Current Events > Proof billionaire should not exist Musk cuts internet stopping Ukraine operation

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/07/ukraine-rips-musk-disrupting-sneak-attack-russian-navy.html

• A Ukrainian official slammed SpaceX CEO Elon Musk for ordering engineers to shut off Starlinks satellite network over Crimea in order to thwart a Ukrainian attack on Russian warships.
• According to a new biography of Musk, the South African-born billionaire asked, How am I in this war? during an interview with author Walter Isaacson.
• Musk feared that he would be supporting a mini Pearl Harbor that could have led to a nuclear war, according to the book.

Should one man have this much power that his ignorant opinion can force nations to do what he wants?
This is why Monopolies and Billionaires simply cannot exist. They must be made a thing of the past.

By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military fleet via Starlink interference, Elon Musk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities, Mykhailo Podolyak wrote
Thursday on social media after CNN reported on some of the details from Isaacsons book.

As a result, civilians, children are being killed. This is the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego, he added on X, which was formerly known as Twitter. Musk bought Twitter last year.

Elon, musk, child killer

Would starlink have even existed without some eccentric billionaire?

Hold on... I seem to recall some other article, where Elon was shaking down the US and Ukraine for money, and then shut off starlink when he didn't get paid.

Elon Musk is a Russian asset just like Trump was.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Would starlink have even existed without some eccentric billionaire?

Yes.

Elon didn't make it LOL

He didn't make any of the products for any of his companies.

He is very good at taking credit for the work of others though like all billionaires do.

WingsOfGood posted...

Elon didn't make it LOL

It's not like the Waltons were dumping asstons of money into it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's not like the Waltons were dumping asstons of money into it.

ahh you upset that reality proves your idol Elon is not infact a real life Iron Man but a con man ?

are you okay?

Questionmarktarius posted...

are you okay?

Pathetic response. I am the one who asks this not guys who idolize Elon and think he invents stuff :D

Man conned you. Gotta face that reality. Sorry to say.

think about it for ten seconds

WingsOfGood posted...

I am the one who asks this not guys who idolize Elon and think he invents stuff :D

There's no need to invent anything, when you can dump asstons of money into someone else's invention.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/7/4/AAEhCpAAE0nK.jpg

Questionmarktarius posted...

someone else's invention.

and so it existed

WingsOfGood posted...

and so it existed

The concept has existed since SDI, in the 80s.

Questionmarktarius posted...

The concept has existed since SDI, in the 80s.

so you asked a question in bad faith got it

The UN, in 2011:

The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

WingsOfGood posted...

so you asked a question in bad faith got it

Who else was going to fund a few hundred internet satellites? NASA was too busy pissing away money on the shuttle program, and the Soviets were too busy trying to delay political implosion?

DnDer posted...

The UN, in 2011:

Interesting. Thanks for that

maxpkmf posted...

So will he be charged with war crimes

he will probably bribe people who would charge him

another reason to why billionaires should not exist

DnDer posted...

The UN, in 2011:

Bring that up to Comcast some day, when you decide to stop paying.

WingsOfGood posted...

Should one man have this much power

No

Questionmarktarius posted...

Bring that up to Comcast some day, when you decide to stop paying.

don't think you understand what he quoted

WingsOfGood posted...

don't think you understand what he quoted

The root issue here is the linked article trying to present Elon as trying to pass himself off as some sort of pacifist, when the actually is he cut off service for lack of payment.
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-ambassador-spacex-1751812

Thing is this happened following some Ukrainian officials mocking Musk on social media for the "peace plan" he provided as a suggestion for negotiating an end to the war. They were telling him to fuck off and calling him a Russia supporter (even though he was providing literal logistical aid to Ukraine). So, he fucked off.

Yes it's immature to withdraw war services over internet jabs, but it's also common sense not to bite the hand that feeds. As he showed, the assistance he was providing was voluntary, and as such should be respected even if he provides a take on the war people find dumb.

Civil disagreement is key. Otherwise things escalate.

Ukraine just has to Pearl Harbor Elon. Everyone knows that's the best way to sort out an embargo.

ok, but someone is larping as mr referee

Inohira posted...

Yes it's immature to withdraw war services over internet jabs,

brah

UnfairRepresent posted...

brah

I realize the wording understates the issue. But I don't think Musk having ridiculous ego problems is something people didn't know about and couldn't account for. It's like insulting Trump and expecting him to help you.

Why should Starlink not be able to decide whether their communications devices are able to be used to coordinate military strikes?

Tenlaar posted...

Why should Starlink not be able to decide whether their communications devices are able to be used to coordinate military strikes?

HOLY MOLY you aren't seriously asking this are you?

Tenlaar posted...

Why should Starlink not be able to decide whether their communications devices are able to be used to coordinate military strikes?

Net neutrality.
If you're paying the ISP, they shouldn't give any shits what you're actually doing on the internet.

Investigate Musk.

WingsOfGood posted...

HOLY MOLY you aren't seriously asking this are you?

Yes, I want to know peoples thoughts about a company that provides service to devices they sell exercising a level of control over what those devices are used for. Its an issue that Im undecided on.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Net neutrality.
If you're paying the ISP, they shouldn't give any shits what you're actually doing on the internet.

