39
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago

I disagree.

  1. You already have a government space agency. Maybe give them more funding so they don't have to rely on space-x to get their stuff into orbit?

  2. There's a national telecom network already in place. It at least has the potential to be faster and more reliable, if it isn't already... At least compared to low earth orbit satellite coverage.

There's no good reason to continue providing Elon or his companies with any government handouts. Pull that funding and give it to.... I dunno, students who have more debt than homeowners with a mortgage..... NASA.... Literally anything that helps people?

[-] Knightfox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn't want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn't pay him what it's worth to take it over.

What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It's all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don't like, but after we give them that power what's to stop them from seizing other businesses?

XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.

Let's not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn't made a precedent for changing the rules.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheBannedLemming@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I am not saying that I don't agree with you. But this country is still not even close to considering nationalizing its own telecommunication infrastructure. Much less a privately held space company and a service of communication satellites. A large chunk of America believes that a for-profit business model for every good and service possible in life is the best course of action.

[-] Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

Yes it's the right long term goal, but the US is nowhere near ready for strong nationalised enterprises, they would just stop getting funding and die. There is a requirement for strong, positive minded government and a shared understanding of the benefits of having nationalised societal services before it can work.

[-] minorkeys@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

You have NASA FFS. Just fund it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] hexonxonx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

Starlink should be globalized. A planet only needs one low-altitude orbiting communications network. Better to standardize the technology and platform and let them contribute to one system than to have a dozen identical competing systems crashing into each other and fucking things up for everyone.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago

You could always just fund the space agency you already have, instead of funneling money to a foreign billionaire.

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No this the one time I’m with the commies. Nationalize that shit. Like you said it’s all taxpayer money anyway. A little bit of Wall Street speculation, but who gives a fuck about those people

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

it’s all taxpayer money anyway

Good point.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Has anyone considered funding NASA?

They made rockets that didn't explode with duct tape and a TI-83 calculator.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

If that was actually their expenditure I don't think they'd have their budget cut.

[-] Uruanna@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Shouldn't be incompatible with nationalizing SpaceX and Starlink. Just give it all to NASA, actually.

[-] seven_phone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Hang on a minute, equivalents of SpaceX and Starlink could have naturally grown out of NASA, it was the obvious place for them to come from but NASA did not show that innovation and nationalisation of them might dilute their abilities. For clarity I am not suggesting the innovation came from Musk, he has no science or engineering, his talents are grifting, showmanship and taking credit for other people's work, he is a natural figurehead though and seemed quite clear thinking until he lost his mind.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago
[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Nasa with less risk aversion. If a Nasa rocket blows up that's big news. If a Space X rocket blows up, that's a Tuesday.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Arrest Musk on violation of controlled substances acts, file immigration violation charges, invalidate his ownership shares due to securities fraud, as he falsified education and naturalization forms.

Or just emminent domain the shit. The Law is just made up right now.

[-] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think that's a complicated question. It's both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the precedent, or at least reinforces, the concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be nationalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

remember the halcyon days when NASA could do something and the president might not like it, but they were all FUCKING ADULTS and the grift was well distributed amongst the congresscreatures, so it never devolved into adolescent twitter whining?

goddamn those were better than whatever this shit is

[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The precedent that will set and the implications... No... We should not do this.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The precedent that will set and the implications

and what precedent is there for dealing with the executive of your country's entire space launch infrastructure when they become dependent on horse drugs?

No really, what's the precedent here, I want to know. Because if we set a precedent by ignoring it until the problem is impossible to ignore, that's gonna be a far more expensive fix.

So yeah, yeah we should consider this very strongly.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] pneumatron@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Health insurance, ISP, Oil Cos, and utilities should also be nationalized. The US is a weird place where everything is a business. A shithole capitalist hellscape

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world 1 points 1 month ago

There's already NASA which gets piss poor funding iirc

[-] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah I mean the tax payers have literally already paid for all of both SpaceX and Starlink. The public paid for it, the public should own it.

[-] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

If not Musk should be forced from his roles in these companies. You cannot be a defense contractor and do ketamine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RhondaSandTits@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

Don't give bail-outs to billionaires.

[-] why0y@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

No I would not like taxpayer dollars to buy out Elons shit shows.

Hard pass. Thanks no thanks jacobin

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I've been saying this for years. the footprint that spaceX represents in national launch authority is out of whack to say the least.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The only reason SpaceX exists is because Boeing and Lockheed managed to compete so badly the only solution was to merge their launch businesses.

So we had one launch company, then spaceX made it two providers, now its back to one because B-mart is using antiquated launch systems (single use).

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Angular2575@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I wouldn't nationalize anything long as the orange could possibly profit off it

[-] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

No, they're fine remaining as private companies. If the government wants to better control over the companies then they can pass regulation and if they want total control then they can build their own alternatives. Nationalization of companies should never be used as a political weapon.

[-] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Nah fuck the shareholders, if they do something we depend on and pay for it with tax dollars then we should own them.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

We should just fund NASA and let SpaceX and Starlink go bankrupt to competitors.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
39 points (89.8% liked)

Technology

72688 readers
919 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS