this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
318 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19090 readers
2573 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaire—and is now struggling to rein him in.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 132 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's easy...the US needs to asset imminent domain on starlink. You don't fucking blackmail the government.

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 82 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

And SpaceX as a whole. It's entirely government funded anyway. Should have kept that money in NASA where it belonged. Fortunately, there's an easy way to put it all right back.

(Also, archive link of top article here: https://archive.is/H6rzo )

[–] citycat@lemm.ee 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

not entirely government funded, but enough that, if they withdraw funding, it would totally collapse.

the entire argument that “private companies do it cheaper” is mostly because they cut corners, skirt regulations, and screw over employees to do business on the cheap. then, we find out there may be massive security breaches like, oh, chatting with Putin and god knows who else...

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Part of the problem is nasa seems to be very risk adverse now. Letting private companies take the risk is one way to get around that. I'm just glad we don't have to depend on russia to get to space or the iss.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't forget potentially underpay people. I don't believe that's happening for SpaceX specifically, but it does for many other competitors to government jobs. Government jobs aren't necessarily super high pay, but they usually have solid pay with excellent benefits, pension, and work/life balance.

So when jobs move from the public to private sector, it often comes at the cost of employees. And in some extreme cases, employees are paid so little that they have to rely on government benefits to get by, which is extremely dumb. That's subsidizing the private sector.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

From what I've heard it's true. If you have a job offer from NASA and one from SpaceX, the NASA one is better.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We would've never gotten propulsive landing so quickly purely through NASA. See how far behind the SLS was. And SpaceX's funding comes mostly from private equity.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bullshit.

The reason is NASA's budget kept getting slashed despite NASA making a profit since it's inception.

We gave them less money so progress would be slow and salaries wouldn't be competitive and then it could be privatized like so many sectors before it.

Because the wealthy can't buy stock in NASA.

[–] Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

NASA's budget isn't the only reason SpaceX has been able to innovate faster. NASA is incredibly risk averse, as their failures reflect onto the US government and by extension their budget. Even when safety isn't important such as with unmanned rockets, NASA doesn't want news headlines blasting them for their rocket's tendencies to blow up. SpaceX, by being a private company, is free to take risks and have rockets explode (if they're unmanned that is) without much repercussions as they're a private company, not the US government. They've had 7 unmanned rockets explode and several more reusable lander's fail in their course to develop cheaper, reusable rockets, which had NASA done themselves would have been a national embarrassment, but because it was a private company they were free to take those risks to learn from their mistakes

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In the absence of government funding, what's the alternative to private companies?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The whole point is that there shouldn't be an absence. The absence is there because of the private corporations. This is another insidious tendril of capitalism.

I agree wholeheartedly. Public money is being funneled into the MIC, of which SpaceX is now an integral part. If that same money or even a significant fraction had been instead alotted to NASA since the moon landings, we'd have bases on Titan already.

However, I want to see us touch the stars. And right now, it's pretty much only SpaceX that has the drive and capital to get there.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's an odd question because government programs aren't and shouldn't be in areas to make a profit, aka act like a private company. They need to act where private sector can't, won't, or can't do it well and when there is an important stake. Eg roads, schools, healthcare, police, firefighters, etc. This is why people are telling you it's unlikely SpaceX would be around without government contracts and funding.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or they should've never left this to the private sector if there was going to be a strategic component to it. Now they're at the mercy of an unstable foreign national, who is himself beholden to a bunch of foreign investors.

[–] demlet@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Turns out unregulated capitalism might be slightly at odds with democracy.

[–] Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

The most insane part is that they never even entered into a contract with Starlink to provide service. Starlink is the backbone of Ukraine's communications infrastructure, and it's shocking that the DoD and the Ukraine Armed Forces never thought "hey we should get a contract with Musk so we can ensure he keeps Starlink available throughout the war". For such a critical service, they were content with dealing with Starlink directly and having Elon subsidize it personally, giving him a large degree of control over one of the most vital components of Ukrainian communications, rather than what they eventually did by going through the DoD to negotiate a contract with Elon using taxpayer dollars

[–] kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't fucking blackmail the government.

Tell that to scientology.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Lol no kidding.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You don’t fucking blackmail the government

lol, only he obviously is, so....
And I guarantee he was long before starlink - the riches man on earth doesn't get that way and stay that way without owning at least a handful of politicians (and now his own media outlet of which he has absolute control and millions of existing followers ready to worship his every word).

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can still look at anything this man does and think it's benign, or worse, clueless..

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

With the rich, never attribute to stupidity what you can attribute to malice.

[–] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Time to revoke any clearances he has and refuse to renew any contracts with the government.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

You know, it seems like something like this should be illegal. Maybe name it something like the Logan Act.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemdro.id 66 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On the phone, Musk said that he was looking at his laptop and could see “the entire war unfolding” through a map of Starlink activity. “This was, like, three minutes before he said, ‘Well, I had this great conversation with Putin,’ ” the senior defense official told me. “And we were, like, ‘Oh, dear, this is not good.’ ”

It's like the Elon India Tea Company. Strange to think we've got so many individuals that rival any sort of elected officials and that our government is becoming aware of this. Elon in particular seems to have the US over several barrels, space, battlefield communications, recharge stations, and now Twitter and AI possibly from the bottom of a k hole.

Wild, also: I forget how good the New Yorker is. That whole article was fascinating. I feel like I learned a lot and it was interesting.

[–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So he is.. breaking the US law.

[–] demlet@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hahaha, this person thinks laws apply to the wealthy.

[–] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Who don't go out of their way to annoy the other powerful and rich.

[–] Savvy95@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes. If he talks with Putin about "government policy" or "international relations" then he has to register with the US government as doing so.

It's against the law to privately speak with foreign nations about those categories. It may put you at odds with US policy or maybe you dont see the whole picture, so it's better in the US eyes to ban foreign diplomacy by private citizens.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

🤔 What about Dennis Rodman when he would talk with Kim Jong Il?

Ooh, he used to talk to Putin too, didn't he? I wonder if Russia and North Korea were enacting some long-game plan against us.

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Boy if only the pentagon had a way to deal with rogue actors, I wonder what they’re in charge of

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Sounds like the octagon didnt get it done, so we might as well give another shape a try.

[–] sciawp@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How can we call our system a democracy when one unelected man can hold so much power?

[–] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look at Rupert Murdoch. He unquestionably holds more power than Musk and has been at it for a long time. Democracy is an illusion, since people are very easily influenced by the media they consume.

[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

Better education that emphasizes skepticism and critical thinking would do so much to fight the influence of media.

[–] taanegl@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then the question everyone should ask him on Twitter/X is... "Are you an agent of foreign principal?"

[–] STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

he is an agent of capital principle

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

no he isn't.. he has only ONE principle.. it is spelled E - L - O - N..

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

of course Saruman called Sauron

[–] TechDiver@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If hitler was alive he'd boast he personally spoke to him as well as if it was some kind of achievement

[–] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Ein reich? Ein Volk? Ein Führer?

Interesting.

[–] citycat@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

“arrest me for espionage and/or treason, please"

[–] cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At first, I thought this was one of those rule posts.

load more comments
view more: next ›