The biggest reason I'm happy about this: while Starlink currently cooperates with local governments, that's not a technical limitation, and a flip of a switch would let every cell phone in a country have unfiltered connectivity. That's a powerful tool to have readily available, the next time an oppressive regime tries to prevent people from communicating and reporting.
No, he's leaning strongly anti-regulation, particularly those that impede his businesses. He's big on government because that's a major part of his revenue (DOD, NASA, and various TLAs). He's not big on the parts of government that slow him down or would cause his taxes to be higher for things he doesn't care about.
The real story is that he's anti-anti-competition. His competitors in particular already have deep ties with the government and its various departments. Companies like Boeing, Lockheed, etc. have engaged in deep regulatory capture to prevent competition from emerging.
These already established corporations have a revolving door with the government and that's the real impediment. That's what he's against.
So while you're right about his self interests, I think it's important to clarify that the decades long entrenchment of these various incumbent corporations is why this is all happening in the first place.
No, a more efficient government would help those easiest to help, and not help those who were expensive or difficult to help.
Unless you just mean we could do exactly the same things, but more efficiently. But that is not what is meant; it means stopping doing a lot of things.
His and Ramaswamy's roles will be advisory, and specifically targeting cutting government spending. This is not a pro-government thing except that they both have significant conflicts of interests which will influence which parts of government they suggest cutting and which they suggest leaving more or less intact.
Using regulatory capture to further your own economic interests is still pro government, it's just that it's a government aimed at meeting the needs of a very small number of oligarchs rather than the majority of the population.
> Musk said there are over four hundred federal agencies, that's more than the number of states.
That's a silly way to weigh your decisions and valuations. "There are more than four hundred federal employees, that's more than the number of states."
The number of agencies is itself mostly irrelevant, it's their individual size, effectiveness, and appropriateness that matters. Do all of them need to exist? Almost certainly not. But do we need to cut it down to one per US state? That's an arbitrary and useless target.
> But do we need to cut it down to one per US state?
I'm sure they could be reduced down to similar areas of operation. One of the first to be cut being The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Who has so-far spent 16 years building 119 miles of track at a cost of $14 billion. That's roughly $66,845 per yard.
That's a state agency, outside of the scope of DOGE except that it receives some (probably a lot of) federal funding. If you want this to be a serious discussion don't suggest cutting agencies because of the total count of agencies or cutting state agencies in a discussion about federal agencies.
He's literally part of the Trump government and isn't leaving his site for the last weeks. He hasn't been seen anywhere even near his own offices which he makes his employees go to.
How can you POSSIBLY state he is "strongly antigovernment"
> He hasn't been seen anywhere even near his own offices which he makes his employees go to.
uh, what do you base this on? it sort of seems like made up bullshit, especially because it's easily disproven by tracking his jet and seeing that it's visiting the locations of his offices in both california and austin frequently. there's even a video of him in one of his offices literally yesterday as he did a zoom meeting for WSJ.
i don't understand why people just blatantly lie like this
Musk not, but the US government actually has powerful levers at its hand to force his cooperation if necessary. If all things fail, arrest him and nationalize his assets. It's not the first time someone who thought themselves to be above the law got eventually rear-ended by it - remember Al Capone, they got him on tax evasion in the end.
There are only three known entities to have bested the US government in many decades - Vietnam, Scientology and the Taliban. Musk is better advised that it's a foolish attempt to become the fourth one.
Many HN posters looooooooooooooooooooooooooooove techno-authoritarianism because they are under the delusion that as tech masters of the universe, they will always be in control of it, even being able to use it as a lever to get governments to do their will. Governments and other entities are eager to help them continue their delusion so the control monster will keep getting built into more and more powerful forms. When it is taken from the control of the techno-authoritarians who dream of crushing everyone who doesn't share their vision of utopia, they will be shocked but powerless to do anything about it. Too bad all of us, not just the techno-authoritarians, will end up paying the price.
> the US government actually has powerful levers at its hand to force his cooperation if necessary
The scenarios you put forth here are effectively not happening. This is not a communist+dictator state (where this is much easier) nor does one branch have the power to unilaterally decide this.
The only time nationalization of a private service should happen in our country is wartime, specifically WWIII has to happen and on US soil. WW2 never saw this, nor did it need to.
> This is not a communist+dictator state (where this is much easier) nor does one branch have the power to unilaterally decide this.
The Supreme Court practically gave the President full immunity as long as they are in office, Congress is gridlocked and governing has happened mostly through executive orders for decades now.
