481–490 of 536 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's doxxing. My question is why is that a bad thing in this case? Zero tolerance policies don't make any sense to me.
Because the person he is doxxing isn't behind this. Unnamed telco source is not credible or is a rectangle swimming pools being used as a fingerprint.
Don't think you can say that with certainty. It looks like a fairly solid series of deductions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's how I think it could be done: Get Trump's account, and tweet something like, "I've ordered a NUCLEAR STRIKE on China! The missiles are already in the air. The DEEP STATE is trying to take me out. They will try to silence me and delete these tweets and use deep fakes to say this was a hoax! The storm is here, Q is real, it's time to take up arms and kill democrats." Then continue tweeting escalating things over…
Nothing would happend from this. China and other might raise their alarm, but nobody would raise their own weapons without proof for something really happning outside of twitter. In the meanwhile Trump would appear after some minutes on TV, youtube, and whatever other channel they have around, proofing that he is not sending the tweets, while twitter would do their stuff.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
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.
Remedy is painfully obvious: make an example of Twitter and pass laws that holds platform operators liable. That should fix all sorts of security problems.
Company X presents the public with communications of known public figure. Company X assures the public, via a blue checkmark, that said communications are from a "verified" account.
Shouldn't company X be liable if someone other than the known figure is making public statements?
It seems logical, fair, and a societal 'good thing', that company X should either let go of the pretense of "verified" communications, or get its act together, or pay the legal price.
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,…
> This twitter hack could have literally destroyed economies, started a war [...etc.] Woah, slow your roll man, it takes a lot to start a war. And temporary glitches in the market are just that-- temporary glitches. If someone loses their shirt over that they deserve it. It's not hackers which are the true danger, "legit" people abusing media (whatever it may be) are the threat, a good example would be the Stable Gen…
1. https://www.history.com/news/6-wars-fought-for-ridiculous-re...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So true. it's a toilet. A few months back I told myself no more, I resigned my account and haven't missed it at all. massive time sink, and utterly pointless. It isn't a conversation, it's yelling at a brick wall, then yelling louder when you don't get an answer.
Same here. I realized that using Twitter was just a great waste of time. Deleted my account, became more productive and happier.
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,…
Destroyed economies? Started a war? The tiny effect on the market lasted less than 5 minutes. Your post is bordering on comical.
And, with conspiracy theorists, imagine the consequences of Trump's account tweeting a distress message that he was attacked and replaced by a clone controlled by QAnon.
I'm happy whoever did this wanted money.
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,…
> This twitter hack could have literally destroyed economies, started a war [...etc.] Woah, slow your roll man, it takes a lot to start a war. And temporary glitches in the market are just that-- temporary glitches. If someone loses their shirt over that they deserve it. It's not hackers which are the true danger, "legit" people abusing media (whatever it may be) are the threat, a good example would be the Stable Gen…
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.
People are not looking for trusted sources of knowledge. They are looking for entertainment.
Which people? Whose people? This is not a statement of psychological truth. It may however describe a societal truth.
But it is not true that people in all countries want above all to be entertained. People struggle in undemocratic countries. Education makes democracy strong. It also breeds rebels.
Public discourse reflects education. A society conditions its citizens to think a certain way. The typical conditioning involves protecting the society. The flag, the anthem, the history, the current power structure and its wars.
It's sad to see journalism collapse in a democracy. It's sad and perhaps fatal for democracy if people have been conditioned to be infantile and their implanted desire for gratification has overwhelmed their thinking and speech.
Then you elect them.
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.
>is being used as primary source for current events Is it though? According to Pew, only 20% of US adults use Twitter: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-... In comparison, Fox news is used as a source by 40% of the US population: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-... The share is bigger for Facebook, though (69%)