I had this discussion with a friend, and we really couldn’t reach a consensus.
My friend thinks Lemmy (and other Reddit-like platforms) is social media because you’re interacting with other people, liking/disliking submissions, and all the content is user-generated.
I think it isn’t because you’re not following individual people, just communities/topics. Though I concede there are some aspects of social media present, I feel that overall it’s not because my view of social media is that you’re primarily following individuals.
In my view, these link aggregator + comment platforms are more like an evolution of forums which both my friend and I agreed don’t meet the criteria to be considered social media (though they maintain that Reddit-like platforms are social media while I do not).
So I’m asking Lemmy now to weigh in to help settle this friendly debate.
Edit: Thanks everyone! From the comments, it sounds like my friend and I are both right and both wrong. lol. Feel free to keep chiming in, but I have to go do the 9-5 thing that pays my mortgage and cloud hosting bills.
I prefer to think of them as antisocial media.
If I have to concede this argument to my buddy, that’s how I’m going to do it: antisocial media 😆
This is due to the anonymity of the situation and is the same direction my own answer went. I’m betting I know where this question came from, and I’d also bet courts would lean the other direction, based on the intent.
ive had this argument going for at least a decade. I agree with you, it is not social media. i dont think forums are social media any more than usenet.
its why i calll my instance a ‘nonsense aggregator’, as your verbiage also alludes to.
that said, im using an mbin server… and the microblog/twitverse piece does seem to jump into the social media arena. so my server product is now integrated with that category whether i like it or not.
I love the term “nonsense aggregator” xD
Usenet’s also a good comparison, and yeah, not social media.
Definitely agree on K/Mbin straddling the line because of its microblogging feature.
I think that Lemmy and Reddit are 100% social media.
Common/Wiki definition:
Social media are interactive technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks.
Content aggregators aren’t discluded. Especially in this case where original content can and does exist.
The biggest difference, I believe, as to why Lemmy is social media and a typical forum is not, is the sorting. In a forum, the discussion is chronological as in a conversation. Here, more likes gets you more noticed. In content AND in discussion. Thus there is incentive. Whether you care about likes or not, it exist and so does incentive for social relevancy. It drives what you see.
Next becomes use case. You CAN sort the comments chronologically, but nobody does that. You CAN just read and never post, but people also do that on Instagram. Maybe you don’t care about likes and aren’t trying to get them. But they exist, and other users do care. If I didn’t care about Facebook likes, it’s still social media.
Whether you like it or not, everything is socially manipulated on this site.
Maybe you don’t feel the negative effects that are typically associated with social media, and that’s great. But some people here do and can get angry/upset/defensive about being down voted. Either way, those effects are not a part of the definition, although the connotation does exist. And the same could be said about any social media. Some people are more headstrong and less effected. This site is not nearly as predatory as the big ones and (depending on your communities) don’t always have the intent to drive your emotional response. But those communities and users do exist.
I only have Instagram installed because there’s a few people who send me (usually political) clips so we can chat about them when we hang out or text. I’m not following anyone I know. I have added a few of the creators. I’ve never once liked or reposted anything. So can I now say Instagram isn’t social media?
Perhaps subcategories could be created, but that’s besides the point. This site absolutely fits at least that one definition, which removes all connotation and defensive argument that can be had.
OP is here interacting with a network of users sharing ideas that are being sorted by popularity, then viewing other posts sorted by popularity. This is socially driven media.
I think you’re both right. It’s really a semantic argument over what ‘social’ means in the phrase ’social network’.
For me I tend to agree with your interpretation. I suspect it’s because the phrase came into popular use(see Google Trend screenshot below) and in reference to the Xengas, MySpaces, and Facebooks of the world that were user-centric rather than the forums and BBS type paradigms that were more topic centric.
If it is like writing on toilet walls,
then it is social media.That’s an interesting and not inaccurate comparison lol.
If you’re interacting with other users then there’s 0 question it’s social media.
By that logic every comment section under a random newspaper’s article is social media. I dont think this forum esque, link feed with comment sections kind of social media that lemmy is, qualifies. Reddit didnt either for the longest time, before they started trying to form a culture and drowned in self referencing humor and repetitive one liner comments.
I’ve seen people get into week long threads in the comments section of ‘GoComics’
Yes, that is also social media. Being terrible, bottom of the barrel social media doesn’t make it less social media. It’s still people gathering in a place discussing topics. A fleeting place discussing news articles, but still.
Comments sections on news articles are usually an afterthought to try to boost “engagement” and be a “me too”. Comments on Lemmy are a deliberate and integral part of it. Lemmy as just a link aggregator wouldn’t attract any users, the comments section are what keep people here and interacting with others.
You’re literally asking a question for other people to answer. How is that any less social media than Twitter or Facebook? People post their personal achievements all the time, etc. If you respond to me, are we not having a social interaction?
How is it not social media?
Because by that criteria every web page that’s ever had a comment box is “social media”.
Social media to me is, as the guy said, defined by the fact that you’re following a person/persona, not a topic.
This site and other sites like it are link aggregators. If you wanted to, you could use and contribute to a link aggregator without ever writing or indeed reading a comment.
Then what about the self help communities? They largely share stories and personal experiences.
Or the meme communities largely made up of 2 heavy posters that other people follow?
Acting like Lemmy is only a link aggregator is being obtuse.
