Okay? I literally said it's not astroturfing. Words mean things. I'd argue the lack of reading comprehension presented in the replies to my comment bords on violating the site's guidelines too.

Astroturfing is when a moneyed interest group (an organisation, political candidate, corporation, activist investor, etc) creates a sockpuppet "grassroots movement", usually by creating a coordinated marketing campaign and brand identity that claims to represent an amorphous group of "concerned citizens" rather than the actual people or organizations funding these efforts. The reason there's a word for this in English is that the US has seen this a lot around propositions citizens are allowed to vote on directly, often impacting businesses or sometimes at conflict with the interests of influential religious groups.

The key component here is that astroturf (derived from a brand name for artificial grass) is meant to mimick grassroots activism. Grassroots activism is called that because it is a bottom-up activist movement (hence "growing" like grass) made up of many distinct individuals (i.e. the blades of grass) acting in unison, rather than the typical top-down political movements initiated by political parties and other existing large organizations.

My point is that while the site very much looks like something SpaceX would plausibly be interested in producing or funding, it's explicitly operated by one person who intentionally promotes the company to the point of advertising them as an employer by linking to their jobs page. Hence, it's a single blade of grass. It's apparently genuine not "artificial" but it's not a movement so calling it grassroots (which "it's not astroturf" would suggest) wouldn't be right either.

Usually when speaking of efforts led by individuals the accusations are words like "shill", not "astroturf". And he doesn't seem to be that either. So given that the interest seems genuine, I'd suggest "cheerleader" - "fanboy" would fit but is usually used dismissively. The core here is that it's not just a satellite hobbyist who thinks Starlink is cool and did a fancy illustration, it's someone who genuinely thinks SpaceX itself is great.

The reason I mention Elon Musk should be obvious given that he used to be the hype man for SpaceX (and to a lesser extent still is). He used to be so dominant in popular culture that he even cameoed in an Iron Man because people kept calling him "real life Tony Stark". The website makes sense in that context of unquestioning adoration. My point is that - arguably starting with the "pedo guy" incident - public perception of Elon Musk (and thus his companies too) has tanked since then so it might be odd to still see someone being such a dedicated fan of one of his companies they'd essentially create a marketing project for them. The replies making fun of people (including myself) for being "so consumed with hatred for Musk" make my point: in the past, Elon Musk wasn't so much hated as dismissed and the perception that mainstream opinion is unfairly hostile to him is a recent phenomenon that pretty much started around the time of the "pedo guy" incident.

So to reiterate:

- I didn't accuse anyone of astroturfing, I literally explained why it's not only not astroturfing but also why it's not grassroots either

- I didn't say SpaceX is bad because Musk is bad, I said that the kind of enthusiasm demonstrated by that website is surprising now (hence the accusations) but that it wouldn't have been surprising a mere few years ago

- You shouldn't idolize corporations because they're literally built to generate profit for themselves and any externalities that work out to your benefit are merely a nice side-effect and shouldn't be taken for granted no matter what their marketing copy or true believer employees say

- Elon Musk is a terrible person and seems to work best as a hype man and ideas guy but is neither a good engineer nor a good business person; his public behavior only serves to satisfy his desperate need for personal reaffirmation and harms his companies and their mission statements more than it helps them

- Starlink is a cool piece of infrastructure but it should be deeply concerning that this infrastructure is controlled by not only a for-profit company but effectively one very self-absorbed billionaire who seems to be prone to snap judgements that can literally affect state military performance (just imagine he'd be a Russian oligarch or South Korean or something if "South African / Canadian / US citizen" feels less concerning to you).