• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    237
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    2 months ago

    On one hand, fuck Musk. On the other hand, internet from space that can’t be blocked by governments is a net positive in my book.

    • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      268
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Don’t forget that Musk is also the one who intentionally blocked paid service from Ukraine during a critical moment in the early days of Russia’s current genocide, because Musk sucks up to Putin. Dude needs to answer for his actions.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Are the Jewish space lasers more dangerous than the Hibernian and Caledonia Rods of god. Im asking incase we need to up our tonnage to match the Jews. I know for a fact we are lagging behind Suomen Helios lance.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        That is the catch. Ideally they wouldn’t automatically cooperate with the dictators on the ground, but that hasn’t been the case.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      100
      ·
      2 months ago

      How about internet that can be blocked at the whims of a billionaire? At least government is supposed to answer to the people.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dictatorships don’t answer to the people. It’s absolutely a problem that billionaires are controlling the flow of information, but it’s much worse for a dictator to do it.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh honey, do you really ignore that a huge chunk of dictatorships do it for the money and most are already billionaires? Why exactly do you think Musk supports the orange cheeto?

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            Because the orange Cheeto wants to cut his taxes so he gets more money. Dictators want power, not money. That’s why they are famous for blowing it on such exorbitant things. It’s just a means to an end. To billionaires the money is the end.

            • dustyData@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s an extremely naïve view of the world. If Musk could sit the chair, he would. What do you think the accumulation of unhinged amounts of wealth is about but increased power? What do you think those opulent displays of wealth from dictators is about but to flaunt that they have all the wealth and power?

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Musk could easily buy himself a governorship or a senatorial position and work up from there. That’s not his goal. He wants to be the next Thomas Edison. He wants to be admired and remembered.

                Dictator’s opulent displays of wealth are to stoke their egos. They don’t care about the money they spend because they just took it, they didn’t earn it. They care about how much control they have over the people around them. They don’t care if people like them ,only that they fear them.

                • VeryVito@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Musk has already said he welcomes a chance to work in the Trump administration, so…

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            Dictators do things like build and use rape rooms or throw people they don’t like out of helicopters.

            • dustyData@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              You think that billionaires don’t do that? Have you heard of Harvey Epstein? Who do you think the biggest customers of child trafficking and sex slaves are?

              • crank0271@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I think you’ve conflated Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein. Incidentally there is a Harvey Weinstein, but he is a progressive NY State legislator, not whatever either of those two fucks are.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              So as long as this one specific billionaire hasn’t had someone killed (that we know of) that makes it okay for that one individual to have complete control over what people have access to?

        • Kalysta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Brazil’s not a dictatorship though and twitter is breaking their hate speech rules.

          Musk is just as bad as most actual dictators with his global reach

    • ElCanut@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not blockable by any government would be a positive in my book if it didn’t imply bloclable by a single billionaire with huge mood swing. Don’t forget how musk switched off starlink in Crimea at Putin’s request when the Russian realized starlink guided missile were heading towards their ships (Source

      • Logi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s not exactly what happened. Starlink was already disabled in Crimea when the attack was launched and Musk refused to enable it specifically for the attack. Then the initial reports got a bit tangled up.

        But yes, none of this should be up to Musk.

    • servobobo@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      How is a billionaire manchild in charge any better, at least a government is accountable to the people.

      • Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        In theory, but how many governments can actually be held accountable? The power imbalance is often too great for the people to hold anyone accountable. In many countries, the system is rigged.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The question was how is it better. Sure there is a question of how much accountability there is with the government…but there is zero with a billionaire.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Oh? What about internet controlled by a billionaire who makes sure his toxic website featuring his version of “free speech” is always available to protect his profits and spread his bullshit while undermining the policies of a sovereign state?

      So much better than the evil government.

        • irreticent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Good question. He definitely seems like the type that would have a dungeon with captives.

        • gnomadic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          He got his wealth because his parents owned a slave-powered diamond mine.

          Also, as he hides his money and doesn’t pay taxes the US government is overburdened and one of their tools is relying on prisons for free labor.

          Soooo actually quite a lot.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Let everyone incarcerated go and see how that works out for you. Not saying everyone deserves to be in there, but go on. Give it a try.

