I sometimes wonder the firm defintion(s) of 'public social media'

If you post a blog on blogspot or similar it seems the point is to be public. (there could be settings there to make some things non public, I don't remember or know what is current)

If you post on a network that requires login to see the posts, is that public? (is twitter / tumbler / fbook all indexed via google / available without login?)

If you post on a social network inside a group that requires approval to join, but is free - is that public?

If you post something behind a paywall, is that public?

If someone shares a photo of you that you DMed a person using a social network..

Snapchat makes things disappear, whatsapp advertises that even they can't see your bad behavior.

Did you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in these places?

One could argue that stolen photos, texts, books, movies that are posted on a social network are now public.

And then I think about the number of people who don't understand what is public and what can be seen by others, and I feel that our apps and hardware should bear some responsibility to remind people that tapping like or making a comment may feel intimate / 1 to 1, but you may be questioned one day very publicly about why you were voting for one kind of thing while giving thumbs up and praise comments to twinks from your official account.

Then I wonder what kind of hybrid social systems will be a thing in the future - some sort of encrypted 1 to 1 and 1 to groups thing.

It's not just stories like this, but companies scraping tinder profiles and sharing the pictures and such..

People's expectation of privacy and the horrors of that not being a thing will likely cause more and more migrations into privacy proxy identity avatar agents;

which will likely lead to less data for the big companies where the data knowledge is the gold.

FBI RFP for tool to scrape Gab, Parler, 8Kun, and Telegram (5k licenses) [pdf]