Talk:Social media as a public utility

File:Social Web Share Buttons.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Social Web Share Buttons.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 7 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Social Web Share Buttons.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Major reorganization

While WP:PROCON is not a policy or guideline, I agree with its assertion that dividing the page into arguments and counterarguments is problematic. It creates WP:NPOV problems because it gives all arguments equal weight, thereby giving some arguments undue weight. It also spaces information about one topic far apart in the article. For example, information about government regulations is found in two places, with four paragraphs in between.

I propose a reorganization that would create the following outline:

• Definition
• Comparison with existing public utilities
• Monopolies and alternates to social networking sites
• Government regulations
• Free speech
• Net neutrality
• Trends in usage of social media platforms

I'd like to achieve consensus before making a big change like this. Do others support this or have different proposals? Romhilde (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Several issues with the article

Putting reorganization aside, there are also issues with the text itself. More minor issues include the need for copy editing and a need for one citation style, instead of the two that are used. Also, the first paragraph under Definitions is problematic because it is a paragraph defining what social media is, but that should be left to the social media page. More broadly, I think the entire four-paragraph Definitions section is borderline unacceptable because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary.

On top of this, the article mistakenly refers to the Yahoo! and Google search engines as social media platforms. For example:

Specifically, advocates note that Google search should be treated as a public utility and needs to be regulated because it dominates the search engine market and no website can afford to ignore it. ... Additionally, Mark Jamison brings up a situation in 2009 which illustrates how consumers can easily find alternatives to social media sites such as Google search. "For about an hour on the morning of January 31, 2009, Google search results contained a noticeable error. During that period of time a large number of customers switched their search activity to Yahoo! and probably to other search engines (Google 2009; Vascellaro 2009)."

But mostly importantly my question is, why is this entire page about opinions? Wouldn't a more accurate title for the page be Opinions about social media as a public utility? If we are truly trying to describe social media as a public utility, I would expect a lot more factual statements than opinions. Government regulations are mentioned several times, but what are those regulations? Are there any, or even any proposals for regulations? If anyone has thoughts about this, please share and discuss. Romhilde (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard Google and Yahoo! being social media, it turns out I am the mistaken one. Some people and researchers do classify them as social media. That thought has never occurred to me, but since the article is not about me, I retract what I said. I still stick by my points about super long definitions and too much emphasis on opinions though. Romhilde (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you were right the first time, Romhilde. I’ve also seen the inclusion of search in general social media studies, but sense it’s inclusion was driven by the interests of the studies’ funders - likely the capital markets or SEO/advertisers. I.e., not users. Personally I think the categorical difference between web search and other “social” sites is obvious: search exists solely to deliver information from the World Wide Web; it’s literally the gateway to the web’s content. The other social media deal in some form of interpersonal communication, content sharing, or networking. Seems clumsy to try to ascribe the the same characteristics to both. Cjallen67 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)