I think the core difference is the level of tailoring and the automation of that tailoring. Newspapers, magazines, television, and radio have all had the same i

I think the core difference is the level of tailoring and the automation of that tailoring. Newspapers, magazines, television, and radio have all had the same incentives in the past, but architecturally the approach was one to many. At first the internet was more of the same, but today social media companies construct optimized engagements for each individual, automatically and very effectively. This is a one-to-one optimization. Furthermore, social media supercharges the engagement by piggybacking on our social nature - people are usually responding to stuff their friends posted or commented on. This both allows disinformation to be received as more truthful (my friend sent it, why would they lie?) and simply makes it more compelling (I get to be happy/sad/outraged with my friends). Put it all together and it really is different than before. It's fine to compare it to historical changes in media. I don't agree that it's just more of the same though, the differences make this a whole new animal.