There are fewer than 500 nuclear reactors in the world, and those reactors have massively higher oversight and mature safety compliance processes in place than

There are fewer than 500 nuclear reactors in the world, and those reactors have massively higher oversight and mature safety compliance processes in place than the innumerable websites on the internet (for which approximately all of them share the same default state: insecure). I understand the spirit of your point, but that's not at all a fair comparison. They're just altogether different things, and part of the problem is the nature of the tech industry, in which layers of complexity and security debt from different languages and frameworks can be piled on each other over and over again. I think you should consider Dunning-Kruger here: instead of comparing Facebook's security to nuclear reactor safety, compare it to a company you believe has superior security; moreover, do you think you are appropriately qualified to condemn Facebook's security organization for the proportion of failures it experiences?