The problem with platforms is not that they are for-profit or because the beguile viewers with "algorithms." Scale, context collapse, and virality--these make social media different from mass media.
I would suggest that a post on a wide-open network like twitter is never *just* a post to one's friends, such posts would be made in a private group like those that on Facebook.
Agreed! And as you point out, a somewhat narrow definition of social that is not necessarily about conviviality. I think this might also relate to the question of why online social movements have been great at protests but not at achieving systemic changes. Zeynep Tufekci argues in her "Twitter and Teargas" book that it's because when the time comes to negotiate, there is no legitimate leadership that can speak for the protesters, especially to make compromises.
I would suggest that a post on a wide-open network like twitter is never *just* a post to one's friends, such posts would be made in a private group like those that on Facebook.
I agree with much of this, certainly the pushback against "algorithms" -- but I think it's not an accident that it's called social media:
"Social media is social. The primary information it conveys is social; the primary reason people use it is to get social information."
https://kevinmunger.substack.com/p/we-lived-in-a-society
Agreed! And as you point out, a somewhat narrow definition of social that is not necessarily about conviviality. I think this might also relate to the question of why online social movements have been great at protests but not at achieving systemic changes. Zeynep Tufekci argues in her "Twitter and Teargas" book that it's because when the time comes to negotiate, there is no legitimate leadership that can speak for the protesters, especially to make compromises.