It’s definitely not an honest conversation when you’ve deliberately and repeatedly chosen to misunderstand what’s being said.

It’s time to grow up and stop believing hucksters and grifters.

For the third time, you cannot separate the grifter from the grift. That’s not “Fuck Elon”, that’s “starlink is not, and never will be, what was promised”

Similarly, you can’t weigh an abstract possibility versus a real cost. You want the conversation to be some philosophical discourse about social vs societal value. But it’s not that, it’s a real situation right now.

And in this real life situation, we have to evaluate what starlink actually is - - a failed toy for wealthy early adopters - - and not what some abstract “could be”.

Especially when we know for a fact that any public promises of that potential are certainly intended to mislead and not inform.

To my knowledge absolutely nothing critical to Ukranian defense uses Starlink.

And again, what is niave is to not heavily discount any claims Elon makes. Starlink provides neglible value currently, what potential might exist is imaginary.

The best thing for the world is to realize Elon was a sunk cost and move on

Okay but you’re falling into Elon’s trap. You can’t weigh future potential against current harm naively. Particularly when it comes from somebody with a long history of over promising and under delivering. Since we pay the full price up front (loss of science, etc) but will never reap the full benefits promised.

Someone finally read their book and now they’re angry about it lol

There’s no planet where a viable antitrust case exists. That is pure unbridled delusion.

Hey now, when I copy and paste from stack overflow, that’s called “development”

Like everything else, the global wealthy will survive with the wealthiest elite thriving. The global poor (mostly in the the global south) will suffer the majority of the consequences. It’ll start with crops withering for lack of water and get worse from there.

There’ll be a great sorting between those two groups as the dividing line becomes starker. It probably won’t be pretty. It definitely won’t be fair. There’s no guarantee the line won’t be drawn within a country and not just between them.

How fast does this happen? If left to just “natural” processes, loss of modern agriculture will take many decades - - just slow enough to boil the frog. But humans have a particular tendency to drive faster than we can see. So in the likely chances whatever actions we take to “mitigate” climate change backfire in our face (fingers crossed on Elon dropping a bunch of rust in the ocean and killing all the krill), I think it’s more likely that many decades is optimistic.

None of that can be explained by allowing private companies to collect digital data.

What you’ve posted is a great example of scaremongering.

Again, if you want to advocate for privacy, you need to make a direct and explicit connection. Not this tinfoil hat, arm waving general conspiracy thinking. It’s not compelling

I think what people need are clear examples, concisely expressed, of the explicit harm experienced by forgoing a certain quanta of privacy, since the benefits are apparent (eg gain access to a certain service/community/etc).

Wasn’t that later revealed to be a hoax? It was during one of the major waves of legal advice trolls

So what’s one good conservative position?