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.
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 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.
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.
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.
