Starlink throttling Ukraine sets a dangerous precedent

Elon Musk’s decision - or the US government’s decision, as Musk pleads - to slow Ukraine’s access to Starlink sets several dangerous precedents which should alarm us all.

Whether the order was given by Musk or the White House is largely immaterial because they are peas in a pod. Musk is the owner and operator of Starlink and its military arm Starshield. While it may be true that Starshield is operated exclusively by the US government, it is a government which Musk himself loudly supports and has spent millions to keep in power, so the distinction is academic.

More recently it was suggested that Musk approached Trump with the idea. This would give them both what they desire most after money and adulation: deniability.

We need to make a few things clear:

The internet is a tool of war.

Despite what any techno-hippies would like to believe, the internet was originally created for military purposes. The objective was to have an uninterruptible computer network which could survive a nuclear strike. Everything we rely on the internet for today can be put down to unintended consequences.

Today, internet access is an essential service. I’m not smart enough to interpret the law but it’s generally accepted that your internet service provider is no more responsible for how you use the service than Smith & Wesson are for how their customers choose to use their products. If you use the internet to steal intellectual property, harass people, commit fraud, sell drugs, or otherwise break the law, that’s on you, not Bigpond.

Starlink’s actions flip this responsibility. They have effectively declared that they are in fact an active participant in how their services are used.

Let’s consider another maker of war equipment; Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin, among other things, design, manufacture, and sell tools of war. The ethics and morality of conducting such a business have been debated for decades and will continue to be debated for decades to come. Be all of that as it may, the company has accepted its role in the world. They sell weapons of war to buyers. Once they have made the decision to sell their product to a particular customer, what the customer then does with their products is out of the company’s hands. They can’t just remotely disable a certain military’s F-35s if they suddenly have misgivings about how they are being used.

When you make or operate tools of war, it stands to reason that you become a target of war. There has been much debate recently about the building of massive data centres. And while they are an horrific waste of resources for a gain that doesn’t come close to matching the costs, there is another major problem most people aren’t talking about: they are putting potential military targets in civilian areas.

We know that the US defence department - sorry, war department - is using A.I, including Elon Musk’s Grok, for strategy and tactics. It’s fair to assume many other militaries are too. So it’s no surprise that Iran responded to US attacks earlier this year by bombing local data centres.

Likewise, it makes perfect military sense that Ukraine took out Yandex data centres in Russia last weekend. Regardless of who you feel is in the right, you don’t need to be Sun Tzu to know that disrupting the enemy’s communications gives you an advantage.

And perhaps the realisation that data centres are both a tool and a target of war gave Musk pause. Whether the order to throttle Ukraine’s Starlink connection was given by Musk, Hegseth, or Trump, Musk has form in choosing sides and then changing his mind.

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Starlink donated hardware to Ukraine defence, only for Musk to suspend access on more than one occasion. There was also the allegation Musk remotely disabled a Cybertruck belonging to Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov when it was deployed to the Ukrainian front. Musk denied the warlord’s claim the vehicle was donated and to be fair, I’m inclined to believe him on that one.

While it’s tempting to see a business taking ownership of what its products may be used for as a positive step, the broader message is frightening.

The message this sends the world is that your ability to use the hardware and services you paid for depends entirely on whether the unelected oligarch who controls the company approves of how you use it.

If that doesn’t scare the hell out of every Tesla driver and Starlink subscriber, then it should. And if Musk can get away with it, others will try. As if you needed another reason to avoid every pointless ‘smart’ device.

Another issue raised here is a new front in the debate over net neutrality.

The principle of net neutrality is that no packet of data is any more or less important than any other packet of data, whether it’s an order to buy Apple stock or your favourite cat videos. Republicans being Republicans tried to overturn this rule so that companies could prioritise (for example) Netflix over your roster. Or at worst, preference content they approve of over information they don’t. Imagine your phone provider deciding people calling Dominos are more important than your family catch-up.

Every company, public or private, has the right to choose not to do business with a certain customer for any reason. But that’s a decision that should be made prior to the transaction and once the transaction is made, that’s it. Yes, all services these days come with terms and conditions, but do you have the time, energy, and money to drag it through the courts to prove you didn’t break them when your service is cut off?

But hey, look! A flying car!

No, A.I. agents are not “going rogue” …yet

The idea that it was rogue A.I. agent that hacked into the Medicare system is a convenient cover story for the owners, operators, and users of the technology.

 

Artificial Intelligence as it exists today – by which I mean today, 29th September 2026 – does not have self-determination. Despite appearances, and what certain tech bros and presidents would have us believe, it is just a software program, albeit an extremely sophisticated one.

Like any other software program, it generates a certain output based on certain input. To put it in a more anthropomorphised way, it does what it’s told.

I’ve been teaching computers for over 25 years. What I tell all my students – particularly the ones who are going mad trying to find the ‘make it look good’ button – is to remember the computer is NOT smart. It is a machine. It only knows what it’s told. It only does what you tell it to do, even if you don’t realise you told it to.

That last bit is the crucial part when it comes to understanding what is going on with A.I. right now.

