• @expected_crayon
    link
    37610 months ago

    Yet he’s taking DoD money for Starlink in Ukraine. At what point do his antics turn from the craziness of a billionaire to espionage and being deemed a Russian asset?

    • @demlet
      link
      13710 months ago

      Musk openly stated that he spoke directly with Putin after the Ukraine invasion had started. The super wealthy have no loyalties and will sell anyone and anything to the highest bidder. I’ve said it before, every penny after $1 billion needs to be taxed at 100%. Time to reign in the oligarchs.

      • @Zombiepirate
        link
        English
        3210 months ago

        But then who would create the underpaying jobs?!

        • @Noodle07
          link
          110 months ago

          The state love making those, I wouldn’t worryy

          • @Zombiepirate
            link
            English
            3
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Funny how that (along extreme wealth inequality and the destabilizing effects therein) could be improved by taxing billionaires.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        510 months ago

        Is that just liquid assets, or do you also want to tax them on stock they own in companies?

        • @demlet
          link
          810 months ago

          Honestly I don’t know. It’s really more the sentiment that I’m expressing. I’m aware that the wealthy are very good at playing shell games. No measures would catch everything.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          610 months ago

          You can definitely tax the hell out of dividends and sales. They are free to hold as many imaginary value tokens as they like, but the second they try to convert those tokens into actual currency, that should be heavily taxed. This goes for stock as well as cryptocurrency/NFTs.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                110 months ago

                There are lots of ways to sell assets in specific scenarios to reduce tax burden or eliminate the tax rate to 0%. For example, a billionaire can take a loan and pay the interest only for years. Then in a year with losses on investments then can sell some assets to pay off the loan and pay no taxes.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  210 months ago

                  Except if the money they are using to pay the interest and the money received from the sale of those assets is taxed appropriately. Interest on business loans should not be deductible, nor should investment losses. The government is not responsible for their poor business decisions. Of course, there can be delineations for investment loss write-offs based on total gross income from all sources. A small business owner or an individual that holds an investment account with an AGI under $1million or so would reasonably still have access to such write-offs or deductions, but anything over that $1million per year is free game, losses or not.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1110 months ago

        Agree in principle but the ultra wealthy would simply find new creative ways to hide their income.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          38
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Do not let perfect get in the way of good.

          Your reasoning here is irrational, and frequently repeated by many.

          “They will find another way, why even try! Gosh!”

          Okay, then we’ll block that way, and the next, and the next, and the next.

          This is iterative development and is how the whole world works. I cannot grasp why so many people have this defeatist attitude toward resolving problems.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            810 months ago

            Yeah any system that involves humans will require maintenance and adjustments by humans. Because humans always find a way to fuck things up. There’s this weird compulsion to demand a system that can’t be fucked up by humans. But it’s not possible. Also it’s not necessary… if a system involves humans it means there’s humans around to do the necessary maintenance and adjustments to that system.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            310 months ago

            Because people are lazy and want a singular solution every time and if they don’t get it most quit.

            Laziness is honestly our largest inspirational force and it should be celebrated to let us do more interesting and fulfilling work but instead instant gratification has ruined us and made people lazy and shitty.

        • @demlet
          link
          1810 months ago

          Although you’re right, that sounds like an excuse to not do anything.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -410 months ago

            Suggestions have tried and failed numerous times. An easy example is closing loopholes in taxes. Another is reforming estate taxes and capital gains taxes.

            The problem is we have solutions already they’re not being done. Get off lemmy. Find representatives that fit your worldview and vote vote vote.

            The alternative which I feel is more likely is continue the slide to fascism everywhere until it reaches a head then on comes the bloodshed.

            We really need to do better teaching history in school because Jesus Christ online forums are full of people trying to reinvent the wheel and detached from the real world.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1410 months ago

          Comments like these are not only unhelpful, they hurt progress moving forward. Do you also apply this logic to domestic abusers (wouldn’t wife beaters just beat places you can’t see or use sexual assault? ), or speeders (won’t people just speed when no law enforcement are around?), or regular joe tax evaders? I’m going to assume not. It would be absurd to just thow up our hands and say “you know what? We’re never going to stop pedophilia, so lets put no laws or regulations in place to punish pedophiles.”

