[creamyhorror]

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.)

[baxuz]

If it's media, it should be regulated like media.

[jMyles]

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"?

[dhruv3006]

I guess social networking service is actually a more appropiate name for the thing.

[Nevermark]

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.