Think of it this way:

Let’s say you’ve just upgraded the door locks in your home. In order to stress-test the new locks, you ask A.I. to try and break in to your home.

Sounds quite logical, right?

The problem is that the request did not include any parameters about testing only the door locks.

A.I. has the ability to test every possible option and outcome – particularly those the user didn’t think of. You instructed it to try to break in to your home and that is what it will do. It will try the doors, the windows, the ventilation, the roof, the floor, the plumbing… If there is any possible way to break in, A.I. will find it because that’s what it was told to do.

Purveyors and evangelists of A.I. talking about recent hacks and infiltrations as if it was a puppy who escaped its pen and went exploring are either disingenuous or criminally naïve.

OpenAI did not say to itself, “I have a nanosecond to spare. I think I might see if I can have a poke around in the Australian Medicare portal.”

Someone, somewhere, told it to – whether they realised they were doing it or not.

Or what?

 

With a court ordering Donald Trump to restore White House access to media outlets he banned earlier this week, there is one important question to ask:

Or what?

What’s going to happen if he doesn’t?

The constitution only matters to constitutionalists. The rule of law, without enforcement, only applies to those who believe in it.

So, if Trump refuses to restore access as ordered by the court, what happens? Sure, he can be held in contempt, but then what?

Checks and balances? That’s cute. Both houses of Congress are controlled by Trump lickspittles and so is the Supreme Court. That would be the same Supreme Court which ruled that the president is basically untouchable so long as he deems whatever he does to be an official action. Nixon must be kicking himself in his grave.

The more likely outcome in this particular case is that Trump will comply with the court order this time. It gives him a face-saving way to reverse the self-inflicted wound of cutting off television coverage which is like oxygen to him.

And then he will complain about it. A lot. On television.

But this is just one of many Trump orders tied up in the courts for being illegal and/or unconstitutional.

The problem is that Trump has already proven he has no respect for the law, the courts, or the constitution. Anyone else could be arrested and jailed for breaking a court order but what about the president?

The supreme court can order him to leave journalists alone, cease tearing public buildings down, and desist from building monuments to himself but so what?

Who’s going to stop him?

So youse reckon youse can talk Strayan an’ that

You may think you’ve seen every listicle converting the Australian language into common English, but you haven’t. You’ve only seen enough to know where the dunnies are, where to get a feed, and how to spot a bogan when you need to.

To truly sound like a local, read on…

You right there? – “May I be of any assistance?”

You winnin’? – “How are you?”

Too easy! – “You’re welcome,” OR “I consent to the agreed plan.”

Avagoodone! – “Have a nice day.”

Veebee – Domestic beer

Snot block – Vanilla slice

HUNNAAAAHS! – “Perchance, do you know any songs by the popular group Hunters and Collectors?” *

Aerial ping pong – Australian Rules Football, as described by followers of Rugby League

You’re 👏 goin’ 👏 home 👏 in the 👏 back of a 👏 divvy 👏 van👏! – “Your wicked ways have caught up with you and justice awaits.”

You’ve got Buckley’s – “I see minimal likelihood of success in your endeavor.”

Ah, biscuits! – “Bugger it!” if kids are around.

Oh, bum! – “Fuck it!” if kids are around.

TAXI! – “You appear to have dropped your drink. Would you like a ride home?”

Servo – Petrol station

The pajama game – Limited over cricket

Sparkie – An electrician

Chippie – A carpenter

Chipper – A take-away restaurant where you buy chippies

CHISOOOOL! – “Perchance, do you know any songs by the popular group Cold Chisel?” *

Hadley’s a wanker! – “We are not impressed by the New Zealand team’s pace attack.”

Chookas – To avoid theatrical superstition, “I wish you well for the performance.”

Lobster – A $20 note.

Pineapple – A $50 note.

Skeg – Surfer

Not happy, Jan! – “You disappoint me.”

Pine saws – A meat and gravy pie served with tomato ketchup

Dimmie – A dim sim

Dickhead – A dim person

Good on ya! – “Well done. Congratulations.”

Yeah, good on ya! – “You’re a bit of a dickhead.”

Oh, good ON ya! – “Not happy, Jan!”

DACCAAAAAA! – “Perchance, do you know any songs by the popular group AC⚡DC?” *

I’d better let you go – “I am so tired of this conversation, please go away.”

Cooker – low-information conspiracy theorist

Blockie – A trip around the block

Mainie – A trip along the main street, either at very low or very high speed but nothing in between. Preferably done while blasting Hunnahs, Chisool, or Dacca through open windows.

Shooie – To drink champagne or beer from your own shoe. Note: It only counts if it’s the shoe you have been wearing on the day.

Veggie – Vegemite 

Nats – Members of the National Party. Just be thankful they’re no longer called the Country Party.

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! – “Pardon me, but I’m a dickhead.”

Please remember, all Australian words and phrases must have TWO syllables. Anything over two syllables will be abbreviated. Anything under two syllables will be extended. You are not Dave, you are Davo. And R sounds will be converted to Z sounds where-ever possible.

