a good thing?

    Nice 30-year-old Fox News talking points you got there. Time to go to bed, grandpa.

  • Tankies live in alternate reality where they think that nationalization is extremely common and is a magical solution to all of societies problems... even though this view is entirely delusional.

    For example, only 3 countries have nationalized the entire ISP industry, and those are Cuba, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. All three of which are horrid tyrannical dictatorships with horrible internet. We should NOT be like them. Even when it comes to health insurance, except for 3 countries I just mentioned, every single country allows private health insurance, even if their system is public. Clearly nationalization is not what you think it is.

    I hate tankies, but not as much as I hate Nazis. Desperate times call for desperate measures. We’re losing 100 years of social advancement. But here you are telling us to protect the fucking corporations that are sucking them up.

  • Who's buying satellites?

    SpaceX is putting up satellites for SpaceX, they're the manufacturer and operator...

    It's definitely in their best interest to keep them working as long as possible.

    That said, they're high end communications devices, very fancy routers essentially. And like all computer technology, these things become obsolete quickly. So even if they could last 20 years, you wouldn't want them even 10 years from now. 100 GB/s speeds might be great now, but 10 years down the road 10 TB/s could be the norm, so at that point why are you still trying to provide service with ancient hardware 100x slower than it should be.

    Isn't that part of the grift?

    At the time it looked like one of the main reasons to launch Starlink was to provide SpaceX with a new market, much larger than the usual space launching stuff. Also this meant Felon could get subsidies through 2 different companies.

  • Yep that's my point. Not everything needs be a business.

    Allowing government to compete with business creates better outcomes in both. There is certainly something to be said about a more involved government. It’s really silly to allow big business or the government to have a monopoly on critical services.

  • You don’t nationalise a company (SpaceX) just because the existing government owned company (NASA) is significantly worse. What do you think would happen to SpaceX if they did nationalise it? Lol. It would go to hell, like NASA.

    The government should not be responsible for things like this. The government should provide services for necessities for human rights and general standards of living, but they shouldn’t take over successful companies just because they couldn’t do it themselves.

    We shot a space telescope half way to the sun and are observing the dawn of the entire universe.

    And you just wanna see a bigger penis rocket🌈

  • That would literally be the worse thing that could happen with regards to them, because they only exist and thrived because they are private enterprise. If the government were capable of doing what those companies do and doing it well, SpaceX and Starlink wouldn’t exist in the first place.

    Can you even imagine just how much money would be wasted and misused and unaccounted for, while nothing actually got done?

    Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is delusional

    Again someone who thinks that public policies are natural laws...

    NASA could do and did do what SpaceX is doing now, but they are beholden to the government and if the government says "we don't do that for ideologigal reasons" then it doesn't matter what can be done.

  • Fair enough, you got me there. Didn't realize there was such a population of internet craving people in what's supposed to be one of the last relatively untouched areas of nature on the planet.

    That being the case though, why didn't this all happen in 2013, when O3b launched to specifically solve this problem for them? It's still running, by the way, after several rounds of upgrades, and significantly more stable than Starlink with their dinky little 5 year disposables. Microsoft, Honeywell and Amazon all use it. But the original and ongoing intent of the project was explicitly to bring internet access to all otherwise unreachable areas, such as islands, deep in Africa, and the open ocean.

    I don't oppose Brazilian villagers having internet if they want it, but the situation in which it arrived to them feels suspect to me. I have no proof that Starlink actively went out and pushed internet service onto them like a drug dealer but it would not be out of character for Musk and his subordinates to do so, and that just feels bad.

    Regardless there is already an existing solution to this. If you want internet in the Amazon you can use satellite internet. It does not have to be Starlink. If you want good internet, maybe don't live in the Amazon. People in general should probably be leaving that place alone. The article you linked even talks about one of the village leaders splitting his time between the village and the city. We can try and run a fiber line to Manaus and/or Porto Velho and that should be able to serve a reasonably large enough area around them, but even if that fails there are already other solutions.

    I agree with almost everything you wrote. Purely speculation but the starlink terminals might be cheaper? The latency/bandwidth would also be significantly worse with O3b since it's in medium earth orbit compared to starlinks low earth orbit. "Regular" satellite internet is prohibitively expensive with even worse bandwidth/latency.

    I also agree that people shouldn't be living in the Amazon but they are and we can't really force them to leave.

  • I love how you completely ignore how starlink is only viable for ukraine because the US military industrial complex.

    There was satellite internet before Starlink and Starlink should be banned for all the 5ghz interference it creates

    I'm ignoring that fact because its mostly irrelevant to this conversation.
    Would the Ukrainians prefer if it was controlled by a more reliable ally? Of course

    "Regular" satellite internet is nowhere near what starlink offers and it's pretty telling you assume it is.

    An actual problem that you've not mentioned is the interference with ground based telescopes

  • American exceptionalism definitely sucks, but this is not an example of American exceptionalism. The source is an article from an American magazine, published for an American audience.

    I'm referring to how the post title shared here is in first person as if everyone is American. If that's unrelated to exceptionalism then oops.

  • Ruthless "dictators" who saved a billion lives through the elimination of Nazism, the industrial development of the second most populous country on Earth and half the continent of Europe, and through the refusal to participate in the exploitation of the global south.

    Communists saved Europe from Nazism and you will never forgive them for it

    ........ only after they were betrayed by Hitler after they allied themselves with the Nazis to invade Poland.

    And then raped and killed civilians in the countries they "liberated" by forcing millions of people from their Eastern European vasal states to die to protect the Russians.

    Then replaced Nazism with a slightly different authoritarian system that opresses it's people and performs ethnic cleansings, but has a red and gold cost of paint.

