3 ms·

Reading into your post, I think you're implying that the presence of a single monolithic target in the Federal Union of Heresland for The Republic of Adversaria

Reading into your post, I think you're implying that the presence of a single monolithic target in the Federal Union of Heresland for The Republic of Adversaria to mess with represents a greater risk for carrying out the business of democracy, and that a multitude of smaller social networks would be harder to compromise. I'm not sure how true this is though - inevitably those smaller organisations have lesser resources and capacity to detect and resist such attacks, and would in any case quite quickly balkanise themselves into clear demographics, leaving it obvious to the adversary exactly which of these smaller, more vulnerable organisations to target. The solution in my mind is for these internet giants, regrettably, to get bigger - to become /more/ global, and to be present everywhere. Fragmentation of world society will not bring us progress - consolidation will.

johndubchak 9y ago
If I understand your solution, it seems to suggest more global monopolistic size and behavior for the "Internet Giants". Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Separating the social platform from the physical transport platform may change how enforcement is carried out depending on who owns which part, i.e. physical infrastructure being publicly owned vs private etc. Without that type of change and distinction, I'm not sure how your solution is a solution without better understanding it.
- eponeponepon 9y ago
  Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Well, both. But the distinction is getting less clear as time goes on. And for Joe Public, the distinction doesn't even exist, of course.
loceng 9y ago
If there was a centralized platform that allowed social networks on top of it with their own governance powers, could that curtail unwanted issues? Or would that central platform/body be breachable as well - if not, under what conditions would it be safe?

johndubchak 9y ago

If I understand your solution, it seems to suggest more global monopolistic size and behavior for the "Internet Giants". Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Separating the social platform from the physical transport platform may change how enforcement is carried out depending on who owns which part, i.e. physical infrastructure being publicly owned vs private etc. Without that type of change and distinction, I'm not sure how your solution is a solution without better understanding it.

eponeponepon 9y ago
Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Well, both. But the distinction is getting less clear as time goes on. And for Joe Public, the distinction doesn't even exist, of course.

loceng 9y ago

If there was a centralized platform that allowed social networks on top of it with their own governance powers, could that curtail unwanted issues? Or would that central platform/body be breachable as well - if not, under what conditions would it be safe?