this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
1017 points (91.1% liked)

Technology

71087 readers
2858 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
1017
We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink (jacobin.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Pro@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
424 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Knightfox@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours 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.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

The problem they don't see is that once a precedent is set, also the other party can do it. What you point out is valid also like "XYZ company refuses to establish a DEI policy because the shareholders voted agains ? Well not the democratic president 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.

Tipical case of not looking beyond one's nose