One exists and is wildly useful. The other is self indulgent bullshit to distract from the fact that Tesla is a terrible company that would be bankrupt without the circus act.
Allegedly, yes. I read the Telegraph article. Its claim that Musk proposed the restrictions to Trump relies entirely on four unnamed sources. No documents, recordings, named witnesses, or official confirmation are provided to substantiate that allegation. In other words, the Telegraph is saying "trust me bro"
We know Starshield service was restricted. We also know Starshield is controlled by the US government, with usage restrictions falling under military and presidential authority, not Starlink, and not Musk.
Four sources that tell an entirely believable story. Don’t forget he spends his days on Twitter and 90% of the remaining “users” are Russian bots feeding him propaganda that he obviously believes.
Donald Trump barely controls his own bowl movements so no, when the guy who spent half a billion so he can destroy democracy for Donald Trump asks to shut off a service it will be done.
That's quite a collection of opinions, but none of them independently substantiates the allegation that Musk proposed these restrictions.
You can say the story from unnamed sources is believable to you, but your belief in it doesn't independently substantiate the allegation. Personally, I don't put much stock in allegations without adequate substantiation. They are again essentially 'trust me bro' rumors from the Telegraph.
Your opinions about Musk's Twitter habits and Trump's competence are equally irrelevant to establishing whether Musk actually proposed these restrictions.
1.9k
u/True_Protection6842 8h ago
One exists and is wildly useful. The other is self indulgent bullshit to distract from the fact that Tesla is a terrible company that would be bankrupt without the circus act.