          You also forget that billionaires are wealth, and so is any dictator. They both seek to protect that wealth, so it doesn’t matter in the end. A billionaire buys his politicians and you get the same result. You start threatening their money and power and they’ll come after you, whether you want equal rights or sometimes just clean water.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s better than a dictator who only wants to protect his own power. At least a billionaire can be bought.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think there is a difference in mentality between people who chase power and people who chase money. Bull Gates certainly chases money, but he’s not trying to take over a country somewhere.

        • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          A billionaire can’t be bought, they got billions. It’s the dictator that can be bought.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            A billionaire chases what gets them the most money. The public can manipulate them by making them lose money. A dictator wants power, which really can only be countered with mass violence.

            • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Musk has lost a tremendous amount of money between X and his negative effect on Tesla sales. Do you feel this has “manipulated” him into being a better person? 🤣

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Even with all the losses, he is still the richest man in the world by more than $50 billion. Musk dumped more than half of his Tesla stock and is focusing more on SpaceX now.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is Musk doing anything to help people living in dictatorships access information? Or is this just happening in Brazil?

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      2 months ago

      Controlled by governments or controlled by corpos and the super rich? I say there’s hardly an improvement.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, cables or radio waves, it’s the same thing in the end.

        What we need (IMO) is another layer on top if the classic internet with encryption and hookers.

          • Valmond@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Or Tenfingers (my network protocol for decentralised web pages and data) ofc 😌

        • rkeene@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is what IPSec OE was created to solve, but nobody uses it – instead using things like TLS, which also provides protocol aware non-repudiation.

      • Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        No, but through the existence of both options, you can get more plurality than by using one individual option.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          If we’re talking about corporations I can only assume you mean options in how to get fucked.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You got another one job at the the other starlink?

              There’s a reason the system requires a certain percentage of unemployment to keep working. There’s also a reason there’s homeless people and children living in flood security.

    • Infynis@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can’t calculate the net yet, since we don’t know the gross. He has the capability to cause massive damage with the power he wields. It’s already clear that he’s incapable of providing an unbiased platform. It needs to belong to the people or it can never be trusted

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        It needs to belong to the people or it can never be trusted

        Damn commies!

        • Metz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          The ability to recognize sarcasm doesn’t seem to be particularly developed on Lemmy.

          And if fucking hate the /s.

          • 0x0@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            I get that simple text doesn’t convey as much as images or speech, but, …i find myself having to add the /s (but it’s easier to ignore the downvotes).

          • Zangoose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The ability to recognize sarcasm doesn’t seem to be particularly developed on Lemmy the internet.

            FTFY

    • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That’s an arbitrary metric. What about internet across oceans, or across forests? Blocking content is a question of why and what. Shouldn’t we be able to block child exploitation websites? That is to say, of course we can, and it’s very easy. The only question is whether you want that kind of censorship to be up to your service provider or your government.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Governments tend to block things like facts about genocides they have committed and opposing political opinions. I would hope things like child exploitation could be managed at the host level.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Do you have any idea how eagerly AT&T and Comcast would block half the internet if they had the tiniest profit motive to do so? I wonder how long left wing websites would remain online if it weren’t illegal for multinational corporations to block them.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s the thing, they is no profit motive to block wide swaths of public viewpoint because that will cost them customers. They will quickly lose business to a competitor who doesn’t do that. (Local monopolies aside, which is an entirely different problem).

            • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              I wish you were right, but you’re not. Internet providers have monopolies because the cost of laying fiber or launching satellites is so high. That’s precisely what the argument over net neutrality has been about.

      • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        He is in a unique position, theoretically he can make everything go through the country his servers are in assuming they pay over their own satellite internet, illegal… mmm almost certainly but so is keeping Ex Twitter on in Brazil so he probably doesn’t care about that, and it’s essentially exactly what a VPN does sooo, oh yeah they could also just use a VPN I guess.

        • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Bruh, VPN for what? If Brazil bans payments to Starlink, essentially sanctioning it, how is end user going to circumvent that?

          I mean they can jump through hoops to convert currencies etc but most people would just give up and move on.

            • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              But still far to much of a hassle for the general public. Hell, half the people I know refuse to figure out a regular e-transfer/cash app. There’s no way they’ll even consider bitcoin; or really any other currency.

    • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not worth the cost of ruining LEO and the environmental effects of them burning up in the atmosphere

    • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      You can block or disrupt communications with LEO.
      But you’d need the blessing of the country’s government to pump out that much interference continuously.