People always say the scale of the war, but the Napoleonic Wars were pretty similar in this regard, right? I guess what I'm getting at is other than the military technology, how was WWI different than the Napoleonic Wars? The press, world economy, healthcare, social classes were all very different during WWI as compared to the early 1800's, and I'm curious as to how they or other things may have contributed to WWI being truly a "modern" war.
You really can't separate them; accurate, powerful artillery, massive-scale use of machine guns, flamethrowers, gas, automatic weapons, aircraft, submarines, and armoured vehicles are really the hallmarks of modern warfare, as are the responses to them - trenches, the decline of cavalry, camouflage, steel helmets, bullet proof armour, gas masks, the Geneva Conventions and bans on the use of Chemical Weapons, etc.
If you include things that aren't necessarily military in functions, things that were novel, or at least novel to warfare, or at least novel to mass deployment:
Jon Agar has a chapter on science and technology in World War I in his book Science in the 20th Century and Beyond, and I have a couple of books on history of science and history of medicine I can look up for you if you're interested when I get back from a conference after the weekend.
Someone else would be better qualified to discuss social or economic history, though.
Also, your question doesn't mention the arts, but World War I was a huge stimulus for modernist and counter-modernist artistic movements alike.