Might be because i'm on a 14" laptop and it didn't fit on screen.
Note: each of the tabs on the left has their own "vendors" you may grant access. In total, there are over 800 toggle switches.
Still quite clearly illegal though. Rejecting tracking should be as easy as accepting it.
0: No shade thrown at the submitter, as this is the title used by the site.
Also, what's cool about Starlink is that they have sort of vertical integration with SpaceX that allows them to constantly keep launching new satellites which allows them maintain lower orbit constellation that allows for cheaper end-user equipment and potentially better speeds. Also the constant recycling of satellites allow for ever going network improvement as the tech advances.
What's not cool about Starlink is that it is American and Elon Musk affiliated, which makes it national security risk for Europe and Greenland in particular. That is also part of the newsworthiness because if this becomes a trend Starlink may become unviable business for a market of just 300M people.
It's also not very "between the lines" at all, the article finishes with:
> Binzer said the company will keep an open mind for future partnerships, but the priority remains clear. Greenland’s communication systems must stay under Greenlandic control.
Sovereignty is more important than ever, and governments are catching up to this fact.
The offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was never a threat. It was an offer. The U.S. has made similar territorial purchases in the past, including most famously from our oldest ally the French known as the Lousiana Purchase.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/04/world/greenland-annexatio...
Rule number one of negotiation is you don't take options off the table.
Bases as in multiple? Didn't they shut down all but one?
> was never a threat. It was an offer
Is this a joke? The president has literally said they're not ruling out military force to annex Greenland, in what world isn't that a threat? Especially when said to a military partner no less.
When the US purchased Lousiana from the French, did the bid also come with a "if you don't agree, we might take it by force" addendum?
He said he wouldn't take "military action" off the table. Which doesn't mean invasion. You are imprinting that.
This is the same guy that just negotiated peace between Gaza and Israel. He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position.
As for U.S.,.they have one fully controlled base and access to two others, plus two shuttered bases that can be reopened:
Pituffik: U.S.-controlled Kangerlussuaq: Danish-controlled with permanent U.S. access Station Nord: Danish with U.S. operational presence
And under the joint 1951 agreement between Denmark and US the US can open additional.
... based on the fact that the US did quite a lot of questionably legal invasion campaigns over the last decades and Trump having signed an EO to "rename" DoD to Department of War. It's not an unrealistic interpretation.
> This is the same guy that just negotiated peace between Gaza and Israel.
He re-hashed Biden's negotiations and takes credit for it. Classic Trump.
> He doesn't take options off the table because it automatically weakens your negotiation position.
What "negotiations"? We don't live in times any more where kings can distribute pieces of land and the people living on it at will - no matter what Trump thinks he is.
The truth is: Europeans don't trust the US anymore (except maybe Hungary).
The highest ranking member of the US executive, in a publicly televised speech before Congress, said that "we're going to get Greenland one way or the other".
You can argue that's not a threat, but it would make you look silly IMO.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-...
"Ditches" sounds like they were already using Starlink, but abandoned it in favor of Eutelsat's system. The text clarifies that they only decided to (continue to) use Eutelsat, and Starlink was just another option considered.
> Binzer said it was not about which company was better, but about trust and long-term cooperation.
Well, who can blame them? After Trump repeatedly expressed "interest" in owning Greenland (fortunately he seems to have moved on to other pet projects in the meantime), and with Musk being one of Trump's closest allies, it would be a bit naive to trust Starlink...
Don't know the publication, but it seems to be a Danish publishing in English.
> This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation
The editors don't even know for sure if the author used AI or not.
> This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation
Which, not who. They're not even sure the author is human!
They don't even specifically know for each article if their authors use LLMs or not. What a shitshow.
Answer: Because of corruption! It's illegal to use Starlink in Greenland, and Tusass holds a concessioned monopoly over “telecommunications services in, to and from Greenland” and the underlying infrastructure! https://www.aqutsisut.gl/en/tele/satellite-regulation
Tusass was in talks with Starlink to basically provide Starlink service but via the Tusass monopoly, basically making Tusass a no-value-added reseller of Starlink at massively inflated prices (subsidized of course, basically being paid by the Danish government to do nothing besides cash checks while Starlink does everything else). This is so obviously corrupt that it's better for them to use a worse, more expensive service that doesn't make Tusass completely pointless.
With 56,831 inhabitants and those spread rather thinly I assume they enjoyed the years when it was both expensive and heavily subsidised. Without heavy government support I would claim nothing would happen.
Times are changing and commercial offerings starts to be viable. But the outlook of being in the pocket of StarLink is not too appealing. I think they would prefer other options in Ukraine these days. And if you notice the relations between Denmark (the only country outside US to celebrate the 4th of July) is at a record low.
Free markets you say? Tariffs I say!
Having a single infrastructure provider isn't corruption. It's making the best out of a natural monopoly. It could lead to corruption, but unless you have any proof that it has, you're simply wrong.
The only thing that has changed is who you can trust long-term, but I think trust has always been one of the top factors.
Recent upheavals and actions have really pushed people to question exactly who and what you can trust.
Also the recent focus on strategic elements with regard to globalisation also plays into these choices now - where it might have been dismissed a couple of years ago.
Granted you live in a neat place, those two first ones are still reasonable to trust in your day-to-day life, and in those same places the latter was never worshiped on the same level that happened in the US.
Otherwise I do not think even Eskimos deserve EU-controlled Internet. No Pørn or Håte-speech allowed there.
Every phrase
I guess Pol Pot also just had "wrong politics", why did the Vietnamese have to go in to depose him?
Don't forget a guy who is so aligned with the leadership of that country that he paid to be a part of it, was kind of a government minister, and of course went on live national TV to perform a Nazi salute at an official event.
timpera•2h ago
DonHopkins•2h ago
2rsf•2h ago
lifeisstillgood•1h ago
There is an assumption that such a loss would be a prelude to a major attack - but cock up is always more likely.
imron•1h ago
N-Krause•1h ago
https://www.ipinternational.net/oneweb-and-spacex-a-surprisi...
WJW•1h ago
N-Krause•1h ago
EDIT: Nvm, just now saw the sibling comment with the wiki article.
sehansen•1h ago
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat
saubeidl•1h ago
razakel•1h ago
sp0ck•16m ago
Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.