Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st | Hacker News Reader

They could make it 1000GB for US$10/month and I still wouldn't give any money to a company associated with that man.

I know everyone has strong opinions about Elon, but for $10/mo I would absolutely get this. At $50/mo, I don't have enough of a need to get it.

There is a ”secret” $10/month 10GB roam plan.

No longer available for new sign ups.

I don’t think it was ever available upon sign up. I got it offered when I tried to cancel my 50/mo plan.

"That man" is the only person so far who's actually helped the Iranian people get their voices heard amidst government shutdown of the entire internet.

Like it or not, Persians love him.

And Escobar financed hospitals.

The same guy could help some people and kick others in the dirt at the same time.

The same Persians in a western country would be called a threat to western culture by parties Musk endorses

This is a very low effort reply. Does doing one good thing erase all the bad things a person has done? If that's the argument you're making, make it.

As I recently said about Scott Adams: "Good things can be done by Bad people." I think to assume that humans are these monolithic, logically consistent entities is to badly misunderstand humanity.

For example, Planned Parenthood--an organization I definitely believe in--was essentially created by a woman who was a eugenicist--something I definitely do not believe in.

> I think to assume that humans are these monolithic, logically consistent entities is to badly misunderstand humanity.

I don't think anyone is doing that though. But to decide whether to give someone's business money you do have to come to some sort of decision about their net good vs bad. It's logically consistent for the OP to be aware that Musk is aiding internet connectivity in Iran but still oppose giving him money.

> It's logically consistent for the OP to be aware that Musk is aiding internet connectivity in Iran but still oppose giving him money.

Why not flip this on its head? It's also logically consistent for people to be aware that Elon has done things they disagree with and still choose to buy his products.

Were I to be supporting PP when Sanger was still alive, I would not have been enriching her, or enabling other things that she believed in (at least not to any extent that would trouble me). Mostly because PP has always been a not-for-profit organization.

Being a Starlink customer, to me, has a straight line connection to enabling that man to do all the things he does.

people understandably love to understand complex things as simple logical puzzle pieces. they do it with words too. people have this tendency to act like words are formally-defined mathematical concepts, and then agonise over whether their experiences fit those concepts, then use those concepts as proof for their arguments. this is, of course, essentially simply a description of communicating with language, and for most words it's absolutely fine; the words have so little variance and breadth in definition that it doesn't matter. the issue arises when the words are not clearly defined, and it becomes even worse (and more common) when the words are emotionally loaded. people adore using emotionally, loaded, weakly defined terms to end an argument quickly. it's essentially sophistry. we're all absolutely awash with these terms right now due to the dominance of headlines, tweets, content titles and other short form stretches that demand dense, emotionally charged meaning in a small space. if you'd like some examples, take "fascism", "sexual harassment" and "eugenics".

don't say someone is "essentially a eugenicist". it's such a vaguely defined term that this borders on useless. if you believe something like this, justify it with: "she supported x policy I disagree with" or "she believed in the reduction of y trait in the populace" or whatever it is that triggered you to take on this belief in the first place

don't call someone else's comment low effort and follow it with little more than a strawman-ish summary of what you'd like the comment to have said

Low effort reply?!? Did you see the comment it’s in reply to? It’s completely substance free complaining about Elon in a thread about Starlink.

By this logic, Persians also hate him because he played a big factor in destroying USAID, an organization that has helped Iranians in humanitarian aid and disaster relief. Persian-language broadcasting by Voice of America and Radio Farda has been destroyed by Musk.

> By this logic, Persians also hate him because he played a big factor in destroying USAID, an organization that has helped Iranians in humanitarian aid and disaster relief.

Is this a joke? Persians never received such aids. If USAID sent any money to Iran, it went straight to the islamic regime's proxies in the region.

As the other poster said, low effort reply. You can start with the Bam earthquake and work your way to the loss of Radio Farda. You beloved Musk put an end to the Middle Eastern Broadcasting Network.

That's such an unique viewpoint that no one has expressed on the internet.

Thank you for bringing value to this comments section.

I was hoping to bring my karma down a bit.

Et tu, wtfHN26.

I'm surprised that you signed up for an account just to say something this empty

Just FYI you accidentally replied to wtfHN26 instead of PaulDavisThe1st

The more I learn about Musk's past, his family, his ties to the paypal mafia, the more I want absolutely nothing to do with him.

