I cannot prove this is real, but I have been assured it is.
For those who need background on who this utter numbskull is- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libs_of_TikTok
I cannot prove this is real, but I have been assured it is.
For those who need background on who this utter numbskull is- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libs_of_TikTok
This barely qualifies. Lemmy is essentially a link aggregator with a comment section
Anytime it gets mentioned there’s always some neckbeard who defines anything on the internet as social media making that exact comment too. “Lemmy is social media hehehe” as if there’s no difference between this and and FB.
Just because it is different from Facebook, it does not make it non-social.
But the point is, almost every page on the internet has a social aspect now. It’s all about engagement. Is NYT social media? They have arguments in the comment section under every article. Is healthline social media?
Good points. I would say those are examples of webpages with social media elements. I guess it is about focus of the website. NYT focus is news. Lemmy? Interaction between users. At least for me. I just can’t call lemmy a news aggregator.
I see what you’re saying, but the term “social media” applying to just a section of a website doesn’t make sense—to me. Call it whatever you want!
I, someone who was the perfect age for every iteration of what I might call “first gen” social media (MySpace/xanga/live journal in middle school, Facebook in the middle/end of my high school career into college, Instagram in college and while I traveled), only see “social media” as personalized connection sites. Sites where you are exactly who you are, connecting with others, saying exactly who they are—basically creating a “social media self.”
THAT is social media to me. But these all pose interesting questions: is a blog social media? During xanga/live journal days, it was considered social media. Are dating sites social media? Is Chatroulette? Is Facebook messenger? If that is, is telegram?
If a site where you anonymously talk to other anonymous people on the internet is social media, I stand by what I said, everything would be “social media” these days. YouTube. Is that social media? It’s all messy, I grant you, but that’s why draw the lines where I do.
Your criteria seems different. But I, as a millennial that grew up with it, I see it as a persona-first platform where people sell themselves. Lemmy is interesting because they’re technically different sites/servers about specific things, linking with other sites/servers, where people discuss the topic of the community. The focus is the subject being discussed, not the subject speaking. Social media is subjective, I think that’s where I make the distinction.
Interesting. So, if a person is anonymous, then it is not social media in your mind?
Most NYT articles do not permit comments anymore.
My point remains. So many different outlets and sites have social elements.
Please just stop.
Never! It is my crusade to call Lemmy a social media!
I’d say it’s a very pure form of social media. Like Mastodon.
And if doing drugs has taught me anything pure and not psychologically affective are not synonymous, it just means you can properly dose and should be able to predict the effects.
And it has communities. Right?
Which are subscriptions to certain topics
Any media that allows you to be social is a social media.
Just because we use fake names doesn’t change much about it. We are all still discussing things like the social beings we are.
So an IRC chatroom is social media?
By that logic any comment section on a news site is social media. If any kind of interaction with other people while consuming some kind of content on the internet qualifies the term is meaningless