          I’m not going to claim that the original commenter’s solution is perfect or even very effective, but if we do nothing (and comments like yours are encouraging doing nothing) then the percieved problem will gwt worse. We reward the bad behavior and the bad behavior continues and gets worse. Something needs to be done whether it’s perfect or not. If you’ve ever created anything, especially something to be used or enjoyed by others, you know your first draft of it is shit. There are so many things that you couldn’t see until you put the work into it or release it to others and that’s okay. You learn, you revise, you plug the holes, you scrap and implement something new, you continue the process. The “rule of thumb” didn’t stop abuse, but it was a step. We still haven’t stopped abuse, but a lot of us keep plugging along, trying to stop it in our own ways (at individual, local, national, and international levels).

          If you do care about this and want to contribute, but don’t like the presented solution, offer up your own or maybe point to resources of those advancing a cause from a different angle. If you’re here to shit on ideas because you don’t care or are trolling and want to actively hinder discussion, you can fuck right off. If you are trolling I’m okay with the offchance the overall message is recieved by someone else who needs it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -510 months ago

            I provide no solutions that haven’t already been tried and continue to be tried. Have you tried actions outside of lemmy like actually voting and promoting people who want to fix this? I love that a glib comment on lemmy has drawn a novel of a response when everything we say here means jack shit. I’m in the real world doing what I can to change it for the better.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              110 months ago

              It’s fitting that someone who’s idea of a novel is 3 barely paragraphs would make an incredible amount of baseless assumption.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          210 months ago

          We really need to rethink how ownership itself works. All assets should be in a public registry, and no country’s laws should recognize any claim of ownership not backed by the registry. For the sake of privacy, I’d make an exception for up to like $1 million in personal assets owned by an individual, but never for business assets and never for ownership of a company or shares of a company.

      • @FlexibleToast
        link
        -1610 months ago

        Wealth taxes are fantastic in theory, but in practice have never worked. They’re too hard to implement. I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, but I just don’t think a wealth tax is the answer.

        • @demlet
          link
          610 months ago

          I mean, the truth is that we’ve never found a way to prevent some people from hoarding huge amounts of wealth. Probably not a great sign for the future of our species.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            410 months ago

            There’s more good people than bad people. The only way the bad people win is by convincing the good people to give up.

            Yes shitty people will always be fucking up things for everyone else. But that doesn’t mean working to stop that is pointless. It’s more the opposite, it means we have to be continually working to stop the assholes from fucking things up for everyone.

          • @FlexibleToast
            link
            310 months ago

            It’s a seriously hard problem. The IRS already can’t keep up. In order to implement a wealth tax they would not only have to do what they do now, but also assess the value of every estate of every wealthy person. They would need experts in all sorts of things to even attempt to pull that off. Experts in fashion, jewelry, cars, planes, boats, art, etc… as soon as you let even one of those things slip through, that’s what becomes the new wealth sync. Previously it’s been attempted by they excluded art because that’s notoriously hard to assess the value of. So the wealthy bought and traded a bunch of art to hide their wealth.

            I got down voted for my previous comment, but it’s the truth. The concept is simple and if it worked I would be all on board. It’s the process for implementing it that is the hard part and has historically always caused a wealth tax to fail. It’s not a new concept, but there is a reason it isn’t used. I’m not saying we should do nothing, but that we should do something different. We could start with adding back some income tax brackets.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          Maybe but we were doing better at it before Reagan came along.

          But it isn’t a silver bullet. If we want to deal with the root of today’s problems we need to focus on a number of solutions around anti-trust, pro-labor, wealth tax, lobbying, campaign finance, etc.

    • @thann
      link
      English
      9810 months ago

      Imagine if Lockheed martin “shut off” a jet because it was “getting too close to China”

      What would be the response by the DOJ?

      I would think the military would call that an act of treason and imprison or disappear any executives they thought were involved

      • theodewere
        link
        fedilink
        1710 months ago

        no he’s in some SERIOUS shit for this, and it was just a given he was gonna stick his little dick in there

    • DarkenLM
      link
      fedilink
      7610 months ago

      It would be hilarious for the US and/or the EU freeze his assets and punch his market influence to the ground if they accuse him of espionage.

