,
8 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Does cybersecurity *suffer* from a rational discourse? YouTube's "Hot Mess" channel discusses a growing need to "respond[] to the science through fear, and that made me a much more committed, much more engaged climate person than I had ever benn before."
*Should* we apply hysteria to #cybersecurity? "That's what many people have found so surprising: that fear can actually make people more engaged... Maybe [psychologists are wrong] at least for some people... Fear is an incredibly powerful motivator."
*Should* we apply hysteria to #cybersecurity? "If the science is alarming, then it's okay to alarm readers with it -- to alarm people with it -- and in fact it's the only, I think, responsible way to respond to that news."
*Should* we apply hysteria to #cybersecurity? "The much bigger problem is that [too many who acknowledge the need] don't care *enough* about the issue yet... They're not orienting their entire political worldview around this challenge."
"Good" #cybersecurity hype? "We do have to be conscious of the risk that fear and doom and talking about all the bad things ... might have an unintended side effect of just being so awful and negative and hard to deal with that it turns some people off."
I DO contest where the expert claims "we don't arm ourselves to defend against [a] foreign invasion; we pay money collectively to build an army." Our gov't to this day supplies NO army to protect e.g. Sony Entertainment from a North Korean cyber attack.
Should our industry *embrace* fearmongering? The narrator notes "everything touches climate and everything exists within climate." We can say exactly the same about #cybersecurity, yes?
*Should* we apply hysteria to #cybersecurity? "I found this new focus on fear and worse-case predictions-- it's actually kind of motivating... This gives me some new hope [to motivate people beyond their lax engagement] even if it's difficult to face."
