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
According to some in the US government, Facebook can change the result of an election, so I guess that would qualify

>>farees+99
> According to some in the US government, Facebook can change the result of an election, so I guess that would qualify

Essential infrastructure describes "assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy" [1]. Not things that can cause a lot of damage. Bombers aren't essential infrastructure. Facebook is non-essential.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_infrastructure

>>JumpCr+N9
According to your linked article, it could be considered 'Critical.' Not sure how it doesn't fit under the 'telecommunications' umbrella. Subjectively I don't like facebook nor people's dependence on it to label it 'critical', but objectively I'm not sure the linked article supports those subjective inclinations. At the very least, it's certainly debatable that facebook could be considered Telecommunications infrastructure.

>>chairm+gc
But it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's only "critical" because it exists. If we shutdown every Facebook server tomorrow and set fire to their data center, it would no longer exist. And therefore have no influence on much of anything.

>>vlan0+7f
I'm not so sure I follow this argument, one could say the Earth itself is only critical infrastructure because it "exists". So therefore if we destroy the Earth, it wasn't actually "critical" infrastructure, even though any associated infrastructure on the Earth went along with it. Maybe the distinction needs a little more fleshing out.

>>chairm+ej
If you destroy the Earth, we're all dead.

If you destroy Facebook, Google+ gets some more users.

>>Angost+wn
But we won't "exist" so it's not "critical".