Talk:Social media as a public utility

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:

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)