Surely there is a line for this, though. ISPs cutting off service to people who pirate media has been in a thing in the past, for example. Is the line just legality with no room for morality in the decision?

Tenlaar posted...

Surely there is a line for this, though. ISPs cutting off service to people who pirate media has been in a thing in the past, for example. Is the line just legality with no room for morality in the decision?

Let's humor UN for a moment here.
If there's a "right" to internet, unless you're doing naughty things with it, who determines the definition of "naughty"?

If the "right" is absolute, then there is no "naughty".

Net neutrality simply says you can't throttle services per website. Not that you can't terminate service entirely for whatever reason.

And in turn cutting that service lead to civilians being bombed. But hey, I'm sure there is nothing wrong with letting Musk's ego decide what military targets Ukraine gets to target to potentially prevent more bombings on civilian targets.

Inohira posted...

Net neutrality simply says you can't throttle serices per website.

Porn and missile guidance are both pretty much just "websites" nowadays.

Tenlaar posted...

Yes, I want to know peoples thoughts about a company that provides service to devices they sell exercising a level of control over what those devices are used for. Its an issue that Im undecided on.

Do you believe that level of control should permit the company to tell a country how they are able to defend themselves against military targets while they are being attacked where lack of service leads to their cities being bombed amd civilians being killed because of the CO'S ego?

Because if we were talking about Comcast stopping you from using your drone to spy on Ms. Sally down the road, whatever. This is "I don't think I'm going to let you attack a military target" which lead to cities being bombed by the intended target.

GranAures posted...

Do you believe that level of control should permit the company to tell a country how they are able to defend themselves against military targets while they are being attacked where lack of service leads to their cities being bombed amd civilians being killed because of the CO'S ego?

Because if we were talking about Comcast stopping you from using your drone to spy on Ms. Sally down the road, whatever. This is "I don't think I'm going to let you attack a military target" which lead to cities being bombed by the intended target.

My initial feeling on the matter is yes, a company that provides a service should be able to decide what acceptable and unacceptable uses of their service are. I also don't think that "I'm not going to let you use my communications network to control drone strikes" is the same as "I'm not going to let you attack a military target."

They were the same though as that is what Musk stopped them from doing, attacking a military target with drones and then that same target turning around and bombing cities.

Because he knew the "obvious intent" of the Ukrainian military. And it turns out he was wrong.

Deleted post because I just noticed who I was talking to.

The Ukrainian army could have attacked the military target in a way other than a drone strike, though. They were only stopped from using Starlink's communications network to do it.

Tenlaar posted...

Why should Starlink not be able to decide whether their communications devices are able to be used to coordinate military strikes?

Because theyre under contract with the Pentagon and are being paid so Ukraine can use the satellites to coordinate military strikes.

If Elon doesnt like it he can give the money back and the Pentagon can give the contract to another company.

I'm sure you also know more than the Ukrainian military much like Musk did.

Ever think there was a reason they sent him an emergency request? Ever think it was the fastest, and safest, way to deal with what was an eminent threat?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/5/2/AAaN9zAAE0tE.jpg
Musk's own words.
Literally him acting like he knew the intent of an emergency request and used that assumption to deny it.

Skankhair posted...

Because theyre under contract with the Pentagon and are being paid so Ukraine can use the satellites to coordinate military strikes.

If Elon doesnt like it he can give the money back and the Pentagon can give the contract to another company.

I can't really trust your word on anything regarding this situation since you have posted multiple articles in the other topic that directly refuted the claim that you were using them to support while simultaneously saying that I fell for lies.

GranAures posted...

I'm sure you also know more than the Ukrainian military much like Musk did.

Ever think there was a reason they sent him an emergency request? Ever think it was the fastest, and safest, way to deal with what was an eminent threat?

I think that those things being true doesn't mean that a company should be forced to let their communications devices be used for military strikes if they don't want it to be.

Lots of dumb in this thread.

Tenlaar posted...

I can't really trust your word on anything regarding this situation since you have posted multiple articles in the other topic that directly refuted the claim that you were using them to support while simultaneously saying that I fell for lies.

ahahahahahaha

the irony

And I think Musk is a self-absorbed fuck that has a direct hand in the deaths that the subsequent bombing caused because his ego led him to believe he knew better than Ukraine. But hey, at least he saved that Russian fleet and totally saved everybody from the nukes. I'm sure the dead civilians are happy too.

Maybe Ukraine can just make him a general. They already need to clear any drone operations through him, then he can actually play the super military mind he wants us to believe he is./s

Inohira posted...

Thing is this happened following some Ukrainian officials mocking Musk on social media for the "peace plan" he provided as a suggestion for negotiating an end to the war. They were telling him to fuck off and calling him a Russia supporter (even though he was providing literal logistical aid to Ukraine). So, he fucked off.

Yes it's immature to withdraw war services over internet jabs, but it's also common sense not to bite the hand that feeds. As he showed, the assistance he was providing was voluntary, and as such should be respected even if he provides a take on the war people find dumb.

Civil disagreement is key. Otherwise things escalate.

This? Right here? All this noise? Fuck it. Fuck all this noise.