Talk:Viasat hack

Lead section has extra information
I added the clean-up tag that this article has extra information in the lead section. The notice suggests moving information into the body of the article. However, there is a lot more wrong with the article than this tag would suggest. The first sentence is inaccurate and the second sentence should lead the article, as Viacom's customers were the primary victims of this attack, not the company itself. While the cyber-attack targeted the company's satellite network modems, those modems were located in customer premises, not the company's premises. So, if the company was also attacked, the article needs to explain how that was accomplished. Yes, the company is affected by the attack, because its equipment was rendered inoperable and needs to fix the problem the attack has caused, but nothing in the article suggests to me that the company itself was attacked. If it was, then this is not explained. The lead should be a paragraph or two that summarizes the whole event. Not five that seems to pile on with more and more information that overwhelms the reader. Also, the writing style should adopt a formal and impartial tone and avoid slang descriptions like "got bricked" which many people will not understand or might misinterpret, even if wiki-linked. The meaning of that term is also vague and can range from being partly disabled to functionally permanently destroyed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)