Assuming a President (and no matter who it is) gives the orders, they will get executed as given - and any kind of protest will be dealt with in the courts, in a process that will likely take years.
> The only time nationalization of a private service should happen in our country is wartime
The US has been at war for the utter majority of the last decades. Vietnam, Libya 1, Iraq 1, Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, Libya 2, Yemen, and that's just the major ones where the US were an active combattant.
Advisors can be in government… if it’s a government department even an advisory one, it’s part of government… and thus its employees are in government.
It’s currently just in name only. But that is likely to change soon in some form yet to be revealed when the new government is sworn in.
So legally it isn’t in government yet, however as it is officially part of the elected governments plans, you can make a sensible argument that it is part of the incoming transitional government that has been elected and while having now power due to not being sworn in yet, is indeed part of government by nature transition teams and the president elect having status in government by way of things like security briefings and other rights and privileges normally only held by the incumbent government like increased security protection…
It would be like saying a government in exile (a well established precedent of history) isn’t a government and none of the people in it are in government…
It is not going to become an actual part of the federal government, as a new agency, unless Congress makes it an agency. And if they do, then Musk likely would not make the transition to head it as that would involve too many conflicts of interest for him (at least if we still consider laws as things that matter in this country, that is definitely a concept that's quickly being discarded by both the elected leadership and the electorate so you may be right).
Ok, I’m really not sure why the simple answer isn’t getting across here.
His position as co-head of the nominal “department of government efficiency” only exists due to the legitimacy it has been granted by the recognition granted to it by the incoming administration… otherwise we would all be calling it some variety of the first buddy’s pet think tank and arguing over if the incoming administration would even pay attention to it or not… that is a government granted position of power, a position that it is pretty hard to argue is not part of the government that grants it legitimacy… therefore making it a position in government… even if it’s unpaid and advisory… it’s still practically in the government if not legally (for all the conflict of interest reasons you highlight)…
I’m not trying to make a civics or political science case here… I’m talking politics as the exercise of power by government upon the governed… he is currently having breakfast lunch and dinner with the incoming president, making arguments and shaping the cabinet, and contributing to the transition team… he’s involved with government… he’s “in” it.
They don't technically need to do that – that's only necessary because they don't have any spectrum themselves, nor the required telecommunication service licenses.
I guess GP is alluding to the fact that they might choose to just ignore these facts in some cases.
Gosh you delusional or brainwashed on "rule based world order", where "cooperating with local government" in your statement in reality means "while foreign government behaves like our vassals and country is our colony".
What this tool allows US state is to circumvent foreigns government sovereignty and ultimately, directly guide people through communication channels via psychological operations.
By inverse(contradiction), observe what happens with TikTok, Huawei or "Chinese ballons" within US borders.
Does it really work in Iran? That would be a US embargo violation on top of an international law one, right?
I suppose they could make the case that it’s technically infeasible to limit their satellite beam footprints that granularly (like it used to be the case for non-spotbeam services), and that their service limitation works on the basis of billing addresses, not physical cells – except that they seem to be very capable of enforcing that to distinguish mobile from stationary plans, and ocean from land areas.
It is a technical limitation lmao. The internet is still down here. Starlink is a network managed by humans who live on planet earth. And the starlink constellation is constantly replacing satellites lost to attrition.
Lets say he flipped that switch, anywhere else but the US. They would:
Ban Starlink devices for the sake of it.
Block / Filter Starlink IP Addresses.
Shut down Starlink ground stations, and tear up telco licenses of anyone who does business with them.
Reallocate the frequencies Starlink pays to broadcast on, likely heavily deteriorating the service.
Arrest anyone affiliated with Starlink in country.
If they did it in seppoland they could go one better and just prevent new satellite launches.
Heck, he shut down starlink in Ukraine because he is on board with Putin.
You arent magically free of earthbound constraints, you just have a new one, Musk.
Things like this are paraded around as helpful for people in oppressive regimes when in reality they're more useful for building a bigger surveillance state in the West.
Devil's advocate here but global spying isn't the same as surveillance state. For in country surveillance there's enough CCTV to not even need satellites
Spying on foreign countries for the US gov is not the same as spying on citizens of foreign countries and providing that information to their government
I'm really a big fan of the technology, but even I have to admit that it can most likely be used for surveillance just as easily as it can be for providing legitimate cell service.
Cellular protocols have a very bad security track record, and this is built on the exact same standards.
Musk has controlled access per political aims, and is also in close contact with Putin and US intelligence, so why do you feel this tech will be anti oppression?
Starlink is providing internet for the Ukrainian government since the beginning of the war, which they gave away for free until the US government started paying for it.
