4 ms·

People are incredibly creative and we should consider that there are any number of incentive ways such as access could be used for attacks. Nevertheless, Twitt

People are incredibly creative and we should consider that there are any number of incentive ways such as access could be used for attacks. Nevertheless, Twitter is a blip within the vast organizational structures that the world functions on. There is a huge amount of inertia there as well. Throwing around words like thermo-nuclear war is more than a bit shrill. There is another factor here as well - it's the same mistake you and many others make with the idea that Facebook was used to "hack an election". There is no evidence at all that opinion forming through Facebook is of any significant importance relative to Fox News, media making a big deal out of a private email servers, SuperPACs (those used to be big election influence scare of the olden days - now they are irrelevant and dwarved by Facebook). Also, people have agency and they share their believes with each other. Which is all the say - when parent says "we'd have other problems if a Twitter hack brings down world government" then that is exactly that. If a 1000 other things must go wrong to cause a war with a false tweet, don't blame Twitter for that war.

toss1 6y ago
>> Twitter is a blip within ... Not any more. The US has had for several years a person occupying the Presidents chair who makes major policy announcements first via Twitter, from abrogating treaties, to immigration policy, issuing pardons/commutations for friends, etc. These pronouncements often surprise even his closest senior staff, and are expected to be acted upon This is a far cry from the original trivial "look at these beautiful scallions I had on my breakfast plate!" The platform needs to be treated with the appropriate seriousness. Sure " thermo-nuclear war" is at the far end of the scale. Hacks using Twitter or other SocMed would likely be lower on the scale. But it is definitely true that with control of all and any verified accounts, including Presidents, commanders, military commands, news outlets, etc., one could craft a series of messages that would at the very least create widespread deadly panic in minutes, if not start an actual war (Go look up the results of Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds" broadcast.). The problem is that with the right attack, a lot of things going right WILL cause major problems. The entire point is that it would not require 1000 other things to also go wrong. As to Facebook, there is more than plenty of evidence that it successfully influenced the election. Not primarily through forming major opinions as through Fox, etc., but by targeting specific demographics down to the individual level (using data stolen from other channels including voting rolls) with tuned messages to generate a specific response, and more on the side of suppressing or diverting voter turnout for HRC than generating it for DT. It took only a few 10K votes in 3 states. These technologies are far beyond mere juvenile startup toys. Their scale, influence, and valuation show how much power they wield. We need to hold them to levels of responsibility commensurate with that power, not continue to make excuses as if they were children's toys.

toss1 6y ago

>> Twitter is a blip within ... Not any more. The US has had for several years a person occupying the Presidents chair who makes major policy announcements first via Twitter, from abrogating treaties, to immigration policy, issuing pardons/commutations for friends, etc. These pronouncements often surprise even his closest senior staff, and are expected to be acted upon This is a far cry from the original trivial "look at these beautiful scallions I had on my breakfast plate!" The platform needs to be treated with the appropriate seriousness. Sure " thermo-nuclear war" is at the far end of the scale. Hacks using Twitter or other SocMed would likely be lower on the scale. But it is definitely true that with control of all and any verified accounts, including Presidents, commanders, military commands, news outlets, etc., one could craft a series of messages that would at the very least create widespread deadly panic in minutes, if not start an actual war (Go look up the results of Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds" broadcast.). The problem is that with the right attack, a lot of things going right WILL cause major problems. The entire point is that it would not require 1000 other things to also go wrong. As to Facebook, there is more than plenty of evidence that it successfully influenced the election. Not primarily through forming major opinions as through Fox, etc., but by targeting specific demographics down to the individual level (using data stolen from other channels including voting rolls) with tuned messages to generate a specific response, and more on the side of suppressing or diverting voter turnout for HRC than generating it for DT. It took only a few 10K votes in 3 states. These technologies are far beyond mere juvenile startup toys. Their scale, influence, and valuation show how much power they wield. We need to hold them to levels of responsibility commensurate with that power, not continue to make excuses as if they were children's toys.