[londons_explore]

There are 7.8 billion people on earth. 7.5 billion of them had no say at all, and 0.33 billion of them had a tiny say via elected representatives who wrote the laws before starlink was even envisioned.

I'm pretty sure if a global vote was held on the question of "Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched so you have the option of paying a US company for broadband anywhere in the world?", the vote outcome would be a firm 'No'.

[kube-system]

Presuming that you translated it to every language:

* 3 billion people don't care because they don't use the internet

* 7 billion people don't care because they wouldn't be able to afford it anyway

* 7 billion people don't care because the question doesn't make much sense to them nor do they really understand what it is about

* 4 billion people likely won't participate because voting is not an activity they are familiar with and/or is not something they desire to participate in.

Direct democracy also has a pretty bad track record in producing just, principled, and reasoned results.

[londons_explore]

> X billion people don't care because they don't use the internet/can't afford

But nearly all 7.8 billion live under the night sky and see 'moving stars'. And that's why I think a global vote would come out saying 'no'.

[inemesitaffia]

You'd also get a no to gay and trans rights

[kube-system]

Vanishingly few of those people have any idea what a satellite is, let alone that they may be visible in the night sky. The vast majority of the global population leans on religion or superstition to explain natural phenomenon. If you know what a star even is, you're in the minority. You might as well flip a coin, because very few people on the planet would even understand the question.

I think you're right that the vote would be no, but not for the same reason you do.

I think many people reading:

> Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched

... would stop right there and say "I have no idea what that is, so no"

[MRtecno98]

> I'm pretty sure the vote would be a firm "No"

So... you're critizing having no elections by assuming the outcome of one based purely on personal intuition? I think you're making the same mistake you seem to criticize.

Also just think about the impracticality of doing something like that and at the same time the fact that of that 7.5B, 90% probably wouldn't care. How many complaints about starlink have you received from, idk, China or Zimbawe or rural Russia?

[boxed]

If you ask the entire world you would get stupid answers to a lot of questions. "How old is the universe?" for example would get it hilariously wrong.

[mihaic]

You're mixing up matters of logic and fact (how old the universe is) with matters of personal preference (like what I want to eat, should flying cars fill the skyline of my city).

People can be trusted a lot more in the second category, which is generally also their right. If they have valid concerns that are getting dismissed, they're not gonna like talking to you.

[boxed]

Citation needed. You can probably ask a few followup questions for many stated preferences and watch the preference fall into dust.

I know personally that when I chose from menus at restaurants I am hilariously bad at picking what I like, while my wife is consistently better at choosing what I like.

[inemesitaffia]

Some, but not all

[cm2187]

Particularly given that the satellites are absolutely minuscule compared to the distances between them. People are bad at conceptualising tiny fractions.

[Etherlord87]

You can see them with a naked eye so it's not that minuscule. Either just before sunrise or just after sunset, when the sky is black, and so your eye adapts and you start to see things otherwise too dark to be visible on the sky (stars), the Starlink satellites reflect the light from the Sun (because they are higher than you and so their daylight is longer, earlier sunrise, later sunset).

[boxed]

You can see a star with the naked eye even though it coverers no space on the sky. The size is not relevant.

[hnbad]

Not miniscule enough to not interfere with astronomy due to the exposure times and light sensitivity involved.

But yes, they're not big enough to cause a "space junk preventing space travel" kind of scenario.

[boxed]

They reflect enough light. This is different from them occupying significant space. Stars on the night sky for example can be visible with the naked eye but were you to travel 9/10th the way towards them they would STILL appear the exact same size to your eye.

[Etherlord87]

I think the 2nd statement of yours is a false dilemma: Starlink is increasing risks in space travel - a space rocket now needs (even more - otherwise it would be a false dilemma as well) maneuverability to stick to the planned path or avoid a satellite if the path changed, I don't think it's easy considering how rockets are propelled by continuous explosions, where an engine becoming disabled is somewhat normal…

And of course once all goes to hell and you have a chain reaction of destroyed satellites destroying other satellites - each next satellite moves the scenario towards a positive feedback loop.

[JumpCrisscross]

> once all goes to hell and you have a chain reaction of destroyed satellites destroying other satellites - each next satellite moves the scenario towards a positive feedback loop

There is no orbital solution in which this happens to any meaningful extent. Even worst-case scenarios of massive anti-satellite activity create localised messes that clear in a few months.

[Etherlord87]

From Wikipedia[1]:

One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

[MRtecno98]

Starlink satellites naturally decay into unstable orbits after 5 years without boost-backs

[modeless]

There are a lot of good reasons we don't have worldwide direct democracy for everything...

And it's absolutely not true that the US is the only country that has a say here. International regulatory bodies exist as well. Maybe the citizens of some countries don't have effective governments that express their will at the UN but that's not SpaceX's fault. There is a process to have everyone's voice heard. It's not the wild west.

And I think you underestimate how much people like and want truly global wireless internet service. The value to the world is enormous.

[danw1979]

You could ask a less leading question, like “would you like it if you had the ability to rent infrastructure to get access to a much better internet connection that your local ISPs, and even your own government have no chance of building themselves ?”

I’m British, so this question definitely applies to me, by the way.

[mikro2nd]

For a good portion of the world I think you'd have to add, "...at a price roughly equal to [insert large percentage, in places exceeding 100%] your monthly income," to get a more realisic response.

[kube-system]

When it comes to global topics, I think a lot of people in high income countries often forget that we live in a privileged bubble.

7% of the world has a college degree.

The median full-time fast food worker in the US is in the top 6% income, globally.

[danw1979]

I think in the places you’re thinking of, using starlink as backhaul for community wireless is more likely ?

There’s always going to be capex to bring the internet to far-flung places, but my point was that starlink means it’s no longer “dig a 100km trench and install a fibre” expensive.

[mardifoufs]

This is literally how it has been since the start of the space age. For people outside of the US or Russia, not having any say in what happens in space is normal. The only difference here is that Americans are surprised when they themselves have to go through the same thing, but even then the American government has full control of starlink for all intents and purposes.

It's always funny to me when I see this "7.8 billion people didn't choose a private corporation", as if they chose the american government lol.

[Etherlord87]

What alternative do you propose? To do nothing? We organize into democracies, where everyone votes on representatives, which rule the controlling institutions giving permissions (or not) for such undertakings.

It's surprising to me so many people are angry over the sky being polluted visually, and not over common air poisoning by burning fuel, river pollution by dumping waste, ocean and sea pollution by ship transportation, plastic pollution, and many other... Rain water is already above (arbitrary) safe toxicity level and so shouldn't be drunk... So what you're doing is you're in a house fire and complain on some noise. This doesn't mean of course you're wrong: the pollution is a problem to astronomers and to the safety of space ventures.

[inemesitaffia]

They'd also vote to end gay rights