Everyone wants to blame Mark Zuckerberg for polarization and fake news. But if social media were fragmented into a thousand smaller companies instead of a few big ones, wouldn't polarization and fake news be worse?
-
Yes. But the union members in the neighboring town might not be on the same network? Each network might have a different ad platform, API, cookie, policy, so the attacker would have more work to take to scale?
Of course they will be. The smaller social networks would be based on affinity, and only incidentally on geography. As for the complexity of attacking the distributed network, would you find it easier to compromise Zuck's laptop, or those of 1000 random people?
-
-
For an attacker wouldn't it be harder to find & compromise the specific 1000 that they are targeting? ie I'm making the case that the ease of targeting on FB does provide a significant reduction in cost of the attacker.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Can you think of any real example of many small networks collectively having better economics of scale and stronger networks effects (collectively) than a single large network comprised of all the same people? To me, by definition, that sounds incorrect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Comprimising zucks laptop is irrelevant. Social media attacks come from botnets and sockpuppet farms not zero days. Just consider, would George W. Bush saying Iraq has WMD be considered fake news? Of course not. That tells you all you need to know
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Go see how many different Ford Mustang forums there are on the web. Or how many Salesforce experts groups exist on FB. There would be fragmentation even with the same affinity—and some without ads surely. It’d be harder to blanket them all with disinformation campaigns.
-
Is it? All it takes is one concerted effort
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That’s the wrong question. Is it more likely that every single one of 1000 randomly chosen people get hacked or that Zuck gets hacked? The likelihood of total compromise is way higher with centralisation but the chance of no compromise is still too low.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.