They share them as a once off. Very occasionally you’ll get the “Update: MIL stole our baby” posts, but mostly it doesn’t matter (and shouldn’t matter) who is posting the content. In social media, who is posting matters.
You have the oddities on Reddit occasion like that terrible poet and the comic lady that has her OF simps brigade her posts, but just look at how utterly useless and rejected all of Reddit’s attempts to turn it into social media are: follows, journals, chat - features of genuine social media but done poorly and with the wrong audience who distinctly Don’t want to follow personalities.
You can’t just handwave away 90% of the content and claim that all these sites are really about the links.
For God’s sake, you’re citing reddit, a site renowned for people reading only the headline and then jumping into the comments to socially engage about the topic.
Or let’s point to “we did it reddit!”. That wasn’t a social collaboration? Or r/place? Or AMA?
Yeah, if you ignore all of the social interaction, reddit is a link aggregator. But if you really think reddit is equivalent to an RSS feed, you’re either being a troll or just oblivious.
Do you really think there’s an important distinction to be made or do you just not want to admit that you’re no different from the people who scroll Facebook all day? If it’s the latter, maybe it’s yourself you’re more upset with than the term.
Again, it’s not about links or about comments. It’s about the focus of the content. My friend, I have been shitposting on the Internet quite likely longer than you’ve been alive, so no, I’m not ignoring the content. And I was on Facebook for the best part of a decade so no, no shame there either.
But Usenet isn’t social media. Forums aren’t social media. Comment boxes aren’t social media. The term came about when people started friending and following and tagging each other and generally caring who the other person is - without which all of these previous examoles are just more chatrooms and forums. If Social Media is literally just communicating in any way on the Internet, then the term is useless.
We are, somehow, socializing here. And here is a kind of media. So, yes, it is a social media.
YouTube is also a social media.
Social media is a generic concept and should not be limited to Facebook/Instagram-like platforms.
That’s basically my friend’s argument. And I can see your/their point.
My argument against it basically boils down to the scope of what you follow. Following a group/community vs individual users. e.g. If I posted this on a forum back in 1997, we’d be having this discussion in a similar manner (though probably not threaded).
That, and “social media” carries a kind of stigma from the engagement algorithms they all use. Granted, that’s not a requirement for something to be technically social media, but it’s definitely something most people associate with it.
Algorithms is a consequence. Most of social medias are profitable, so they want you to be engaged as much as possible. At the beginning of Facebook or even the late Orkut, they were only a simple platform with no algorithm that only shows stuff like a showcase.
But as soon as Facebook starts to make money showing ads, algorithms started to become a thing. But look, it was a social media already.
Also, was Orkut a social media? Cause it was really close from what Reddit/Lemmy is today.
About forums I think there is a subtle difference. Forums are, generally speaking, communities driven with on purpose only, inside another website. For example, we can enter Acer website and go to the forums, which is used to talk about Acer products and support. Any other topic is off-topic, therefore deleted.
When forums are aggregated into a huge platform that can have different communities, with easy to-go click and follow this community, there is no specific topic and you can join any type of content you want with only one account, I call it social media, cause it’s different enough from forums and the main purpose is people interacting with each other
I don’t know anyone from Lemmy IRL. No one on here blows up my phone while I’m at work or trying to sleep. I’m not “following” anyone. I don’t hate myself and everyone else every time I log on here. I’d say it is NOT social media
Many people here are being incredibly pedantic about the words “social media”, forgetting entirely that “social media” is a term invented to describe a certain type of website. Forums existed before the term was being widely used, for example, and whilst they would fit a dictionary definition of the words within the term they were always considered a separate entity to what was established as being ‘social media’ (e.g.: Myspace, Bebo, Facebook, etc.).
I’m with you, OP.
This. Maybe I’m getting old but I really get frustrated when people start calling everything social media. In particular, I keep hearing people group YouTube and communicators like Discord or even freaking WhatsApp under this label.
Yes. I also consider forums to be social media, but the good kind.
Op you can follow Reddit and Lemmy users just the same as on Facebook or Twitter. So by your own definition, Reddit and Lemmy are forms of social media.
To me they are social media.
You can also follow topics/communities on other platforms, and on Reddit you can follow people/accounts.
There’s not much difference.
Yeah it’s more like a sliding scale where some platforms are deeply about following people, and some about topics, but I’m the end it’s all social media.
I think one aspect OP didn’t talk about is anonymity, for me the biggest differentiator is that on lemmy/Reddit you have no idea who the accounts are most of the time (and more importantly, nobody knows who you are).
I think they’re antisocial media. Reddit more than lemmy, though, which feels a bit like a community sometimes.
I don’t consider them social media.
Virtually nothing on it is about the poster, and that’s mostly how I see social media. Even more baffling is people calling YouTube social media.
Two important caveats though.
-
maybe r/JohnQSmith type things are prevalent just not in my experience. There’s plenty of content I’ve never seen.
-
The descriptivists won the day, so language is about what people do say not what people should say. If people call it that and the dictionary or whatever says something different, the speakers aren’t wrong. The dictionary is wrong.
-
yes, but the key difference is how its. typically used. reddit/lemmy is generally following specific topics while other forms of social media tend to follow specific people or organizations
so yes, both imo are forms of social media, but brcause of how you interact more with it is different, it feels like it’s not the same.
To me Reddit like platforms are glorified forums. And I don’t mean it as an insult.
