zlacker

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+(OP)
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+R2
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.

>>vlan0+R2
I support your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!

>>chairm+Y6
If you destroy the Earth, we're all dead.

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

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