Yeah, you show some spirit, but no, that's not what those words mean, you even use them with different meanings - wiki/Socialism, wiki/Communism.
You misrepresented the two terms so badly I was looking for funny sarcasm/parody/trolling (eg "100% socialistic", "hangouts/wealth redistribution is communism and socialism is communal ownership", etc). Same with VW example.

And alleging "socialism" (actually 'communism', the communal ownership of production factors) is less secure for your personal freedoms than private companies owning your data is just lol. The gov has the same access. Atm private companies control a lot of gov too so you just don't really have a gov of the people anymore.

Not to mention that socialism/communism is not incompatible with democracy.
You can have 0 private (mega)corps (for simplicity sake: that just means no stock markets) and still have a perfectly normal & representative democracy.

In fact, with people more engaged & putting the work into governance (not voting like a sports fan), that's how you safeguard from fascism.

And yes, Trump can issue a phone in that style, since nobody is overthrowing him (is there even a codified procedure for that?).

You could have a completely Socialistic society that let's some of it's people starve because it benefits the majority.

Besides the word "socialistic" not meaning that (unless you meant that the choice was between 'everybody starving' and 'a minority starving') a majority can always outvote the minority, that is their moral prerogative. That is the opposite of a minority rule where the majority can starve (or be otherwise hindered/stolen from/enslaved/etc).

The difference is that with communal wealth the food production isn't motivated by profit, but way more by food production quantity (bcs the owners want to eat, not profit).