What qualifies as “rational media”?
For a term (or “string”) to be rational, that term must be defined. Undefined terms are considered irrational.
Whether terms or strings are defined or not of course depends on the corresponding linguistic community. Some terms and strings may even have definitions in several languages, sometimes a term’s definition in one language may be similar to or even the same in another language, other times they may be quite different from each other. Likewise, there may be differences from one dialect to other dialects. Some terms may be frequently used by one linguistic sub-community, and at the same time be used only rarely by others.
And perhaps the most important consideration of all is whether or not a term’s owner shows any sign of inauthenticity. A recent example of severely lacking authenticity was Elon Musk’s acquisition of “twitter.com”. After acquiring the domain (which is, in itself also very inauthentic — as “twitter” essentially means something like “babble”) he is attempting to rebrand it as something even more meaningless — namely “x” (see also “What’s X?” [ http://socio.business.blog/2023/10/28/whats-x ] ).
In the long run, idiosyncratic use of terms has very little impact on a community’s language. As in the case above, if a “dictator” were to declare a term to mean something which the corresponding linguistic community does not “follow” or “agree” with, then such an idiosyncratic definition will generally “fall on deaf ears” (or it will seem like a foreign language, which does not “belong to us“). Such foreign languages are considered “irrational”, insofar as they make little or no sense to the indigenous linguistic community. [1]
PHLAT design 
4 thoughts on “Rational Media”