331–340 of 536 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost as if web services that let people post whatever they want at any time, vulnerable to whatever security flaws may be present, shouldn't be used as a reliable source for up-to-the-minute information about literally anything important at all.
The same could be said for radio, whether Orson Wells "Alien Invasion" broadcast or the multitude of April 1st jokes that got out of hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost as if web services that let people post whatever they want at any time, vulnerable to whatever security flaws may be present, shouldn't be used as a reliable source for up-to-the-minute information about literally anything important at all.
The same could be said for radio, whether Orson Wells "Alien Invasion" broadcast or the multitude of April 1st jokes that got out of hand.
I think people are still severely under-estimating how dangerous this was. Back in 2013 when The Associated Press was hacked with a tweet of "Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama is injured" and erased $136 billion in equity market value: Archive: http://archive.is/8lCMV https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/23... This twitter hack could have literally destroyed economies,…
I think there is a big organisational difference between the AP and Twitter, but that's just me. Twitter does not employ journalists. Twitter is not the press.
Nobody mentioned indieweb.org/POSSE yet as a way to mitigate such?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. We've entered a world where the lowest common denominator of information is being used as primary source for current events. That's asinine.
That's partially because the sources formally seen as primary, at least in the US, have started to be viewed as biased and unreliable. This is largely through their own actions. Examples are legion, but a recent one is debacle at NYT over an op-ed. The news-consuming public was able to view the shenanigans of NYT reporters and staffers, which would formerly been done being the scenes. Many eyes were opened, and I'm c…
Newspapers and news outlets aren't actually "primary source". If you read a quoted tweet from Obama in the New York Times, the NYT isn't the "primary source" - Obama is. The NYT is a secondary source that is quoting from primary source.
In that sense, Twitter is actually primary source, because Obama wrote the tweet. Well, except when Twitter is hacked, which is what makes this such a significant event.
(But I agree with your general comment, especially having been interviewed a few times and seen how most reporters work. There are a handful of good ones out there though.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep saying it could have started a war. Excuse me for being naive but come on—really? This is total sensationalism. What party wouldn’t verify something on twitter through diplomatic channels before going to war? Equity destruction: sure. War: no way.
Donald Trump?
This is ridiculous, there is ample room for criticism against Trump. This wouldn't fit at all. I guess you can blame him on Turkeys reaction in Syria, his staunch anti-Iranian policies that made talks more difficult. But the criticism of him starting random wars comes from an emotional corner beyond reality in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not feasible for every trusted source of knowledge to have their own radio station, so the sources utilize existing stations, and consumers have no choice but to tune into those stations. It's perfectly feasible for every trusted source of knowledge to run a web server, and they actually do it, so it's sad that consumers don't connect directly to those servers and instead use middlemen.
I know we're not supposed to discuss downvotes, but there's a sibling comment that makes the point I wanted to make, but it's dead. It seems fine, and the user's history is filled with dead comments that mostly also seem fine. Regardless, if anyone has a response to a bunch of websites being a worse security model than one giant platform, you can reply to me instead.
The account is likely shadow-banned or similar, so their comments are dead by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Destroyed economies? Started a war? The tiny effect on the market lasted less than 5 minutes. Your post is bordering on comical.
I believe they are referring to the fact that they could have theoretically tweeted the wrong thing from the wrong account that could have caused a war. It isn't extremely likely but not comically unrealistic. Definitely within the realm of possibility.
I think people are still severely under-estimating how dangerous this was. Back in 2013 when The Associated Press was hacked with a tweet of "Breaking: Two Explosions in the White House and Barack Obama is injured" and erased $136 billion in equity market value: Archive: http://archive.is/8lCMV https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/23... This twitter hack could have literally destroyed economies,…
Agreed. This was most likely a "shot across the bow" by a state actor. I have no proof of this. But it's highly public nature would seem to argue against a black-hat commercial interest (e.g. proof of potential to a possible buyer) as it would/will draw too much scrutiny. Also, the crystal clear implication that the damage done could have been far worse, would seem to indicate someone was sending a message. From whom…
The hack would have been a powerful weapon if used in a more strategic way. A "shot across the bow" as a tactic is useless when the weapon can only be used a single time and never again. The code will be patched now.
>Also, the crystal clear implication that the damage done could have been far worse, would seem to indicate someone was sending a message.
That's hindsight knowledge. To me it looks more like an un-sophisticated actor that stumbled over a critical vulnerability and had to use it haphazardly before it somehow becomes obsolete with code update.
>From whom and to whom can only be the subject of speculation, but again, whoever did this must have known that the it would be interpreted as an attack from China to the USA. So either they didn't care because making that obvious was the whole point (ergo, attacker probably China), or the misdirection was the whole point (ergo, attacker probably a power that would stand to benefit from increased tension between USA and China).
Actually I don't see much speculation that China is behind the hack other than from the people who are quick to blame China anyway. The sloppy execution actually speaks against a nation-state actor. The loss of trust in Twitter only plays into Trump's hand regarding his personal feud with the platform.
I don’t really think he should be naming who his unnamed sources “think” is behind an attack on this scale, especially with full name, city of origin, Instagram, suggested current location, age, etc. It feels a very, very small step away from doxxing to me. Added to which he has somebody in the comments essentially calling for the death penalty over this. If he has this personal information and evidence, pass it to t…