Meta can use AI to filter and look for patterns, but must review to send less junk to law enforcement, otherwise they are firehosing the cops' review process with garbage, DOSing them. And I wouldn't put it past Meta senior management to exercise a degree of malicious compliance in this behaviour. Look at it from the cops side, each of the reports sent from Meta have to be reviewed by at least one person. And the cops' web review teams don't have $22 billion net income per quarter. What proportion of the 60 billion artifacts are between a small circle of family friends & work colleagues? If the exponential social graph makes filtering intractable, then Meta have the technical capability to make it more difficult for people to create links, when the recipient don't have a good idea of what they are opening themselves up to. e.g. recipients can choose to opt in to get incoming communications from a stranger vetted in a group. recipients can choose to only accept text or audio from a person, only web links to a public group. There's plenty of history showing that big tech could reduce malicious scams, malware and criminal content from advertisers, that they have underresourced human reporting tools and communication reporting lines, and low effectiveness on acting on the reports. The techbro AIs are simultaneously "approaching superintelligence", and incapable of spotting scam ads matching the text pattern " don't want you to know about that gives " gains". It's in the corporate interest to wear the dunce cap and profit from inaction. Even the legit advertisers lose out also as sane people have sensible distrust of the unvetted garbage. "Internally, Meta estimates that users across its apps in total encounter 15 billion “high risk” scam ads a day. That’s on top of 22 billion organic scam attempts that Meta users are exposed to daily, a 2024 document showed. Last year, the company projected that about $16 billion, which represents about 10 percent of its revenue, would come from scam ads. " "Meanwhile, Meta acknowledged in documents that its systems helped scammers target users most likely to click on their ads." https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... "When it comes to Meta, neither Facebook nor Instagram appear to provide a user-friendly and easily accessible ‘Notice and Action' mechanism for users to flag illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material and terrorist content. The mechanisms that Meta currently applies seems to impose several unnecessary steps and additional demands on users. In addition, both Facebook and Instagram appear to use so-called ‘dark patterns', or deceptive interface designs, when it comes to the 'Notice and Action' mechanisms. Such practices can be confusing and dissuading. Meta's mechanisms to flag and remove illegal content may therefore be ineffective." https://ec.europa.eu/commissio...

In 2017 it was $350 billion US Investment promised over 5 years. In 2021, $430 billion. https://www.apple.com/newsroom... Motley Fool did a breakdown in 2018 https://www.fool.com/investing... US Investment was "contributing to the US economy" a large block of which was repatriating foreign cash. $30 billion was capital expenditure, $55 billion in purchasing from 9000 domestic suppliers.

I disagree.
Considering the example of the Irish Health Service in the article points out the issues.

External, loosely affiliated parties (doctors, clinics, ambulances) with no infosec knowledge need to contribute vital data (x-rays, patient notes) that is placed onto core systems, and it can be a matter of life-and-death that accurate complete data is retrievable with minimal delay, fails, errors by authorised individuals.

The network focused ring based system described is a case of imposing a theoretical defence model, that'll be broken before it's even deployed. Thinking of service delivery appications as though they were old style prisons.

These are infrastructure systems that need to be Engineered and architected, and a lot of the engineered components should be possible to standardize, make repeatable.
Not the minimum viable product that we work with every day. Software, hardware, OS, Comms internal, comms external, operators, maintainers, installers.
So questions raised.
Should every application be expected to allow for a huge overhead; something like your system of rings, A cluster of containers for resilience patching, test. it's own application-aware firewall cluster at each major API and boundary, as current vendor trends seem to be heading.
Standardized, vendor independent specs and methods for defined API boundaries, but not set in stone; permitting revisioning. Defined at-rest data storage bunkers with encryption and verification, anywhere data might need processing or caching.

Digital certificates indicating training required to acccess potentally breaking change areas.

So much for complexity being the enemy of good.

Most IT professionals or consultants might only have an inkling of parts of this. And no way are we going to start writing in mathematically proven ADA from day-to-day.
And vendors won't do this. Even OS sending print to printers remains a half done, problem-prone bodge.

For your sales/accounts dept.

As someone who somehow never heard of Starcraft or Diablo till last year, I thought I'd give them a try.

But your "Blizzent" online store appears to be blacklisted by my credit card company, probably due to WOW abuse. No checking phone call or anything. And in this forsaken EU country we're taxed per card, so another isn't an option. I don't suppose you've any plans to make your non WOW titles available through a separate/reputable provider? cough steam cough.