Since we disagree, and I imagine there are many people with the same opinions as both you and me, why not make it opt-in, so you only encounter social media if you choose to make an account, and then still only see it if you go to it and/or install it intentionally? Wait, that's how it is now...
I deleted Instagram months ago and I have friends that have routinely told me that profile is still up, just in a limited capacity. How is this opt-in?
An even better example of it's non-opt-in nature is that I went as far as to ban all social media via my VPN and router. The result was unexpected when looking at American news, it often quotes from and derives sources from social media. Reading news articles that were mostly Twitter statements or reactions made it hard to discern what the articles were even about in the first place.
Did you temporarily disable your account instead of deleting it? Deletion appears to only be available from web/mobile web, which is not great but deletion is only three steps. [1]
1) You're saying social media isn't opt in because they're tracking users off of their social media platform. This doesn't have anything to do with social media, but rather the pages you're going to have chosen to use a service provided by Facebook to track users. They could use another behavior targeting service, but chose Facebook's.
2) You're saying Instagram deletion didn't work. It sounds like you deactivated it instead of deleted it. I haven't heard this be an issue (it'd be widely reported if it were)
3) You're saying it's not opt-in because people refer to it in the news. In that case, nothing is opt-out because people have the right to refer to anything they want. Making this opt-out would mean censoring other people from saying things online or referring to things online, because of your views.
2. I have already answered this. I deleted it. I'm happy to share the email that shows I deleted it, not deactivated. I additionally deleted my data as well, so I have two emails to share if you so desire.
3. There are websites that do this and it's not considered censoring. Reddit regularly has rules against doxxing or naming as well as proper attribution. People have gone as far as to setup bots and alerts to remove information or give proper attribution. This idea is not revolutionary and your presentation of it is maximalist at best.
I think the issues you're describing don't have anything to do with the social media service aspect, but more like bad practices of an online company. So I'd agree we should push for online tech companies to fix many issues, including security issues and offsite tracking and proper attribution, etc.
But I don't believe in your original argument that we should abolish social media, because a lot of people want to use social media and it's not your right to stop them.
> But I don't believe in your original argument that we should abolish social media, because a lot of people want to use social media and it's not your right to stop them.
I'm happy to give up decentralization or abolishment if someone can find a way to ensure that social media is treated like the extension to free speech that it is, that privacy is ensured strongly, and that virality is a thing of the past.
It’s not great for anyone in your address book or photos that didn’t opt in.
Secondly, they purposely set up a walled garden such that you can't see some things unless you make an account. Like say, the thousands of businesses with no website but only a Facebook presence. Or reading political discourse directly from politicians on Twitter. Or, as is very often noted, the easiest place to get support from companies seems to be on social media.
The latter isn't really easy to solve. One can say who cares, don't join then. But it can put you at certain disadvantages.