Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.9k
  • A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.

    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 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.

    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.

  • 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.

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

  • If the government actually nationalized SpaceX, the precedent would be insane. You’d be telling every private company working in defense, infrastructure, or tech that if they become too essential, the government might just take it. Doesn’t matter how much risk or capital they fronted.

    SpaceX isn’t just launching rockets for fun—it’s practically a branch of the U.S. space program at this point. GPS, Starlink for military comms, launching classified payloads, putting astronauts in orbit. If we nationalize that over a political pissing match between Trump and Musk, we’re basically saying innovation is conditional on obedience.

    And let’s be honest—once you do this to SpaceX, you open the door to doing it to AWS, Tesla’s energy grid systems, Google’s AI infrastructure. Any private company that gets too important suddenly becomes “too critical to stay private.” That’s a fast track to killing private innovation in sectors where we need it most.

    If Trump’s threatening funding, and Musk is threatening to walk, and the public’s response is “just take the company,” then we’ve officially politicized the tech-industrial base. That’s not governance, that’s dysfunction.

    Nationalizing SpaceX would be a Cold War move in a modern economy. It might feel good in the moment, but long-term, it's a terrible idea.

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

    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

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

    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.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    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.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    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?

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I am not saying that I don't agree with you. But this country is still not even close to considering nationalizing its own telecommunication infrastructure. Much less a privately held space company and a service of communication satellites. A large chunk of America believes that a for-profit business model for every good and service possible in life is the best course of action.

  • 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.

    Are you sure you're not on drugs? Because this is quite the unhinged rant

  • 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

    Please do. I would very much not see a clown on my feed who accuses others of things they don't even understand.

  • These last few years they've had very little successes, but the point is it should stay competitive and not be automatically handed to these doofuses. Even the USSR maintained a competitive rocketry sector.

    How has spacex had very few successes? Their Falcon 9 rocket is basically operating like clockwork. They launch more rockets than the rest of the world combined.

    The starship failures are higher profile but even those failures are typical when testing new vehicles, especially one as experimental and complex.

  • These things only exist and are as good as they are because they’re not government owned and run.

    Look at NASA compared to SpaceX to see why this would be an absolutely terrible move. Government is where projects like these go to die, while making every politician and contractor involved filthy rich.

    So how come NASA was doing all these things before SpaceX even existed? SpaceX never put anyone on the moon. NASA did.

  • 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.

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

    you just defend his right to run spaceX on specialK.

    mmkay bud.

  • So how come NASA was doing all these things before SpaceX even existed? SpaceX never put anyone on the moon. NASA did.

    And NASA hasn't put anyone on the moon in how long? Did NASA make a re-usable booster? Were they even trying to? Were nasa planning to send people to Mars?

    NASA has gone down the drain over the last say 30 years, would you agree?

  • I am not saying that I don't agree with you. But this country is still not even close to considering nationalizing its own telecommunication infrastructure. Much less a privately held space company and a service of communication satellites. A large chunk of America believes that a for-profit business model for every good and service possible in life is the best course of action.

    Yes it's the right long term goal, but the US is nowhere near ready for strong nationalised enterprises, they would just stop getting funding and die. There is a requirement for strong, positive minded government and a shared understanding of the benefits of having nationalised societal services before it can work.

  • Who doesn’t hate Musk these days?

    He’s pissed of everyone except the ones who want to be ruled by a technobro king.

    Who doesn’t hate Musk these days?

    Probably the ones that don't always speak about him

    He’s pissed of everyone except the ones who want to be ruled by a technobro king.

    No, he pissed off everyone that think that the world is black and white: the US. The rest of the world is indifferent about him

  • Yeah wait until we we have someone in power who gives a shit about science and then re-fund NASA and nationalize SpaceX under the NASA umbrella. (Pipe dreams, I know)

    I don't think that the US currently can go back to the times when Kennedy announced that in 10 years they will put a man on the moon, by a long shot.
    To have someone in power that give a shit about science, you need a revolution to wipe out the current political class and radically change the mentality of the population.

  • Who needs this bs space program anyway?

    Right. Now go back to live in a cave.

  • 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.

    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.

    The problem they don't see is that once a precedent is set, also the other party can do it. What you point out is valid also like "XYZ company refuses to establish a DEI policy because the shareholders voted agains ? Well not the democratic president 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.

    Tipical case of not looking beyond one's nose

  • No, we already have NASA

    Then make it work.

  • What are the most in-demand Tech Skills? (besides AI)

    Technology technology
    5
    7 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    jordanlund@lemmy.worldJ
    AI is devaluing other skills. I got an email today, from my own company, telling me I wouldn't have to renew my professional certification for 2 years if I passed an unrelated test on AI. The "test" was 10 questions. Glad to know my professional certification is equivalent to a 10 question pop quiz on AI.
  • YouTube's Latest Update Shows That Online Monoculture Is Dead

    Technology technology
    107
    1
    248 Stimmen
    107 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    adespoton@lemmy.caA
    Facebook was never fine; it just wasn’t a silo effect at first—but it was still a privacy and security nightmare.
  • 334 Stimmen
    113 Beiträge
    121 Aufrufe
    E
    Into volunteers it's not standard practise to randomly put a chip in your head.
  • 10 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    T
    "Science" under capitalism has always been funded and developed by/for fascists. The originals in the USA were the founding enslavers. The nazis had their time. Now it's the zios. R&D for genocide as usual.
  • Open Source CAD In The Browser

    Technology technology
    19
    1
    152 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    91 Aufrufe
    xavier666@lemm.eeX
    Electron: Heyyyyyyy
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    27 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.
  • 88 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    105 Aufrufe
    J
    The self hosted model has hard coded censored content.
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    P
    It's a shame. AI has potential but most people just want to exploit its development for their own gain.