Elon Musk ‘Secretly’ Used Starlink To Foil A Ukrainian Attack On Russian Naval Fleet Over Fear Of Nuclear War: Report

www.mediaite.com Elon Musk ‘Secretly’ Used Starlink To Foil A Ukrainian Attack On Russian Naval Fleet Over Fear Of Nuclear War: Report

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.

What an utter piece of shit.

BrainWorms @lemm.ee

DeadWorld @lemm.ee

1y ago

Elon Musk ‘Secretly’ Used Starlink To Foil A Ukrainian Attack On Russian Naval Fleet Over Fear Of Nuclear War: Report

www.mediaite.com /tech/elon-musk-secretly-used-starlink-to-foil-a-ukrainian-attack-on-russian-naval-fleet-over-fear-of-nuclear-war-report/

124 8

You're viewing a single thread.

402 comments

Wow, this thread. All he did was switching off his satellite network though, not somehow sabotaged the operation.
- That act literally sabotaged the operation. On purpose.
  
  Except the network was already off, he refused to switch it on for a foreign country's operation without his own country's approval. On purpose.
  
  I don't understand why Ukraine didn't ask the US government for this and instead asked Musk directly. Ofc he wouldn't do it unless pressured by the government.
  
  Was the usage according the network terms of service?
  
  Let's see... he allowed the Ukrainian military to use Starlink but put it in the ToS that they couldn't actually use it in any military operations.
  Yes, that sounds very plausible. Very plausible indeed.
  
  It's quite possible the internet was intended to be used for communication proposes. For instance, civilian GPS chips shut down themselves if high enough velocity is detected to prevent usage in rockets.
  
  Feel free to present even a shred of evidence that supports this idea. Because as far as I can tell, all you have is "he didn't sabotage it because maybe they violated the TOS" when he admits to sabotaging the operation.
  
  Evidence of what? I don't know what was the agreement between Musk and US military, but I'm sure if Musk violated it he'll be liable for it.
  
  As long as you're sure.
  
  ITAR look it up. Starlink cannot be used in military applications if it's being used in a commercial application. Musk didn't pull the plug on this, lawyers and the laws did. I don't care for the guy either but get your facts straight before believing what CNNs CEOs book tells you.
  
  Do you have any actual evidence that Isaacson, in his authorized biography of Musk, is lying? Wouldn't Musk have something to say about that since he authorized the biography? Has he denied it? He's pretty quick to tweet all sorts of other things.
  
  That tweet you posted to another person is literally that, ITAR. I'm guessing you still haven't even looked into what it is.
- All the doctor did was switch off life support 🤷‍♂️ it's not like they forced the patient's body to shut down.
  Real "Stanly was attacked by his own heart" vibes.
  
  But it's more like it's doctor's own life support system and the patient connected himself to it.
  
  imagine being so brainwashed that you think owning the life support machine morally entitles you to decide who is kept alive with it.
  
  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.
  
  Weird how the thrust of your statement doesn't change regardless of the status of ownership
  
  Nope. In this case the doctors machine isn’t a life support system, it’s more like an xray machine. The ownership remains the doctors the entire time. The doctor chooses to stop a patient who wants to use the machine to kill another patient.its his machine to begin with. The ONLY morally correct decision is to not allow it. Get mad at the doctor all you want, at the end of the day you’re advocating for murder.
  
  You honestly think who owns the tool being used changes the morality of murder?
  Nevermind that we're actually talking about war between nation states, not a doctor stopping a hospital patient from, erm, repeatedly shooting someone else with X-ray radiation?
  What a silly allegory you've come up with
  
  Lol the ownership of the tool is not at what the point is. The point is that you and many others think Elon is somehow obligated to assist Ukraine in killing Russians with his tools. Not only is he not obligated, he is morally obligated to NOT help them. The morality of murder doesn't change, the only thing changing is the vast majority of brain washed peons who think Elon is somehow responsible for Ukrainian deaths. I changed the tool to x-ray because in this case, 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. Fuck anyone that thinks this is okay. Fuck anyone knocking elon for denying it. Unlike the vast majority of users here, I am an actual combat vet who has experienced these things first hand. It's easy for anyone to sit behind a computer desk and dehumanize people because of their country. No different than the piece of shit politicians making money off the backs of these murders.
  If you can't see this point or comprehend these allegories then perhaps you're part of the problem.
  
  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?
  
  Good argument, but where do you draw the line? You can save someone right now by an act of a good will, but do you do it?

402 comments