zlacker

>>colone+(OP)
Fun quotes from all of two months ago:

'Facebook is clearly aware that losing its chief security officer and dissolving its dedicated security team, in the middle of all that’s going on, is not a great look. So many of the company’s statements today are clearly designed to address obvious concerns that arise.

“We expect to be judged on what we do to protect people’s security, not whether we have someone with a certain title,” a spokesperson said. In another statement, Facebook said it is “investing heavily in security to address new types of threats” and that its new security structure has “helped us do more to keep people safe.”'

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/1/17640852/facebook-cso-alex...

>>itsdre+V5
It is essential that tech companies, especially ones that provide critical infrastructure, place technical excellence above other priorities. Denigrating meritocracy is like pollution: the impact may not be immediate, and in the short term, it may look like you can have your cake and eat it too, but the universe is not caring and not kind, and if you forget about the need for excellence in the continual struggle against entropy, nature will eventually get around to teaching you a harsh and remedial lesson.

>>quotem+08
Is Facebook now considered critical infrastructure?

>>gaahrd+b8
Facebook is positioning itself to be a -- the -- private source of a "social score", somewhat akin to what the Chinese government is doing.

As that comes into place and use, how many companies are going to be basing their pricing -- their entire product offers, in light of the availability of this information, this "score" (and all the categorization behind it) -- upon it?

Bingo. Critical infrastructure. (Like it or not, for some of us.)