Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#171

Post by greesil »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #159
greesil wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but you don't need 10000 satellites to provide cell coverage when 100 would do. Hybrid ground station networks have been a thing for a long time now... if your goal is to provide mobile networks for the lowest possible cost to the end user. That's not Starlink's goal -- these "uninternetnetted" folks don't have money to pay, they typically don't even have electricity. Rural broadband in developed countries do. T…

Someone doesn't know how orbits work, how big space is, or how expensive other satellite services used to be pre starlink. Or how bad it can get with latency. And yes the unreachable people have family in reachable areas that can pay, sometimes the Internet is what keeps them away, since solar and batteries exist See the Marubo for example

You mean me, the aerospace engineer, who has published in this field, doesn't know how satellite constellations, link budgets, astrodynamics, the orbital environment, the systems engineering, and the other minutiae of this, doesn't understand the tradeoffs in building these things? What do you know, in a professional capacity? Tell me you're in this field, or piss off.

Tell me how big is space. Like, is it as big as the back of a giant tortoise upon which the flat earth moves? Is it bigger than a bread box, a telephone box, or a TARDIS? Wat is it???

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#172

Post by jowea »

ldbooth wrote: post #152

I just wish this guy would take the loss and sell twitter and go back to being an uncontroversial tech legend. Mixing with Social media has corrupted every positive thing he has done and maybe will do if he keeps it up at the current pace. People tire of the drama king. If you don't know what I mean.. he said his transgender child is dead to him in a publicly aired interview. That's where this guy is in his personal…

I never thought I would miss old Elon. Can't we get back to pointing out why Mars colony isn't going to happen while secretly wishing it happens?

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#173

Post by jowea »

postepowanieadm wrote: post #170
throw0101d wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this a principled defense of free speech or a case of a man treating ostensibly independent companies as divisions of his personal conglomerate? Musk was happy to block Twitter content for Erdoğan before the 2023 Turkish election,[0][1] and block Ukraine from using it to hit the Russian navy.[2] [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-ena... [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/twitte…

Ukrainians used twitter to hit the russian navy?

Previous poster meant Starlink usage by Ukraine.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#174

Post by nradov »

okasaki wrote: post #53
rapsey wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean he paid 40 billion. He can run it any way he pleases.

I thought he borrowed it? In which case he definitely can't run it any way he pleases.

Debtors generally have no direct authority over management decisions unless the borrower defaults. So legally speaking, someone with majority voting control over a company can pretty much run it any way he pleases. (I am clarifying corporate governance rules here, not taking a position on recent management decisions.)

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#175

Post by amy-petrik-214 »

ldbooth wrote: post #168
nec4b wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I just wish this guy would take the loss and sell twitter and go back to being an uncontroversial tech legend. Why do you care, he is spending his own money. Isn't it more important that we now know Brazil has no rule of law. A single party overtook all the subsystems in the country and now Brazil is in the company of countries like Iran or North Korea regarding X censorship. Eye opening is also how many people wou…

You are overstating enforcement of corporate laws vs. a government censoring an entire nation. Similarly banning X in the US would not be censorship if the company flouted and refused to obey US laws. He is spending many people's money, not just his own. He's human, he can be both a tech legend and a polarizing, drama-magnet of a human being, I just lament him leaning into the latter when the benefit is winning a pis…

No no no no no no. It's not as black and white as "oh they failed to obey US laws" - that is a highly deceptive portrayal of the situation! We are talking about free speech laws. What if the law says "no hate speech, according to a floating definition of hate speech drafted by those with power who are the scions of rightthink" What if the law says "no disinformation, according to the custodians of rightthink and rightinformation. Very 1984! And it's 2024, how a propos, 40 years off. "No disinformation" itself is highly dubious! Wow, there's an information expert who instantly can detect correct versus incorrect "facts"? Can they review all science ever and suss out what's right, using their infallible power? Because that's the politically constructed facade we're dealing with here.

No, Eli Musk had it figured out. Speech is free and free is speech. If someone has misinformation, let the people beat them down for it. If someone is wrong, let someone call them out.

The power to make speech is to the people, the power to call out and regulate speech is also to the people. For the state to usurp such a power, is 1984-esque big brother manipulations, for the purpose no more nor less of political control and manipulation

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#176

Post by mike_hearn »

Timon3 wrote: post #169
mike_hearn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't ban any of those people: > All the accounts were restored in a few hours

What state were they restored to? If they were accessible, why did they have to be restored? If you're going to argue "a ban doesn't count if it's reversed after a couple of hours", what's the threshold? Could Elon ban people for a week without it counting as a ban? What if it happens repeatedly?

If these accounts were banned due to censorship they'd have stayed banned. There are plenty of accounts that were shut down on Twitter that are still disabled today.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#177

Post by mcosta »

edanm wrote: post #98
mcosta wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> In Israel, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: Palestine existence) This is both completely untrue, and has nothing to do with this post.

The reasoning is the same

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#178

Post by ta1243 »

_heimdall wrote: post #163
ta1243 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US banns a lot of stuff too, from porn to sharing songs. A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I come from the US and have a view of free speech that is decidedly in conflict with how America handles speech today. I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively…

You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence?

America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#179

Post by throwaway11836 »

ta1243 wrote: post #178
_heimdall wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I come from the US and have a view of free speech that is decidedly in conflict with how America handles speech today. I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively…

You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence? America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the maj…

>You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency?

I fail to see how porn or money can be categorized as speech.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#180

Post by ta1243 »

throwaway11836 wrote: post #179
ta1243 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence? America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the maj…

>You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? I fail to see how porn or money can be categorized as speech.

So your definition of free speech is different to others, for example JSG Boggs [0]. Unsurprising really, and not really "wrong", any more than people who have different opinions to you are wrong.

[0] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jsg-boggs-money-artist-die...

Post reply on HN