https://www.film-shorts.tv/wpress.cfonseca160/blog/2021/09/24-culture-and-cuisine/
culture and cuisine: 9-24-2021 post
Today’s topic, for post, is the often-used-term: “social media”.

People have come up with this generality-of-a-term, which doesn’t really define much of anything in my own vocabulary. What the term used, actually aims to encompass is unclear, so I am specifying and limiting its scope.

I presume to understand that “social media” is limited to communications of a rather banal substance. These sociable communications are probably limited today to most aptly describe 2 of the most prevalent platforms in use today: ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’. They have been based on ‘Instant Messaging apps’. These are “apps” that have come into existence after the pioneers created spaces where people could chat with one another about anything they want to. And, today, there are many more of those who have emulated the two most commonly known brands.

In recent years, ‘Facebook’ was pressured to reclassify its business entity to: publisher. But, in truth, they are more than that – including advertiser. And, they are less than that – more of a platform moderator and data harvester.

At first creation of these types of communication hosts, existed messaging “apps” (applications) such as: ‘MSN Messenger’, and, ‘IRC’ (Internet-relay-chat); also, other types.

But, the Internet does not contain messaging alone… no, rather, much, much, more.

Some critics, feel threatened by free speech and the power of words; the power of truth and of lies. Some people of older generations often call in to radio programs to criticize the communications of younger folks, who find suitable (and many times limited) places for seemingly “unsupervised” communications.

But, is that fair to do? Criticize? I argue “no”, it is not fair. My answer to critics is, that if they don’t like free speech, they don’t have to read it; and, they can find speech that is more preferable to their personal tastes elsewhere. Moreover, if they are asked to pay for it then they don’t have to.

If I were to say, “I don’t like newspapers.”, that would be my right to say so of course. So, like any critic, I can exercise the expression of my opinion on the topic even if gross generality. But, to be fair, I would not be so ignorant as to convincingly infer that all newspapers in the entirety of the world (or produced in my country) were all “fake news”. More suitably, I could assert that, “most, many, or some of them, have untruths in them”. Moreover, I can decide for myself what I believe in them, or do not believe in them.

Some newspaper brands are better than other brands. And, some “social media” platforms host more articulate, meaningful, speech, as well.

If the criticism of “social media”, is that all those persons communicating on a particular platform are less-than-professional, well… you should not expect quality journalism from a free-speech social media platform anyway. Don’t go looking for apples on a tomato vine.

Find quality journalism elsewhere. Either, from a credible journalist whom you find intelligent (or at very least interesting); or, from your favorite newspaper – that is
either in paper-form or legible/audible elsewhere (such as on the Internet or Radio).

And, still others might prefer to read a journalist’s blog.

Neither a newspaper, a pod-cast, a magazine, a trade- journal, nor a blog-cast, are “social media”. The former listed, are more appropriately referred to as a: “publisher”, “broadcaster”, “writer”, “editor”, “entertainer”, “bulletin-board-operator”, or other such similar-category terminology.