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.
Please explain why the DoD negotiated a contract to use Starlink in Ukraine if the Ukrainians couldn't use it in a military capacity.
They specifically used it for civilian applications and communications. ITAR specifically forbids a company to allow their commercial products while they are supplying a service to be used in a military capacity.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Please explain why the DoD negotiated a contract to use Starlink in Ukraine if the Ukrainians couldn't use it in a military capacity.
They specifically used it for civilian applications and communications. ITAR specifically forbids a company to allow their commercial products while they are supplying a service to be used in a military capacity.
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.
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?
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.