Response to “Social Cybersecurity: An Emerging National Security Requirement.”

This article offered a fascinating exploration of the developing national security challenges presented by social media technologies. We tend to think of these platforms as ways to interact with one another online. However, governments have been dealing with an entirely different problem: Information Warfare. The internet’s ability to rapidly transmit ideas around the world has brought information warfare to the forefront of national security. Previously, war was on the battlefield. You had to physically overcome or interact with your enemy to destroy them. Now, bad actors can use these powerful tools to manipulate the flow of information, and therefore the opinions and behaviors of a society, to nefarious ends. Because this can be done secretly and remotely it’s very difficult to defend against. This is especially true in nations that value free expression. The article mentions that North Korea doesn’t have this problem because they have total control over the flow of information in their society. The tradeoff there obviously being totalitarian dystopia, makes clear the inverse relationship between liberty and this emerging problem.

Forms of manipulation are discussed, including the use of AI controlled bots to multiply the force behind a theme. These can be used to create viral moments that sew confusion or distrust.

The article cites decentralization as the enabling force behind this problem. Information is no longer centralized and controlled, the way it had been prior to the internet revolution. The message the article seems to send, places its emphasis on the downsides of decentralization. I have genuinely mixed feelings here. The aforementioned tradeoffs really play out in this arena. For example, the article explains that centralized news agencies are required to tell the truth. It takes for granted the notion that corporate news entities are truthful and that this standard prevents the harm otherwise caused by decentralized news. I would argue that reality disagrees with that assertion. We have a long, well documented history of ill conceived military efforts being enabled by inaccurate information in the press. Would some of our historical blunders have been avoided with a decentralized press getting dissenting views to a wider audience? I think that is certainly possible. Further, there is no mention of the downsides of centralization with these new technologies. It’s possible that the tradeoff was tolerable 30-50 years ago, but the tools are so powerful now that centralizing them inclines a society toward tyranny. These are difficult questions that deserve deep investigation.

The article provides excellent insight into methods of infowar and the problems we face. I also agree with the general conclusion that addressing these problems is crucial. I would have preferred the author explore the tradeoffs more, while also understanding that wasn’t the spirit of the exercise.