I was always perturbed by the shift from calling them "social networks" to "social media". It signalled a friends-to-famous shift (plus ads) that I didn't particularly want.
Why fill my personal feed with stuff I normally get on dedicated discussion/news sites? (Rhetorical; it's obvious why.)
They still call it SNS (social networking service) in Japan. We need to keep moving to a new iteration of this - hopefully one that funnels less money and influence to a small group of players. (I'm working on my own ideas for this.)
If it's media, it should be regulated like media.
Is this code for, "I want the cops to stop people from doing things online I don't like" or "we need more regularity / predictability"?
Traditional (so-called “legacy”) media have legal rights and obligations in most countries. They are required to live up to certain standards, for example by distinguishing between opinion and fact, by disclosing political affiliations, and so on.
Journalist is more than a job title, and so is editor.
I guess social networking service is actually a more appropiate name for the thing.
That makes sense in the case where people are mindfully connecting with particular individuals or organizations, and paying for that.
Not for where algorithms select media for you. That's not a "networking service", even if that is one of its hooks. Unless you consider SPAM or junk mail, riding on email and postal "networking" to be a "service".
"Attention media" is more accurate.
But that also describes traditional advertisement based "media". Which earned its keep via attention access, by including unintegrated ads as a recognizable second component.
A description specific to the new form is "surveillance/manipulation media" or "SM media".
Attention-access funded media lacked pervasive unpermissioned surveillance and seamlessly integrated individualized manipulation. Where dossier-leveraged manipulation, not simply attention access, has become the defining product.