[easton]

SpaceX specifically said that this system isn’t designed to be a way to get unrestricted internet access in censorship-ridden states. Outside of the US, terminals will be sold by resellers that comply with local laws (for example, in China traffic will be routed through the GFW).

Sure you could smuggle a American terminal in, but SpaceX won’t help you.

[alkonaut]

Is that because they want to reach e.g. the Chinese market? It would be the perfect showcase. Starlink could (and imho should) create a "dissenter backpack" with a starlink kit (Terminal and wifi hotspot) plus batteries for a few hours of unplugged operation. Unfortunately the size of the dish and the power requirements make it pretty inconvenient and risky for the user.

[xoa]

A lot of countries beyond the most strong authoritarian have speech laws much more restrictive than America's. Even beyond censorship, there are also basic spectrum regulations and so on per country that are genuinely very important and have significant international treaties around. SpaceX isn't trying to be some rogue player here, that'd be an absolutely enormous briar patch to step into particularly at such an early stage.

Furthermore there is sheer practical considerations: ground terminals won't be stealthy at all, and in fact it's not clear to what extent they could be stealthy against a serious state actor. By definition, they are active EM emitters in very specific bands and must be detectable hundreds of km up. With their phased arrays the emissions should be reasonably focused, but even so it's not like it's a tight beam optical link or even a covert wired tap. Use of them would probably be readily detectable if authorities cared to do so, they're literally broadcasting themselves. Military gear tries to avoid this with techniques like massive pseudo-random frequency hopping at low energies but that's not really an option here. And of course, operating at quite low energies and known frequencies, Starlink may be quite susceptible to even fairly primitive active jamming.

I hope it does serve some small democratizing purpose, but I suspect any of that for the foreseeable future will be primarily in the form of disrupting de facto cozy hookups, not going against explicit law by nation-states. Ie., in some places monopoly infrastructure players might choose to censor stuff they don't have to per se on their own volition for their own profits, or take under the table payments/coercion to give intel agencies access beyond what they're formally entitled too etc. Starlink might in principle force some of that out into the open, a given nation would at least have to formally put a law on the books (which might itself cause protests, changes in government if there is still some level of democracy, and international expense). But SpaceX isn't just going to flat out actively try to circumvent law around the world.