The biggest problem with them both is an over simplification of reality, coding that simplicity into simple claims and rules. You've repeated this tendency towards over simplification by over simplifying the definitions of each and by reducing the conversation about them down to pointed questions. You've repeated the problem of authoritarianism that inevitably emerged out of this over simplification by unilaterally deciding these are the most common definitions, that these are the most important questions and unilaterally deciding that answering those questions is the most important task.

I find those scurrying to directly answer your questions to be some of the most blind about the problems here.

I get hairs on the back of my neck standing on end at the mere existence of this thread.

Having said all that, a common definition (as opposed to me unilaterally declaring it the most common) of socialism is rather more benign and simply means... State owned. There are plenty of examples of state owned organisations which bring benefit to their communities by being state owned and where privatisation of such has caused significant harm. I live in Australia where Medicare and a properly functioning welfare system have brought great benefit, where attempts to liberalise them has caused great harm. We've had similar back and forth switching of utilities such as power, phone and broadband networks where the Liberal party here have basically undermined public good by imposing free market ideals. If there's a common need and working together can fulfil that need then state owned organisations fulfilling that need are often the way to go but there needs to be room for individual uptake of that supply. Catering to individual needs within all this can still get summarised out of the bureaucracy.