Starlink isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't go for "it's so not our problem, we'll just make sure that every single VPN exit point Iranians use is GeoIP'd as Iran in our systems" like Google tends to, or "let's lick every authoritarian boot, we control the app distribution and our users will suck it up" like Apple does.

Not even Starlink has the balls to oppose the likes of Russia and China directly - they aren't operating there without a permit, sadly. But at least they don't kneel before every two-bit dictatorship and cave to every single "we want you to do censorship on our behalf" demand. Way better than what most tech companies do now.

I'm unfortunately inclined to not look at their actions so favourably. They operate solely in jurisdictions where the US state supports open destabilization, and dont where the political ramifications would be too high for the US. Makes them little more than an extension of the US imperialist structure.

And this makes sense for an organization thats so highly reliant on federal support, vs Apple and Google who only have to just stay somewhat in the states good graces.

As a private platform, SpaceX did try to draw a line with where their service could be used in Ukraine, but we're talking about Iranian protestors now, a different matter I think. If they were offering a firewall as a service, then what you're saying would be more true.

Apple and Google have done more than just stay in good graces of governments by getting rid of apps governments don't like, they haven't enforced their terms against X, and given tens of millions to Trump's ballroom.

> They operate solely in jurisdictions where the US state supports open destabilization

Could you expand on that? Are you saying that the US state wants destabilization in every place that Starlink is accessible? Like the UK, Australia, and USA itself? Which group are you considering the "US state" for that?

I assumed the context of the conversation was given to be understood, my bad. In the context of Starlink operating in nations for the purpose of bypassing internet censorship, as is the context of the conversation, starlink only operates were the US sanctions it to (iran) to further its imperialist goals, and it does not operate where it would hurt the US politically (russia). So pretending that starlink is operating from some kind of moral high ground rather than just SpaceX and most of Musks companies are heavily reliant on federal support so are at their beck and call is weird idolising of a corporate entity.

Imagine if Starlink came with special channel to X.com. UK would loose their minds.

Is x.com blocked in the UK?

Not yet, but soon. Possibly even this year.

Curious: Will this be implemented on DNS level?

DNS level is too easy to circumvent - you just set your server to 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8, and it's enough just one of them refuses to kowtow to Ofcom. More likely it'd de on routing level. Which has obvious problems unless they build full-blown DPI firewall and implement VPN blocking (they may consult China for that) but to cut off the most lazy users it'd be effective.

X will be in the same category as rt.

You may wish to look what is happening closer to home before engaging in such low level trolling.