this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
1036 points (91.1% liked)

Technology

71636 readers
3422 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
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

There's already NASA which gets piss poor funding iirc

[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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 4 points 1 week 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheBannedLemming@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Few words are dirtier to Republicans than "nationalize". They must be torn between following their god-emperor's hurt feelings and allowing Musk's company to be taken over by the government. The best I see them doing is cancelling all contracts and subsidies with SpaceX/Tesla and passing them off to its competitors.

[–] luxyr42@lemmy.dormedas.com 7 points 1 week ago

Just weird it in a way that is more capitalist lingo: " The govt will acquire a majority controlling stake and take the company private under it's direct control"

[–] something_random_tho@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also the Tesla charging infrastructure!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 1 week ago

The oligarchs wouldn't like that precedent but they might go for purchasing SpaceX since it is owned by a foreigner. Kind of like with TikTok....

[–] Campliving69@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago

Agreed. These are things that should be of the people.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (34 children)

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

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

No thanks, demolish Leon Hitler's space program and bury it. NASA should be the US leader for space missions and not a South African neo-Nazi sack of shit.

[–] seven_phone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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 (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›