Him or any of his companies will never see a penny from me.

Noted, your principles are clearly priceless. The rest of us will just keep enjoying the world’s best mobile internet while you hold the line.

You are good.

Thank you!

This resonates for me.

I do not want my technology tied to some person I consider of despicable character. Would I buy a cell phone, even at a good deal from Putin? No. Corporations have increasingly become political. Thanks, United vs FEC! So we see them taking a knee to gain commercial advantage. And as in this case harm to our democracy.

In my opinion, no discussion about Starlink is complete without considering whether the money you pay will be used to profit people or causes you do not want.

If you need this, then great. But I have other choices, just as I would not touch a tesla even if you gave it to me. I just am not that desperate.

Apple is incorporated in California, USA. Does this mean that you're not buying iPhones either because you don't like Trump?

I’m always amazed how much people attribute to citizens united, a ruling that overturned portions of a law that was only on the books for 7 years at the time.

A law that existed to forestall or stop a trend of increasing regulatory capture via bribery, er, "campaign contributions"

A large part of it is mistaking the effect of the central holding in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) as stemming from Citizens United v. FEC (2010).

Hmmm. The ruling had a far greater impact than simply that law. It established that corporations have the same right to free speech that ordinary citizens do as a general principle.

What is the result. We now have a situation where a candidate cannot be elected without a large amount of funding. You will need to either be a billionaire or a corporate toady to get elected. Who is the elected official beholden to? What does the elected official have to do to improve their chances of re-election? Do better by the voters do better by the corporation. This is simple logic.

Added to that you have corporations and the rich controlling the media. Murdoch, Bezos, Musk. If the common citizens want to have a living wage be the minimum, Jeff Bezos does not. How willing is the Washington Post to raise the banner of changing the US minimum wage? This is a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious.

And any media that are not outright owned by the greed afflicted, most media receive a substantial part of their income from advertising, they are also not beholden to common citizens. The New York Times wants to appeal to the rich because that is the market for their advertisers. That is why you see stories in the NYT about "How much second vacation home will two million buy you in Maine". And that is why you do not see stories about "How much hovel will minimum wage buy you in Maine".

Wait until you hear about what the early pioneers of the electronic device you're using right now used to think... And do.

You gonna throw your computer away?

My concern is that man, not the many people who work in the corporations who make the computing devices that I use. It's not exactly that those corporations have an unblemished record, but compared to what that guy did during his brief utterly ruinous stint with DOGE and in his election support of that other guy, there isn't a computing device company that doesn't look like St Francis of Assissi.

Don't worry, this is the type of project that can easily get nationalized with zero pushback if anyone with authority wanted to.

yes but only by a US authority.

Yes and the seeds have already been planted by the current US administration taking various financial stakes in public companies as a condition of corporate welfare.

The current administration didn’t start that, see the bailouts of the 07-08 financial crisis.

Those were just repaying the loans, having a stake in a company is completely different. It's not hard to push that further and in more creative ways too.

That’s completely incorrect, they got significant equity in AIG, Citibank, and several other companies.

Even better, this is a policy that has been done by multiple Presidents. All you need know is an executive willing to do it as it's clearly in the President's power to dictate commerce if they can force the federal government to take equity in various companies at any time (even better if said company relies on US welfare to exist).

I don't see this as a good analogy, because the financial crisis bailout appeared to save the companies from shuttering, which is not what happened under the current admin.

Some of it is. Intel was in big trouble.

Some of the investments were more national security related and a lot of it was done through the DoD which has a history of this too.

It’s unusual but not entirely unprecedented.

Huge difference between taking an equity stake in a failing company and nationalizing a successful company. Either way, those seeds were planted well before this admin, though this admin can be seen to have watered/tended them.

One of those differences being "Hey, we want to buy some shares at market price, will you sell them to us?" vs "We're taking over your company, and if you don't like it, talk to the men with the guns".

That might have pretty negative long time consequences. Nationalize a few companies and soon the corporates might relocate.

Where are they going to go? Honest question, because capital flight is always a threat that never materializes. Turns out the actual pillars of wealth can't easily be extracted out of the country.

Literally any other country offering anything better than nationalization

So no where, lol got it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com