Digital colonialism... you can't be serious? You really think giving villages or tribes with limited or no internet service is a bad thing?
There were quite a few tribes given Starlink to fix their school computers so their children could get a proper education.
You shoved in a lot of other nonsense in there too, but I'd thought I'd call out the most ridiculous first.
> Starlink was intentionally curtailed during the Ukraine war in order to provide tactical advantage to Russian forces
Starlink was given to Ukraine for humanitarian reasons. Ukraine wanted to use it for drone strikes and wanted the area expanded. Musk did not want Starlink used offensively.
You seem to support the US government being able to tell private citizens what they have to do or who they have to kill with the technology they create?
Ukraine is not even a NATO ally and we are not in war with Russia.
I certainly wouldn't argue that providing internet to anyone is a bad thing, and I'd love to see as much of the world as possible have access.
However, I do think it's a little comical that in doing so he is enabling the spread of the "woke mind virus" to new regions and people. So, it's conceivable that he will eventually think it was a bad thing.
Let's also say I think communism is a mind-virus (I do).
I can still build airplanes knowing that communist leaders use them to spread their mind-virus.
That's because in my view, the benefit of connecting non-ideological people far outweighs the negatives of what the communist leaders spout off.
(ie, you're not only spreading that mind virus, but all thoughts, including the ones that CHALLENGE the mind virus. The biggest threat to an ideology is DISSENT)
> Digital colonialism... you can't be serious? You really think giving villages or tribes with limited or no internet service is a bad thing?
Prior to the 20th century, my hazy memory says more like ~17th, the Emperor of China or his emissaries would give lavish gifts to other nations. It worked like a "soft colonialism". Later they would expect favourable deals, trades, taxes, military support and so on. [0]
Facebook gives you free tools to contact your friends and influences, but in return they build models of you so that commercial bodies and political parties can tailor their messaging to include just the right keywords to make you look twice at their ads.
Churches have always come with offerings of peace and generosity to the poor and otherwise disadvantaged, and yet somehow the Catholic Church now has an untouchable principality and 10s or 100s of millions of people follow what they say.
> There were quite a few tribes given Starlink to fix their school computers so their children could get a proper education.
> You shoved in a lot of other nonsense in there too, but I'd thought I'd call out the most ridiculous first.
The benefits are real. But history tells us repeatedly to be suspicious of rich powerful entities offering free or cheap QoL boosts to the needy. It's really the easiest play in empire building because it's almost irresistible. Real, honest solutions to the problems of the disadvantaged group would involve actual risk to the powerful and be based education, patent access, loans with flexible terms, culture exchanges. Gifting just sets up dependencies and obligations.
i mean, its sort of offtopic since many American readers here might not know about it, but the free internet scheme in India was sort of a dismal failure
> Starlink was intentionally curtailed during the Ukraine war in order to provide tactical advantage to Russian forces. not sure how Musk avoided an 'aiding the enemy' charge on that one but it doesnt exactly glow with 'good thing' energy.
I'm no fan of Musk and care deeply about Ukraine, but this is twisting facts a lot.
Musk provided Starlink to Ukraine at a time when the West still thought it's going to fall very quickly and was hesitant to supply meaningful weapons. Providing Starlink to Ukraine was a risky move, making his company a valid military target, while not getting a lot of benefit out of it at that time.
I've listened to several military analysts (e.g. Michael Kofman) who said that Starlink is critically important for Ukraine, going as far as claiming it is the most impactful "weapon" the West provided (forget HIMARS, Javelin ...).
While the Starlink situation in Kherson was quite shady (unlike the Crimea situation which there's no case against Musk), it's absurd to say Musk is "aiding the enemy" while simultaneously providing the critically important service to Ukraine (which, as a private company, Starlink has no obligation to).
> to just remind readers Starlink was intentionally curtailed during the Ukraine war in order to provide tactical advantage to Russian forces
I'm not a fan of Musk, but this is a weird take. Starlink was provided for free to the Ukrainians, and was instrumental in maintaining communication during the early part of the invasion. That Ukraine survived that crucial month is in part due to Musk's freely offered support.
The incident being referred to here was reported on incorrectly by several news outlets, but the facts are that Starlink was never turned on in Crimea at all and the Ukrainians knew it and were presumably planning around that fact [0].
Whether you agree with his reasoning for avoiding turning it on in Crimea or not, it's hard to claim that this is "aiding the enemy". The worst framing you could cast on it is that he isn't all-in on supporting Ukraine in regaining all of their stolen territory.
We also remember the Germans refusing to supply weapons. Same with Switzerland. And even the US(weapons capable of hitting Crimea are likely still being discussed)
The charge is avoided because individuals aren't meant to intervene in such a manner. Leave it to the State Department and Pentagon
