Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the Twitter Hack

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#61

Post by baddox »

basch wrote: post #16
stickfigure wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do you propose to split up Twitter? Split the userbase into 100 groups? Who goes in which group? And what happens when people want to switch groups... ultimately coalescing in a single node? Because, you know, network effects. I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution!

There's other ways to deal with anti-trust besides breaking the companies apart. Data portability, interoperability, ownership of your own social graph. If these platforms were forced to act more like email, where leaving google for microsoft doesnt mean i can no longer contact my friends, the network effects that give them monopoly-like power diminish. Imagine how ridiculous email would feel if you need a gmail acco…

> Imagine how ridiculous email would feel if you need a gmail account to email gmail peeps, a microsoft account to email outlook peeps, and another separate account to communicate with people in every mom and pop community.

Maybe this is the problem you’re hinting at, but I expect it would be very rare for me to ever run into someone I couldn’t email because they’re not using Gmail (especially if we include G Suite).

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#62

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

stickfigure wrote: post #28
basch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's other ways to deal with anti-trust besides breaking the companies apart. Data portability, interoperability, ownership of your own social graph. If these platforms were forced to act more like email, where leaving google for microsoft doesnt mean i can no longer contact my friends, the network effects that give them monopoly-like power diminish. Imagine how ridiculous email would feel if you need a gmail acco…

So let's imagine Facebook/Twitter/etc was based on open protocols like SMTP... * You'd have the same spam and abuse problem that email has. * You'd have zero control over the information you post to it, just like email. There would be absolutely no way of stopping or even slowing down the Cambridge Analyticas of the world. "Ownership of your own social graph" is complete and utter nonsense. As soon as you share data…

> There would be absolutely no way of stopping or even slowing down the Cambridge Analyticas of the world.

They wouldn't be as much of an issue in the first place, because there isn't a single company with a single collection of data to siphon through a single API with a single entity that has to give you access in order to collect whatever you want. A Cambridge Analytica that has to separately try to get data from O365 and GMail and FastMail and ProtonMail is much less dangerous.

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#63

Post by mc32 »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
juliend2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. So according to this definition, Google doesn't have a monopoly in the market of Search engines since there is also Bing[1]. What is the word for it then? Highly-dominant player? Edit: looks like I'm not alone to have this definition for a monopoly[2]. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23900128

De facto monopoly is not a monopoly. It is a dominant player. But a monopoly really is exclusive.

? If by all measures, except the law, it’s a monopoly then isn’t it a monopoly, just not de jure?

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#64

Post by dogfoods »

stickfigure wrote: post #12
metalliqaz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…

How exactly do you propose to split up Twitter? Split the userbase into 100 groups? Who goes in which group? And what happens when people want to switch groups... ultimately coalescing in a single node? Because, you know, network effects. I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution!

We used to have forums and blogs organised by interest topic or community. An elegant mode of organisation, for a more civilised age.

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#65

Post by dogfoods »

Shivetya wrote: post #23
metalliqaz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very typical of the libertarian streak that underpins HN. I'm always a little turned off by this strange dominate-the-world culture out of SV. I come from a culture that valued open source and interoperable open standards. Where did my people go? Twitter is clearly and objectively a monopoly or in a duopoly with Facebook/Instagram. At my most charitable, I could include YouTube in the mix. But I'd still say m…

Twitter's power comes fro being nearly integrated into main stream news. the danger therein has been seen with the platform used to shame those who put forth the wrong opinion, spin a story in a manner not acceptable, or associate with someone who has done the same. how this came about is hard to place but I would not doubt the executives at Twitter cultivated their position along with very adept targeting of celebri…

Maybe it shouldn't be split up but burned, razed, and the ground salted so nothing will ever grow there again.

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#66

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #29
juliend2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's with this dogmatic rhetoric, lol? Monopolies are just companies that enjoy a significant edge over their competitors. What makes monopolistic companies inherently always bad?

No, that is not the definition of a monopoly. A monopoly is a entity that holds exclusivity to a good or a service.

[deleted]

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#67

Post by Timpy »

staycoolboy wrote: post #45
Timpy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution! Schneier's point is the threat of a malicious actor starting a war by hijacking a politician's Twitter is non-zero. People like you and me opting out of Twitter is not an effective solution to that.

If enough people opt, it is a solution. Like littering: if I throw one cigarette butt out the window, is that really an environmental hazard? No. If a hundred million people each throw 20 out the window a day, then you have a problem.

Alright, well I'm avoiding twitter as hard as I can so I guess any day now the President will stop affecting public discourse via Twitter.

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#68

Post by juliend2 »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
juliend2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. So according to this definition, Google doesn't have a monopoly in the market of Search engines since there is also Bing[1]. What is the word for it then? Highly-dominant player? Edit: looks like I'm not alone to have this definition for a monopoly[2]. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23900128

De facto monopoly is not a monopoly. It is a dominant player. But a monopoly really is exclusive.

Thanks for the clarification, jacquesm. I looked at Merriam-Webster[1] and it basically says what you said: it must be exclusive.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#69

Post by notafraudster »

dogfoods wrote: post #64
stickfigure wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do you propose to split up Twitter? Split the userbase into 100 groups? Who goes in which group? And what happens when people want to switch groups... ultimately coalescing in a single node? Because, you know, network effects. I don't like Twitter either, so I don't use it. It's a really effective solution!

We used to have forums and blogs organised by interest topic or community. An elegant mode of organisation, for a more civilised age.

I mean, reddit and Discord are still this. They both graft on cross-community navigation and account systems for user convenience and increasing user retention.

Re: On the Twitter Hack

#70

Post by sanderjd »

I really feel like everyone is getting one of the broad points in this discussion wrong. If Twitter is a national security risk because people can hack it to speak in the official voice of prominent leaders, or discover state secrets through direct messages, that is nobody's fault but the government's, for relying on a platform they have no control over for official business.

Can you imagine the military complaining that the enemy was able to give false orders or discover troop movements through messages on a privately owned communications network completely outside their control? No, because it would be absurd for the military to rely on such a network. It is no less absurd that the civilian government (which nominally has more power than the military) is doing so.

It was a scandal when Hillary Clinton relied on a private email server. It is a far larger scandal that so many leaders, and especially the President, are now relying on a private company for their official communications.

Post reply on HN