      • @Zombiepirate
        link
        English
        119
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Nationalizing the satellites that we paid for as a national security asset sure seems reasonable here, seeing as he likely broke a contract when he disabled them.

        Imagine if Lockheed disabled an allied F16’s targeting computer during a mission; there would be hell to pay.

      • theodewere
        link
        fedilink
        1510 months ago

        it’s more like a violation of War Powers Act or something, but yeah… he’s probably fucked…

    • Capt. Wolf
      link
      3910 months ago

      I’ve said in the past that something was clearly wrong when he bought Twitter. His behavior was far too targeted. It’s all way too obvious.

      • Joker
        link
        fedilink
        810 months ago

        He’s my fun little conspiracy theory. If I could send the CIA to do my bidding, I would have punished him by manipulating him into buying twitter. You can’t nationalize SpaceX because it would signal the failure of privatized space exploration, but you can’t have that idiot out there as a walking national security disaster looking for a place to happen. The only option if he can’t be controlled is to get him out of the way until he retires or another private competitor can become the favorite. Twitter cost him a ton of money and his reputation, exposed him as a fool, and keeps him busy with unimportant bullshit. Everyone just shrugs it off as Elon being Elon. It’s really perfect.

    • @ChickenLadyLovesLife
      link
      English
      1510 months ago

      Russian asset

      How dare you? This is libelous! He’s a Saudi asset.

    • Buelldozer
      link
      fedilink
      910 months ago

      Yet he’s taking DoD money for Starlink in Ukraine.

      He is now but at the time this supposedly happened he wasn’t.

  • @Heisme
    link
    English
    198
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The spin at the end is just fluffy bullshit. Starlink, from the get go, has had bandwidth reserved for military operations albeit US military operation but military operations nonetheless. The real question here is how and why did he know that operation was happening and what other operations has he known about/thwarted/or knowingly or unknowingly passed along information about.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      4210 months ago

      Maybe the same FSB agents that were driving his paranoia. Assuming they knew about the attack, they could get a bigger win by stopping it and removing Starlink from the equation at the same time, than by stopping the attack with military means.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2110 months ago

        Definitely. He used terms such as “Lenin’s mistake” when talking about Ukraine which is rather specific to Russian nationalist ideology. You don’t stumble across such a thing by accident.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      110 months ago

      “There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol,” Musk posted on X, the platform formally known as Twitter that he owns. Sevastopol is a port city in Crimea. “The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor. If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.”

  • @PeleSpirit
    link
    English
    165
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    deleted by creator

  • Heresy_generator
    link
    fedilink
    146
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “How am I in this war?” Musk asks Isaacson. “Starlink was not meant to be involved in wars. It was so people can watch Netflix and chill and get online for school and do good peaceful things, not drone strikes.”

    Musk, transparent as ever, makes sure to tell his biographer that it’s about peace, man, and has nothing to do with his love of authoritarian regimes.

    • @TrismegistusMx
      link
      6310 months ago

      “How am I in this war?”

      Bitch, you put yourself there!

    • @el_doso
      link
      2810 months ago

      And a shit eating little shoe-horn of the phrase “Netflix and chill”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1110 months ago

        He’s just making sure that his personal brand is associated with sexytimes, as per his naming of the Tesla models.

    • @dirthawker0
      link
      2710 months ago

      Didn’t his company supply a bunch of Starlinks because of the war? Was he expecting Ukranians needed to watch more Netflix and do more school stuff while getting bombed out by the Ruzzians? What a crock

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        Yeah, that was when he expected Russia to win easily. Probably figured he’d get a little bit of good PR, then Russia wins and then he could say “I tried to help, but I guess it just didn’t work out for Ukraine.” Just didn’t go the way he expected I guess.

        That and I don’t think he was quite so far down the fascist rabbit hole back then.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1210 months ago

      Maybe if he had any actual knowledge instead of just buying shit and slapping his name on it, he would know that the Internet was originally DARPAnet and was designed for expressly military purposes prior to being co-opted by capitalists.

  • @Zombiepirate
    link
    English
    12110 months ago

    Musk was reportedly motivated to foil the attack out of concern that a strike on Crimea would constitute a “mini-Pearl Harbor” and lead to Russia retaliating with nuclear weapons

    So glad the blue-checks get to dictate our foreign policy now.

