4 ms·
Especially if you post it in the middle of a gibberish tweet storm. Imagine immediately following the “going private... funding secured tweets” if a malicious
by koolba 6y ago
Especially if you post it in the middle of a gibberish tweet storm.
Imagine immediately following the “going private... funding secured tweets” if a malicious actor wrote something about Saudi funding, or cashing out of it’s rejected. It’d be much hard to separate fact from fiction when the baseline is already crazy sounding.
- jahlove 6y ago> China owns $1.1 trillion in our debt, and I've just directed the Secretary of the Treasure to deny any future interest payments to them! #MAGA Boom, the dollar collapses.
- toss1 6y agoYup, then consider using access to other accounts as reinforcement; e.g., in this example, a corresponding Saudi account posting apparently corroborating messages. Or, in a high-tension war scenario, not only posting tweets from POTUS, and adversary accounts, but also from varios mil commands and news organizations - think creating the entire scenario of Orson Well's War Of The Worlds broadcast... Might not start a war (we can hope there are enough safeguards in place), but it could cause a lot of damage in a few minutes/hours...
- Udik 6y ago> consider using access to other accounts as reinforcement But then you gain in immediate effect but all those accounts will immediately say that they have been hacked. And since it's many uncoordinated and adversary accounts, people will have less trouble believing in a hack. While if you do it with a single tweet, the suspicion it was in fact authentic will linger.
- toss1 6y agoYup, all depends on the plan, goals, expected counter-measures, how those are handled, etc. With a larger plan, would likely have to suppress other channels to get word out, preemptively spreading disinformation, exploiting time zone differences, etc...