Exposing Musk’s Lies: Claiming that Starlink is a "civilian commercial service… · @PatrickkkkKim · TwKit

@PatrickkkkKim

Exposing Musk’s Lies: Claiming that Starlink is a "civilian commercial service" is a lie. You activated the service in February 2022 at the request of a Ukrainian minister, and in June 2023, the Pentagon signed a formal contract. Poland contributes $50 million annually for 30,000 terminals, while 3,000 "Starshield" terminals are covered under a Pentagon contract—is this what you call a "civilian commercial service"? Do your standard consumer broadband services operate under wartime contracts? You know better than anyone that, from day one, Starlink has served as the backbone for Ukraine’s wartime military communications. Now that there’s trouble, you suddenly pivot to calling it a "civilian service"—trying to offload the liabilities of a military contract onto "consumer terms." It was a military service when the contract was signed, but a "civilian service" when it’s time to take responsibility; you flip-flop faster than one can turn a page. "Never authorized"—then why was it permitted for three and a half years? It has been public knowledge since 2022 that Ukraine uses Starlink to operate drones. Even after Gwynne Shotwell drew a "red line" in 2023, the usage continued, contracts were signed, and payments were made. These terms went unenforced for three and a half years, only to be suddenly invoked late on October 13th—coincidentally, just after Trump reportedly reached a "diesel deal" with Putin on October 9th, suggested on October 10th that Ukraine should change its president, and called for an "energy ceasefire" on October 11th (implying: stop attacking Russian oil refineries). How is it that your enforcement schedule aligns perfectly with Donald Trump’s political agenda? "Starshield is controlled by the U.S. government; they make the decisions"—this statement completely contradicts your own position. On October 21st, the Pentagon explicitly stated that it had issued no such restrictions. If the government didn’t mandate these restrictions, yet they occurred anyway, then who made the decision? The *Wall Street Journal* reported on October 21st that the order came from you personally. You tried to shift the blame onto the U.S. government, but since they deny issuing any such order, the responsibility lands squarely back on you. This isn't a defense; it’s a confession. Ukraine violated the terms of service—this conflates two distinct concepts. First, military-grade terminals are governed by Pentagon contracts, not the consumer terms of service meant for home broadband; are you seriously trying to apply consumer terms to a war? Second, you characterize these as "offensive drone strikes" intended to kill people—but is intercepting drones sent to bomb cities "killing"? No, it’s saving lives. Framing defense as offense is the most insidious part of your entire argument. "Vulnerability"—can you really call something a "vulnerability" when it has been used in the same way for three and a half years? You failed to notice it for all that time, only to "discover" it right after the Starlink/diesel-generator protocol issue. This isn't about patching a technical vulnerability; it’s about patching a political stance.

曝光 22 · 评论 0 · 点赞 0 · 书签 0