Hacker News Reader

Comment by gouggoug | Hacker News Reader

It will still be owned by a private company you have no control over, which isn't necessarily better

Especially since Iraq is leaning on private companies (ISPs) to get them to shut down the internet.

The one advantage that Starlink might have is, it might be a company beyond the reach of the Iraqi government, and therefore less likely to give in to their pressure to close off access. But what we really need is several such companies, not just one.

Aren't there multiple Starlink competitors in development now?

Yes, they’re just the furthest along and perhaps most likely to succeed since they own the launching mechanism the others would likely use.

Given how satellites don't respect national borders by default, I wonder whether there will be - or maybe already are - international agreements that would make it easier for a nation's government to coerce a foreign operator to deny service over that nation.

At least it's a another competing choice.

That seems much better to me. Comcast only shuts off my internet occasionally, through incompetence. They could censor customers who criticize Comcast, but that isn't maximizing their profits, so they don't.

>It will still be owned by a private company you have no control over

I don't have any ethical justification to enslave or coerce or control a person. Why should I have any ethical justification to enslave or coerce or control, if a group of people get together (a company) to do something?

> >It will still be owned by a private company you have no control over

> I don't have any ethical justification to enslave or coerce or control a person. Why should I have any ethical justification to enslave or coerce or control, if a group of people get together (a company) to do something?

Who said anything about justification? Profit or power is the motive. Those need no justification to their pursuers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com