>I easily survive without social media. When I use the phrase "social media" I refer to the mainstream platforms with which that phrase has become associated e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snap, etc. I do not use any of them. For me it is 99% garbage and I cannot be bothered to search for the 1% (which will probably be my own confirmation bias anyway).

Same here.

>>Also you are wrong. This place is one of the oldest social media platforms on the web. ;)
>
>Yes, agree when strictly applying the phrase that UT is a type of social media :) but not in the context I was using this phrase.

Now here's the nice linguistic conundrum here, at least when these are translated into ex-Yu languages. We used to have societal ownership, not state ownership, on enterprises and pretty much anything except army, customs, mint and a few other state institutions. And there's no difference between social and societal in our language(s), it's the same word. So it's a social enterprise, social security... and social teeth or eyeglasses, the ones you get from your social and health insurance (again, the terms overlapped here). And now there's the social networks which are privately owned, pure paradox. How do we translate that - as društvene mreže, which would make it society-owned (wrong!), or socijalne mreže, which would mean something provided by your social security or health insurance, wrong again.

My solution to that is to just ignore them, as I pretty much stay away from any media/websites financed by advertising. No matter what it is, if it says "we notice you're using an ad blocker", it's immediately getting a ctrl-w. Because advertising revenue is the anti-Midas touch - whatever it touches becomes shit.