Elon Musk’s decision to extend Starlink access into Iran has emerged as a crucial tool for protesters trying to circumvent state censorship and project their voices beyond the country’s borders.
A dynamic in which private technology reshapes the dynamics of dissent in a tightly controlled information environment.
Iranian officials have frequently turned to internet shutdowns and throttling during bouts of unrest seeking to sever coordination and access to images and testimony flowing out of the country.
Against that backdrop, Musk has said his satellite internet service would be made available over Iran allowing users in possession of compatible equipment to connect independently of the national network.
The move has been widely interpreted as an attempt to blunt the effectiveness of digital blackouts rather than formal intervention into Iranian politics.
Starlink works through a constellation of low earth orbit satellites that deliver broadband directly to terminals on the ground.
Since the system is not dependent on local telecommunications infrastructure it works when governments curtail or shut off conventional networks.
For demonstrators, activists and citizen journalists that capability offers a way to share videos organize safely and communicate with international media when other channels are closed.
Musk has couched the gesture as being supportive of open communication in general although not specifically supporting any particular movement.
When making statements on the issue Musk has said that the Starlink signals are alive in Iranian skies with the aim being to keep the Iranian people connected during shutdowns.
This aside, the truth is more complex. Based on Iranian law importing the equipment would be difficult although some have been surreptitiously smuggled in.
Iranian authorities view satellite based internet without censorship as a threat to traditional approaches at managing information flow.
Though the Iranian government has made significant efforts and investments in Iranian alternatives and what has been referred to as “the national internet,” satellite technology impacts the effectiveness of these policies.
The Iranian government has at different times communicated that satellite internet is illegal and that enforcement rather than compromise, remains priority.
For Australia and the middle powers the developments are closely watched.
While it has criticized the shutdown of the internet as a form of a human rights violation the Australian government must walk a fine line in relation to the implications of technology touching bases in geopolitical hotspots.
For Iranian protesters the stakes are practical rather than conceptual.
The possibility of transmitting footage acting in concert or addressing a worldwide audience can change the measure of balance between government and protesters even if just a little.
Starlink does not eliminate the dangers with which protesters must operate or ensure broadband access on a constant basis.
As nations struggle with the regulation of highly innovative globally mobile technology the Musk example serves as an illustrative case with regard to how connectivity as an end in itself has been politicized.
Connectivity is no less than the lever of politics in the age of digital repression and it can be pulled from orbit.