* These are the only three bands in Australia

+ - ÷

I’ve no time for Ed Sheeran’s music but he seems like a thoroughly nice guy. It’s okay to want to stay away from controversy. But he seems to have found out the hard way that, as Bishop Tutu said, to remain neutral on issues of injustice is to take the side of the oppressor.

Ed Sheeran isn’t Roger Waters. You don’t go to his shows expecting big statements because his songs aren’t really about anything. But if you’re going to have other acts on the bill who do have songs about real things, then you have to allow for the fact they’re going to say something.

It’s not as if he, or the promoters, need to do this. Taylor Swift has proven you can take a stand on issues and maintain an audience in the hundreds of millions. And it’s not as if Ed should be expected to take a stand on any given issue. He’s an entertainer, after all. But there comes a point at which remaining apolitical is itself a political stance.

To be fair to all artists concerned, they have all approached the situation with good grace, respect, and not made anything personal. It’s a great lesson in how to disagree without being disagreeable. It’s clear the main responsibility for the logistical mess lies with the promoters and the venues.

The real question is where are the usual gang of free speech warriors now?

On Welcome to Country

The Australian tradition of Welcome to Country has become a topic of conversation again, primarily because some American blowhards watching the Melbourne NFL game were confused by it.

For a start, this is a conversation for Australians to have amongst ourselves, not for some foreign blow-ins who have never even tasted a meat pie to lecture us on. It’s somewhat comical that the same people who say every migrant should leave their own culture behind and submit to the Australian way, fall over themselves to agree when an American says we suck.

The local criticism of Welcome to Country comes down to several points:

• It’s performative
• It’s symbolic
• It doesn’t achieve anything
• It’s virtue signalling

You know what? I’m inclined to agree.

But if you think about it for just a few seconds, there are plenty of other rituals performed at public events that you could say exactly the same thing about.

What about flying the national flag?

What about singing the national anthem?

It’s ALL performative virtue signalling that doesn’t achieve anything. No one was raised out of poverty by a rousing rendition of Advance Australia Fair.

And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing.

You want to fly the flag? Fly the flag!

You want to sing the anthem? Go for your life! Just try to stay in tune.

You want to pledge allegiance to the king? Well, I’m not going to join you, but you do whatever makes you happy.

Just don’t try to tell me it isn’t performative symbolism, because it is. It’s no more or less performative depending on whether you like it or not.

So, make all the criticisms you feel are valid. Just try to keep them consistent, because we’d all have a lot more time if we abandoned everything anyone thought was symbolic and didn’t achieve anything.

   

The passion of Milo Yiannopoulos

 

The arrest, detention, and deportation by I.C.E. of Milo Yiannopoulos last week instantly became the most obvious example of ‘I never thought they leopards would eat MY face!’

Now he says he wouldn’t wish it on anyone. But he did. On the record. It’s all out there.

For years, he has used his same-sex interracial marriage as a fig leaf for his bigotry and in doing so, allowed his political fellow travellers to use their liking of him as a fig leaf for theirs. They could point to him to claim they didn’t hate all gays and foreigners, and that I.C.E. was only targeting the worst of the worst. Well, whatcha got now?

Everyone has their own definition of the difference between right and left, inasmuch as those labels mean anything at all, which I don’t think they do. None of these definitions stand up to any kind of rational scrutiny.

There are those who claim the right stands for free enterprise and merit while the left stands for communism and mandatory sex changes.

There are those who claim the left stands for equality and freedom while the right stands oligarchy and dictatorship.

Before I offer my own attempt at defining the difference, here’s a personal observation:

I have several friends and family who have spent decades on drip-feed of Fox News and are full-throated Trump supporters who will make any excuse for him. Here’s what I can tell you about them: They are all fundamentally decent people who would do anything for a friend in need, or even a stranger if they happened to meet them in person. Do not question me on this. I know them and you probably don’t.

It’s just that their politics don’t match their principles.

They would never want their loved ones treated the way they advocate for other, undefined people to be treated. Nor should they.

It seems to me that the primary difference between left and right is that some of us believe everyone should be treated the way we would want our loved ones treated. Some would even call that the Christian way.

And now, the obligatory unpopular opinion:

I am not ready to give Yiannopoulos the benefit of the doubt this experience will fundamentally change his act. His new bit for The Spectator suggests it won’t. However, his appearance on Piers Morgan’s show is worth a watch. Yes, I know Morgan is an insufferable creep too, but give it a go just this once. If nothing else, you can have a nice giggle when Yiannopoulos says his main gig is managing lawyers now, and not one of them told him to make sure his visa was in order.

What Milo Yiannopoulos has is a platform. He can use it to show what I.C.E. and the administration are really doing. He has the power to use his own experience to prove to all the bootlickers and crumb maidens that they will eventually come for them too.

Now here’s the tricky part: If Yiannopoulos chooses this path, he should be supported in it. If someone sees the error of their ways and chooses to change for the better – even if it’s because the leopards ate their face too – what more can you ask for?

It’s entirely likely that he will be over it in a couple of weeks and go back to being an edgelord. If so, he can get right back in the bin. But if he chooses to be a voice for decency, then that should be welcomed and encouraged.