GP probably thinks it's important that anti-mask, anti-vaccine, pro-violence rhetoric makes its way to the top of the replies in the name of "free speech".
> The social media giant fully or partially complied with 98.8 percent of takedown requests it received from October 27, the date of Musk’s takeover, to April 13, including hundreds of requests from Turkey and India, which have faced criticism for silencing critics.
> Twitter fully complied with 440, or 50 percent, of requests and partially complied with 377, or 42 percent, during the 12-month period before Musk’s takeover.
Meanwhile, legitimate newspapers like "Kyiv Independent" is getting deprioritized right now. Because its become obvious that Elon is anti-Ukrainian with a huge number of his actions.
Those come from the Pentagon's budget, not Elon Musk.
2. Musk turned off Starlink in Crimea.
3. Musk believes Crimea belongs to Russia. Following, and loudly proclaiming, Russian propaganda.
----------
Given all the issues Starlink has been having, all it has proven is that SpaceX is an unreliable partner. In the future, its clear that unless your politics line up with Musk, you shouldn't trust that internet service.
That article was dated April 8th 2022 over a year ago. A more recent article says that the U.S. stopped paying for them in September and SpaceX picked up the costs. Then in December they got funding from European countries. If Musk were “anti-Ukraine” he would have simply stopped the service. SpaceX is the sole internet provider for a vast part of Ukraine.
A Ukrainian official said:
"Musk assured us he will continue to support Ukraine. When we had a powerful blackout, I messaged him on that day and he momentarily reacted and has already delivered some steps. He understands the situation."
Boy, that doesn’t sound very anti-Ukrainian to me.
Crimea belongs to Russia. Russia invaded in 2014 and no one, including Obama, did anything about it. The entire world stepped back and let it happen. No one lifted a finger. You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. The outcome of war determines who owns land, regardless of what people may want to see. People may say what they want about Israel’s right to occupy the Holy Land but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Israel owns the land that it occupies.
> "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.
I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.
No, not moral ownership. De facto ownership. I never talked anything about morality. The fact is Russia took Crimea by force and is physically occupying it. The only way to get it back is by force. Until they Russia unquestionably owns Crimea. Saying “it’s not fair!” will not change the fact that Russia is currently owning Crimea.
You don't need to "talk anything about morality" to make a statement about it. In fact you flatly dismissed any concept of ownership except the one in which I am the strongest and I own a thing because I took it by force and hold on to it by the same means, so that is your concept of a moral basis for ownership, whatever you want to call it.
If you would like to clarify your position, feel free to do so. But I'm afraid doing so may undermine the point you were trying to make.
I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea.
But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
I’m stating a fact with no opinion behind it. Russia owns Crimea. If the rest of the world cared or supported Ukraine back in 2014, they would have done something but no one lifted a finger including Obama.
These are facts. If the world wants to help Ukraine reclaim Crimea then they would be doing so but no one is.
Now whether the world SHOULD help Ukraine reclaim Crimea is a separate question but there is no confusion over the ownership of Crimea currently: it’s Russia. To argue otherwise is unintelligent and immature.
Do you support #1 or #2? Mr. Musk has chosen #2, a decidedly pro-Russian stance on this matter. If you want to argue #2 or whatever, sure. Whatever. But that's on you buddy, and whatever semantic games you wanna play I don't have to put up with it. I recognize what you want.
----------
In any case, its obvious Mr. Musk isn't a reliable partner. We need to work on giving the Ukrainian commandos (and partisans) in Crimea access to internet without Starlink. Even if we somehow forced Mr. Musk into the right decision here, he could flip at any time. So finding an alternative satellite internet company is in USA's and Ukraine's best interest.
What exactly is your point now, because you’re all over the place and thrashing in a cringeworthy fashion.
You argued that Musk was “anti-Ukrainian” and I destroyed that argument with words from Ukrainian officials themselves.
Now you’re saying… that Musk is still anti-Ukrainian because he turned off Starlink in Crimea even though he has it in every other place in Ukraine? Or that Musk is inconsistent or capricious?
Go ahead but don’t expect me to participate and waste my time, I’m not interested.
My point is pretty simple. Musk should allow Ukraine to use Starlink in Crimea.
Do you agree, or disagree?
You have a way of dancing around my point. So lets be as short and direct as possible.'
> I destroyed that argument with words from Ukrainian officials themselves.
Cool. So... it wouldn't be so hard for Musk to enable Crimean access to Starlink? Argue all you want, but the Ukrainians are waiting. And whenever Mr. Musk supporters go on wild tangents about why Russia is the true owner of Crimea or some other crap like that, you only hurt the argument and further prove Mr. Musk's pro-Russian sympathies.
