Social media not adequatly defined in this article. It's hysteria, a buzzword.
The article is just noise without specifying what they're talking about
The article is just noise without specifying what they're talking about
This comment is just noise without specifying what they're talking about.
The way you use the term hysteria feels wrong to me.
There are many social media platforms, some of them similar, but some are also vastly different from each other (e.g. Hacker News vs. TikTok)
Making statements about all of social media without such clarifications makes them pretty unreliable for me.
HN is absolutely "social media", as it Facebook and WhatsApp.
With that said, I do believe social media platforms exist on a spectrum of "mostly benign, maybe even useful" to "mostly harmful" with closed groups/forums well to the benign end, targeted subjects with heavy moderation somewhere to the benign end of the spectrum (HN falls here), and "free for all" well to the "harmful" end (this is where most of Meta lives).
That said, I would assume most respondents have a more popular conception of the term. That’s going to be inherently a little fuzzy, but implies implies sites like X, Facebook and TikTok count, that Reddit is marginal, and that more “oldschool” things like webforums, chat services and even Hacker News are out.
One is about communications, the other is a more general concern about content that could extend to and audiovisual form.
Yet another definition is essentially a synonym for tiktok. Or sometimes they mean just twitter.
The UK online safety act leans heavily towards communication (ie comments or DMs, hence Wikipedia being caught up in it)
> assume the common meaning?
Which is? Point me to a defintion