this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
798 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
86131 readers
3236 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'll be short with you.: I don't care how much nicer starlink is, putting that many satellites into low earth orbit all the time is not good for the climate. The few thousand people on ships at any given time can wait to stream high def porn or download it while at port. All the needed uses of the internet can be met via slow higher orbiting satellites.
Lots of things are not necessary and are bad for the climate. You likely enjoy many of them. You start by reducing your own consumption.
High speed internet from constantly decaying satellites is not necessary.
God, if this isn't the most "Fuck You!" reply you could've made
Frankly its just about as much as anyone should care
Ohmmy's comment is essentualy "its bad for the envirement" (as if its not true for everything) and "they should just deal with it as is" as an attempt to shutdown the arguement
I very much dont see how it would have continued any other way (excludeing a few roundabouts)
Sometimes the best alternative is nothing at all