this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
823 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3196 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DelightfullyDivisive@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you saying that geolocation of a starlink unit is difficult from the starlink satellite network? That seems unlikely to me.

Starlink has no reason outside sanctions to give a fuck where their payments are coming from

Do you see a moral dimension to this? Keeping technology out of the hands of an aggressor state is an excellent reason. I think that many people feel that because corporate entities behave like criminal organizations (indifferent to anything other than maximizing their own profits) that this is somehow OK. It isn't, and normalizing isn't acceptable either.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you saying that geolocation of a starlink unit is difficult from the starlink satellite network?

In 99% of cases? No. In the case of a state actor intentionally wanting to obsfucate the location? Absolutely.

Do you see a moral dimension to this?

You’re either missing the point or ignoring it. If you bothered to read around that sentence, you’d realize that in context it has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with other companies with a financial incentive failing to do it. If a company loses out on 75+% of their profit when I pay for YouTube out of India, and fail to stop me despite active efforts, how do you expect a company to manage it against a state actor.

[–] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yputube ignore it because it is cheaper to ignore than to pay people to fight against it. If enough people do it don't worry they will fund and find methods to block user using VPN to pay abonnement

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They do fight it. They cracked down on it a couple months back. Didn’t stop all users, and it wouldn’t stop just asking a friend in the respective country to buy it for you and pay them on the side.

Which is my point. You’re coming at this like it’s Joe Everybody is being discussed, when we are talking about an entire country which is actively succeeding at influencing other countries.

[–] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 1 points 1 month ago

True enough. I wasn't precise enough if they really wanted to crack down on it and reduce it to nearly zero they would have way. But the cost excède the benefit. For starlink that the same. They surely can know where the data are sent and disable suspected starlink asking for them to contact call center for exemple. Which a drone can't do. This wouldn't be trivial or cheap but that doable. We built systems far more complex than that