Elon Musk "secretly" disrupted a Ukrainian sneak attack on a Russian naval fleet by turning off Starlink's satellite network near the Crimean coast last year.
Imagine being so brainwashed that you think since someone else owns a life support machine, you have the right to use it to kill people you don’t like.
Don’t get pissy at me just because you gave a bad hypothetical.
The point is that you and many others think Elon is somehow obligated to assist Ukraine in killing Russians with his tools.
Actually this kinda drives at my point: private individuals shouldn’t own major infrastructure necessary for state action. Had Elon been agnostic with his management of it, people may have forgotten that he owns major critical global infrastructure, critical especially for nations under hostile invasion. But he’s now taken a stance and intervened on what is fundamentally a question for government; “what is appropriate force for defending Ukrainian independence?”. You and I can have an opinion on the matter, but in the end we have no direct influence ourselves. That Elon can tip the scales on a whim, simply because he owns critical infrastructure, as an absolute aberration on global governance.
Starlink is not a tool that is designed to kill or keep alive, only aide in communication. In this situation, Ukraine wanted to use this tool to kill.
It is no more a tool for killing than roads or bridges are. Elon should not have any power over what it is used for (he’s free to have an opinion though).
I am an actual combat vet who has experienced these things first hand
Doubtful, but if you were, you should know the significance of being on an active critical military operation and having your key mission assets abruptly disabled because --checks notes-- a foreign billionare decided the operation was too violent(?). Especially when that mission was in service of destroying the enemy infrastructure being used to indiscriminately shell your own country. Elon somehow being a critical party in what should be a sensitive military defense operation is indefensible from my view.
No different than the piece of shit politicians making money off the backs of these murders.
Isn’t that precisely Elon’s relationship in this situation?
Don’t get pissy at me just because you gave a bad hypothetical.
Actually this kinda drives at my point: private individuals shouldn’t own major infrastructure necessary for state action. Had Elon been agnostic with his management of it, people may have forgotten that he owns major critical global infrastructure, critical especially for nations under hostile invasion. But he’s now taken a stance and intervened on what is fundamentally a question for government; “what is appropriate force for defending Ukrainian independence?”. You and I can have an opinion on the matter, but in the end we have no direct influence ourselves. That Elon can tip the scales on a whim, simply because he owns critical infrastructure, as an absolute aberration on global governance.
It is no more a tool for killing than roads or bridges are. Elon should not have any power over what it is used for (he’s free to have an opinion though).
Doubtful, but if you were, you should know the significance of being on an active critical military operation and having your key mission assets abruptly disabled because --checks notes-- a foreign billionare decided the operation was too violent(?). Especially when that mission was in service of destroying the enemy infrastructure being used to indiscriminately shell your own country. Elon somehow being a critical party in what should be a sensitive military defense operation is indefensible from my view.
Isn’t that precisely Elon’s relationship in this situation?