I’ve no idea the legal intricacies of a private company interfering in military operations, nor the range of outcomes of such.
I’m definitely not paying for Twitter if this happens. I think a lot of people will stop using it
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/19/musk-x-twitter-charge-all-users-monthly-subscription-fees
Please let him start charging so I have an excuse to leave that hell-app for good.
1 Like
I left it when he changed the name and logo to something idiotic.
It doesn’t sound illegal to me, as I don’t see anywhere that he promised Starlink to either Ukraine or the US military.
Elon Musk, Dr. Strangelove, and Trolley Problems aside, I am very interested in how much a corporation is allowed to turn on or off their infrastructure around foreign wars.
So is Musk considered a hero for possibly postponing WW3 (as some say), or a villain for possibly allowing Russia to kill innocents (as some say)?
I’ve found that companies making false statements interfering with military operations or interfering with recruitment during wartime can result in jail time up to 20 years. However I’ve found nothing else about businesses interfering in war.
I would be very surprised if the US doesn’t have laws about business interference during wartime. However, given it’s been 81 years since the US had an official war (lol), such might not apply.
1 Like
Villain
No question at all.
If this conflict turns into WW3, then WW3 will have been caused 100% by Russia. Ukraine will not be at fault for that at all.
3 Likes
All of this would be over if Putin pulled his troops back into Russia and out of Ukraine. This war, all the death and destruction, those suffering under sanctions, all of it is on Putin. Anyone that warms up to Putin and Russia is trash. This is just one more example of Musk being trash.
5 Likes
Both. He’s a hero in the sense that he donated a communications path to Ukraine at a time when their communications systems were being attacked. However, that donation came with a significant string attached: he didn’t want the system to be used for offensive attacks on Russian soil.
That all seems reasonable to me.
Where there’s more room for potential criticism is that he’s apparently saying that Crimea is Russian soil, and extending his prohibition to portions of the Black Sea that Ukraine has a legitimate reason to want cleared. If the constraint had been to not use Starlink beyond the defacto line of control as of the start of the war, instead of “on Russian soil” as has been reported…
Nevermind. I will never leave this hell-app.
https://x.com/tomgara/status/1705021504398794771?s=46&t=8YxmIZtIVphjDW1pnpmmuA
2 Likes
The pile ons are great. I saw one today that refrenced an all time great dril tweet in its structure. All so good. The community motes roasted the fool too
That thread is comedy gold
I don’t like David Brooks either. Way too much of a Conservative blowhard.
I wonder if he’s opening himself to some kind of eminent domain like commandeering of Starlink. If the Pentagon convinces the US government that your thing is vital to US military interests I think it could be tough for you to say no.
On the other hand, maybe the Pentagon agrees with Musk about not getting too offensive but doesn’t want all the flak, so they’re happy to let Musk be the bad guy?
A burger with a double shot of whiskey just doesn’t sound appetizing to me. That wouldn’t quench your thirst at all…
Just whip em together into mini burger whiskey smoothies
Summary
:exams:
Nice thick skin on that Musk fellow.
He should feel.lucky, free.