Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "TechAltar" channel.

......satellite internet, starlink, decentralized systems access....
1
@death_parade you missed the entire point of my comment. that being that if a person wants to get onto the global internet, they CAN access global networks, no matter how many firewalls the local gov puts in place. Global satellites do NOT have to follow teh laws of the land, as they don't exist in the land, they exist in space (international territory). there is no way I'd be pals with you, you're not smart enough for me to waste my time hanging out with you.
1
@death_parade India has no legal authority over outer space. Are you saying India is a tyranical gov that want's to go the way of CCP or the Soviets? you have no grasp of how technology works. "A similar set of rules also applies to Musk's Starlink. Why shouldn't it? " it doesn't. if you own a starlink receiver, anywhere you go on earth, you can get service, just like a sat phone. And people care less what india thinks thatn they do what China thinks.
1
@death_parade censorship doesn't help india, it hurts it. And why does india fear people being able to communicate with teh outside world? "You have no grasp of how English works" oh? so says the person from a non-english country (india make speak it, barely, but they have their own language). Insults don't make you right though. "Don't give a damn what "people think". India will look after its national interests. " good for it. but it's also in no possition to stop other nations, and has no need unless it hates its citizens.
1
@death_parade you keep using India as your example, and the only reason to restrict access to teh internet is to control the flow of information, what gets in or out. you're wanting to control what someone sees or doesn't see. "NOBODY in India ever said that we are going to stop people from communicating with the outside world. " except that that is 100% EXACTLY what my original comment and entire arguments have been about thus far. Pay attetnion.
1
@death_parade 1.) In case riots are brewing between two communities, cutting off internet access for a while can allow tempers to run cool and Police to have better access to the situtaiton. Cutting off whole communities, even those not involved, those who need emergncy help, need to get ahold of family, etc. in a crisis is a VERY IRRESPONDIBLER move. Being able to report crimes to police, etc. is vital. 2.) In case foreign governments like CCP are using internet apps for targeting citizens of our country, censoring these apps can protect unsuspecting citizens. This has literally NOTHING to do with censoring internet or cutting off internet access. apps =/= internet. Stay on topic. 3.) All these decisions can be challenged by Indian public on a case by case basis in an independent judiciary that is self-appointing and not under the government's control. This is the major check and balance that ensures government can't abuse its powers. The other check is the elections themselves. Again, has NO relevance to the topic at hand. you're just rambling aimlessly now.
1
@death_parade "2.) This has everything to do with the topic at hand because the video mentioned this particular thing and labeled it as internet censorship. In fact this is the only example of internet censorship it gave from India. Everything else was about point 1 (internet shutdowns)." Not relevant to MY COMMENT or point I was making. you have a very thick skull apparently. It's like talking to a wall. "3.) Again, its very relevant to the topic because I am pointing out exactly where the checks and balances in this system are. I am pointing out exactly how India doing internet shutdowns is different from China doing the same. The latter is not held accountable to the people. The former is. Isn't that what this entire conversation is about?" Still not relevant to MY COMMENT. I swear reading comprehension and critical thinking are a very rare artform most modern humans can't master.
1
@death_parade Starlink doesn't have to comply. you can't control a radio signal once sent, and so as long as someone has a reciever, they can pick it up. Now, your country can ban receivers, but as long as a person doesn't get caught they can still use it. Do get yourself checked to make sure you have a brain.
1
@death_parade but that denies coverage of starlink to any nation within view of those satellites. And denies access to those who have every right to use the starlink service. Are you banning air travel over india as well? airlines passing through have every right to remain connected to internet. Your garbage coding idea flies in the face of reality and how physics works. It's an overly simplistic and childish view of reality. youre not very good at this thing called logical reasoning. "HOW" nope, you failed miserably at that. "WHY" nope, failed there too, not accounting for all situations or possibilities. "Starlink CAN and MUST comply". only tyrannical people like yourself think in such absolutist ways. and they don't Have to do Anything fi they don't want to. they are free to broadcast in international territory. Can india ban a radio station operating from a ship in the Indian ocean (international territoriy)? no, they cannot. Yet that radio signal can reach india and be heard in india. Can india ban a radio broadcast in the US? No! yet radio broadcasts from all over the globe reach india every day.
1
@death_parade "Again, ignoring your personal attacks", one, they are insults, not attacks. two, good, finally someone at least smart enough to separate insults from arguments. "Looks like you never heard of what a NOTAM is. What an ADIZ is. What an FIR is. Or the fact that airline communications are on the VHF band, not on the Ku or Ka band in which Starlink operates." nope, pilot, well aware. but the fact india routinely bans communications and airline traffic explains a lot for me..... India has the potential of a world leading nation, but remains third world, the reasons are becoming clear why. no india cannot stop communications in international waters. imagine jamming SOS signals and shit. India does not have blanket authority in international territory. Jamming is illegal in the US and would be an act of war if done by a foreign country. By US law, HAM radio cannot be stopped, even by the US gov, as it is part of our national defense network and is protected by law, and jamming is illegal in the US, except by the US gov for specific reasons in specific places and times, usually with prior warning. Forcing foreign code on starlink is hostile, and acting like you own space is hostile. Do you also prevent spy satellites taking photos of india? "Based on this comment, do you still think so?" hell yes. it's like debating a child. there is an old parable. Don't roll in teh mud with a pig, you'll only get dirty and they'll enjoy it. You're the pig in that. You will say any outlandish and false thing you need to in order to be right. Yet, india does Not have the authority nor the ability to do what you claim. And why you and India want so badly to stop communications is beyond me. it's a tyrannical move.
1
@death_parade "by your logic, G7 including USA are "third world"" this is a completely false argument, false equivalency. putting out a NOTAM for runway closures due to maintenance, or tower lights out, or parachut jumping areas active is not teh same as banning communications and internet access to teh public for no reason. "India can indeed stop any marine vessel in international waters from broadcasting signals into India when such signals are found carrying communications detrimental to Indian national interests. " no it cannot, international waters does not fall within India's jusrisdiction. and I'd like to see you try stopping radio broadcasts from China. "I never said India would jam HF radios in USA." I asked you a very specific question,a nd you gave a very specific answer, it's not a strawman to point out the response you gave, as it was your argument, not mine. " we could diplomatically ask the US government to use its law enforcement agencies to put a stop to any such hostile transmission. " and the US gov would tell you to piss off, as it is illegal to restrict such lawful transmissions in teh US. "Nobody is "forcing foreign code on Starlink". Strawman argument. " not a strawman, if you want Starlink to implement a code detrimental to their service, at Your demand, that is foreign code added to appease you, not them. it's not code they wanted to add. "And in order to comply with the law of the land, Starlink might have to do this one day." wrong again. you're claiming you can enforce laws on US companies and individuals, in US terriroty, and you cannot. That would be an act of war. "Already explained above how this is legitimate, moral and not tyrannical. Already explained above the exact mechanisms that India can employ in each case. Its not my fault your comprehension is poor. " what you've explained is a dictator's fantasy, but not practical or enforceable in reality. it's a child's view of reality.
1