From Fulcrum and Irrawaddy--Musk, Myanmar and Murky Future of Internet for Burmese Resistance.

https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/guest-column/musk-myanmar-and-the-murky-future-of-internet-freedom.html Further complicating matters is the fact that Starlink is owned and controlled by Elon Musk, whose personal decision-making has triggered unpredictability in global affairs. Musk’s control of the network raises concerns about whether access could be revoked, restricted, or manipulated based on shifting political or economic interests. Given his close ties to US President Donald Trump, concerns are mounting about the use of Starlink in Ukraine, which is critical for the country’s war with Russia.

The junta has sought ways to track and intercept satellite communications, potentially endangering those who rely on the service for safe and anonymous online activities.

In February, there was a heated exchange between US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky over the terms of a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire agreement. According to a Reuters report, US negotiators pressured Ukraine to get access to the country’s critical minerals by threatening to cut off the country’s connection to the satellite service (Musk said the report was “false”). In Cameroon, Musk disconnected Starlink access in April last year. A government regulator said the company was operating without a license and posed a threat to the country’s security. In South Africa, Musk has report

edly refused to meet a 30 percent local ownership requirement.

For Myanmar, the country’s scam industry, which is responsible for large-scale online fraud operations, has drawn scrutiny from international law enforcement. However, digital activists from Myanmar have often expressed concerns that in the cracking down on scam centers—some of which use Starlink—pro-democracy forces may also lose access. If Musk (or Trump) imposes broad restrictions on Starlink due to concerns about online scamming and illicit businesses, it could have unintended consequences—severing critical communication channels for activists and resistance groups while doing little to curb criminal enterprises, which often operate with state complicity and access to alternative digital infrastructures.