So in addition to cluttering up low earth orbit, wrecking terrestrial astronomy, creating the potential for a Kessler Syndrome cascade which could close access to space, and creating a national security nightmare, Starlink internet access is a climate catastrophe using up to 30 times more carbon footprint per internet subscriber than land based internet.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2394949-starlink-carbon-footprint-up-to-30-times-size-of-land-based-internet/

Starlink carbon footprint up to 30 times size of land-based internet

The satellite internet services provided by SpaceX Starlink, Eutelsat OneWeb or Amazon Kuiper will come with a carbon footprint much higher than that associated with land-based alternatives

New Scientist
@mastodonmigration I would prefer to live in a world without a Starlink system but what is the current solution to people like myself that live in rural areas with very spotty coverage? There seems to be no real incentive for internet providers to run high speed cables out to densely populated areas. Traditional satellite coverage has terrible latency. Radio is generally no better than cell coverage.
@azphilosopher @mastodonmigration one of the roles of states is to subsidize services where and when the market doesn't work for the citizens (I'd argue, almost always if not by chance). but in our democracies politics is a market of votes, so I'm sorry for you, being a minority. You could join/found a political party that cares for the needs of minorities, based on human solidarity instead of the individualistic crap we see everywhere on the rise. If you already do, thanks and keep the fight.
@joe_vinegar @mastodonmigration Joe, I live in Spain and have almost no input into the local politics but overall the laws are very socialist in nature. In the US I vote for the party that cares about people.