    What was all that DoD money for? A suggestion box?

    • @someguy3
      link
      4610 months ago

      Not like Russia invading Ukraine was a mini pearl harbor, nooooooo not that.

      • @ChickenLadyLovesLife
        link
        English
        1610 months ago

        TBF Russia invading Ukraine has turned out to be like Pearl Harbor (the Ben Affleck movie).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          510 months ago

          Michael Bay making a movie that he thought would gain him prestige but it ended up it was way longer than it should’ve been and no one liked it.

          Yup that analogy checks out.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      25
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I don’t think what he did was illegal per se, but he is definitely positioning himself against US geopolitical interests, which is a really bad idea if you are a US citizen, living in the United States. If he were to give away any military secrets that pass through star link, which I’m sure Russia will inevitably ask him to do, he will get arrested for espionage. He should tread very carefully.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2210 months ago

        You got down voted but you’re absolutely right. We, as a collective society, have allowed billionaires and those with obscene amounts of money to operate above the law. We’re seeing it play out over and over through different actions of the rich, and those that get charged usually get lighter sentences or are not convicted. It’s honestly a large scale problem that is not being addressed.

        • @slinkyninja
          link
          110 months ago

          Cut off their funding. Billionaires don’t earn legit money, they harvest it off the money printer and give it to themselves and all their friends.

          Don’t allow these nazis to keep issuing themselves new currency and then forcing everyone else to trade with it in order to sustain their lifestyles.

      • @cazsiel
        link
        610 months ago

        write my senator ig

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2210 months ago

      To be fair the Ukrainian army knew that they were not supposed to use Starlink for military purposes. The company entered into a contract with the Ukranian government particularily for civilian use.

      But yeah, I still agree with you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1010 months ago

      He’s regurgitating a Russian talking point. That’s not him being stupid, it’s him spouting propaganda.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        610 months ago

        “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

        Musk is the personification of that saying.

    • @pastabatman
      link
      26
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Net neutrality is about not favoring (or disfavoring) one type of traffic over another. Turning off the internet entirely doesn’t fit that definition. If he had specifically blocked traffic from the Ukrainian drones, that would be a net neutrality violation. It’s still bad for other reasons though.

        • @NotMyOldRedditName
          link
          310 months ago

          I don’t know if this is the same, but it’s been previously acknowledged that they shut off service at the contested borders.

          So Russia says they own this region now, all starlink would be down there.

          Not sure if that’s still the case

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        610 months ago

        Hm, I don’t think I’d agree. He chose to block this specific traffic. Even if he did it by turning off the internet in the region.

        • @Hobo
          link
          010 months ago

          As far as I know Ukraine doesn’t have any net neutrality regulations. Since net neutrality is per country then I think it’s sort of a moot point. I also think you’d have a hard time arguing that pulling the plug violates net neutrality. You’re effectively treating all traffic the same in that there is no more traffic. I do think it would be interesting to see how that would play out though.

          Aside from that Ukraine would have to go after Musk for it. Which seems like a really bad idea if you want to remain in favor with the increasingly unstable power broker that controls the infrastructure you need.

            • @Hobo
              link
              110 months ago

              I for sure agree that it goes against the spirit of Net Neutrality. I also think it would be interesting to hear what a court would say. I don’t think you’re outright wrong or anything. I just think it’s sitting on the knifes edge. The fact that Ukraine doesn’t have net neutrality means we’ll never really know (At least I hope something like this doesn’t happen again in our lifetimes or ever!)

              And yeah, I certainly think the Ukrainian people have every right to want to see keel hauled for this, but I also don’t think they have the luxury of makinng enemies at the current juncture. Musk is a giant piece of shit for cutting Star Link during a critical operation. He’s a giant piece of shit for a lot of other reasons too, but this one kind of takes a giant piece of the shit cake…

              I just think Ukraine is in a very tough spot with him. Even more awkward given that he’s a single crackpot that has shown to be ready and willing to throw a monkey wrench in their operations because he felt like it.

    • @twistypencil
      link
      810 months ago

      You think Elon gives a rats ass about net neutrality?