    And then also exploited the global south, but just weren't as good at it as the west, and filtered even more of what was exploited up the chain to the party leaders.

    And tried to make up for that lack in ability to exploit the global south by exploring Eastern Europe.

    Communist we're allied with the nazis at the start of the war and as someone who's great grandmother fled Poland to the UK to avoid being rapes and murdered by the red army, I will never forgive them for that.

  • ........ only after they were betrayed by Hitler after they allied themselves with the Nazis to invade Poland.

    And then raped and killed civilians in the countries they "liberated" by forcing millions of people from their Eastern European vasal states to die to protect the Russians.

    Then replaced Nazism with a slightly different authoritarian system that opresses it's people and performs ethnic cleansings, but has a red and gold cost of paint.

    And then also exploited the global south, but just weren't as good at it as the west, and filtered even more of what was exploited up the chain to the party leaders.

    And tried to make up for that lack in ability to exploit the global south by exploring Eastern Europe.

    Communist we're allied with the nazis at the start of the war and as someone who's great grandmother fled Poland to the UK to avoid being rapes and murdered by the red army, I will never forgive them for that.

    only after they were betrayed by Hitler after they allied themselves with the Nazis to invade Poland.

    This is literally pro-nazi historical revisionism. I've made a detailed response to this load of bullshit here, if you care to learn some history about it. Please do read that in good faith and respond point by point if you actually wanna get educated on the subject.

    Regarding deportations in time of war, I agree it was a failed policy and I don't support them generally, it happens that systems and political ideologies you support make mistakes. This was one of them. It's still extremely minor compared to actual imperialism and genocide committed by western states in times of peace while plundering billions of people in the global south, and it's something that happened during a period of 10 tumultuous war/preparation years and never happened again, unlike the constant imperialism of the west.

    Again proving that you don't care about brown people and your entire "leftist" ideology is supported on CIA propaganda.

  • Isn't that part of the grift?

    At the time it looked like one of the main reasons to launch Starlink was to provide SpaceX with a new market, much larger than the usual space launching stuff. Also this meant Felon could get subsidies through 2 different companies.

    Isn't that part of the grift?

    Isn't what?

    I mean the reason for starlink was that they could, and they could do it for cheaper than anyone else because they would be launching at cost.

    Also, falcon doesn't really get subsidies for launching. SpaceX got a grant for the rural broadband infrastructure thing, but that's like a one time thing, it doesn't really pay for ongoing launches.

  • 82 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    L
    Can somebody TLDR and determine if there's any useful information in this article. I refuse to read quanta magazine. Edit: link to paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/118
  • 31 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    modernrisk@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    Which group? Israel government or US government?
  • The Prototype: One Step Closer To Fusion Power

    Technology technology
    7
    1
    117 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    A
    As someone else mentioned: Helion Energy: Located in Everett, Helion is developing a magneto-inertial fusion technology and has announced plans for the world's first fusion power plant in Washington State. They have also secured a significant investment and a power purchase agreement with Microsoft for electricity from their fusion plant. Zap Energy: Also based in Everett, Zap Energy is focusing on developing affordable, compact, and scalable fusion energy technology. They are working towards a commercially viable fusion energy solution and have received visits from state leaders to witness their progress. Avalanche Energy: Avalanche is planning a facility in Eastern Washington for commercial-scale testing of radioactive fusion technologies, according to GeekWire.
  • 97 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    solsangraal@lemmy.zipS
    i had assumed that PDs already had all this. either way, they've got your DL photo on file, so it's not like you weren't already in there edit: nevermind, i misunderstood and thought the AI co was giving images to the PD. this is fascist nazi bullshit
  • French city of Lyon ditching Microsoft for FOSS

    Technology technology
    17
    1
    494 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    79 Aufrufe
    K
    The important thing is that the doomsday device runs Linux
  • 74 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    66 Aufrufe
    B
    This appears to just be a compilation of other leaks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/no-the-16-billion-credentials-leak-is-not-a-new-data-breach/ Still not a bad idea to change passwords and make sure MFA is enabled.
  • Resurrecting a dead torrent tracker and finding 3 million peers

    Technology technology
    59
    321 Stimmen
    59 Beiträge
    285 Aufrufe
    I
    Yeah i suppose any form of payment that you have to keep secret for some reason is a reason to use crypto, though I struggle to imagine needing that if you're not doing something dodgy imagine you’re a YouTuber and want to accept donations: that will force you to give out your name to them, which they could use to get your address and phone number. There’s always someone that hates you, and I rather not have them knowing my personal info Wat. Crypto is not good at solving that, it's in fact much much worse than traditional payment methods. There's a reason scammers always want to be paid in crypto if you’re the seller then it’s a lot better. With the traditional banking system, with enough knowledge you can cheat both sides: stolen cards, abusive chargebacks, bank accounts in other countries under fake name/fake ID… Crypto simplifies scamming when the seller, and pretty much makes it impossible for buyers What specifically are you boycotting? Card payments, international tranfers, national transfers taking days to complete, money being seizable at all times many banks lose money on them Their plans are basically all focused on the card you get. Pretty sure they make money with it, else many wouldn’t offer cash back (selling infos and getting a fee from card payments?) if you think the people that benefit from you using crypto (crypto exchange owners and billionaires that own crypto etc.) are less evil than goverment regulated banks, you're deluded. Banks are evil anyways, does it really change anything? The difference is that it technically helps everyone using crypto, not only the rich. Plus P2P exchanges are a thing You'll spend more money using crypto for that, not less That’s just factually false. Do you know the price of a swift transfer? Now compare it to crypto tx fees, with many being under $0.01
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.