Again, it's not about links or about comments. It's about the focus of the content. My friend, I have been shitposting on the Internet quite likely longer than you've been alive, so no, I'm not ignoring the content. And I was on Facebook for the best part of a decade so no, no shame there either.
But Usenet isn't social media. Forums aren't social media. Comment boxes aren't social media. The term came about when people started friending and following and tagging each other and generally caring who the other person is - without which all of these previous examoles are just more chatrooms and forums. If Social Media is literally just communicating in any way on the Internet, then the term is useless.
They share them as a once off. Very occasionally you'll get the "Update: MIL stole our baby" posts, but mostly it doesn't matter (and shouldn't matter) who is posting the content. In social media, who is posting matters.
You have the oddities on Reddit occasion like that terrible poet and the comic lady that has her OF simps brigade her posts, but just look at how utterly useless and rejected all of Reddit's attempts to turn it into social media are: follows, journals, chat - features of genuine social media but done poorly and with the wrong audience who distinctly Don't want to follow personalities.
Ukraine neither had control of those nuclear weapons, nor the ability to maintain them. It is probably for the best for humanity that they were removed. This is acknowledged by ICANW.
Because by that criteria every web page that's ever had a comment box is "social media".
Social media to me is, as the guy said, defined by the fact that you're following a person/persona, not a topic.
This site and other sites like it are link aggregators. If you wanted to, you could use and contribute to a link aggregator without ever writing or indeed reading a comment.
It was 3.6 years after? And it was pretty dead at that point. Like it was popular with a core group who were making Niantic and TPC tons of money, but the phenomenon was dead by the anniversary.
I'm sorry what? Do you understand the difference between, for example, mocking a blind person for using a cane and wearing dark glasses, and mocking people who think it's cool and decide to start wearing dark glasses and using a cane while being perfectly sighted? Do you think that is a reasonable thing to do? Do you think it would be ableist to laugh at perfectly able people who are pretending to be disabled?
You know that's not the LLM's 'source' right? It's still output. Do you mean the training data? Is that what you mean by CoPilot should be open source? If CoPilot has learned from something GPL then everything else it outputs, or perhaps specifically its training data - should be GPL?
It's not just any water, it's holy water. If a priest has cast Ceremony to create the holy water on whatever, sure. But why when you probably have liquid water tk hand? God might wonder if it's very sincere if you're just basically doing it for a laugh. Might take away your spell slots.