People here like to say “I don’t use social media; I use forums” like there is a difference between the two. There isn’t.
Forums are places where people post and comment on user generated content, other comments themselves.
We need to get back to the Forums. They were better.
Please. What did the Romans ever do for us?
The aqueduct.
The difference is there’s no algorithm abusing you on forums. They are pure.
Having an algorithm doesn’t make social media.
But everything people call social media does.
No, I think a small group of people are trying to change the definition so they can use some forms of social media while saying they don’t use social media.
Forums were better.
Facebook is a forum.
Facebook is an is.
Facebook is a site for college dudes to rank women by hotness.
And the Old Folks Home of the internet.
Simultaneously.
Forums are usually anonymous.
Most social media sites allow to maintain anonymity.
Anonymous vs real identity is how I think some people conceive the difference.
You don’t need a real identity for a lot of social media platforms.
Right, and I’m not saying it’s absolutely definitive, or even my own conception of this distinction. However, if someone personally defines it that way for themselves, I think it’s valid.
I define it this way. Social media centers around having a social identity that others engage with. I’ve been on smaller forums where I recognized every user name and knew their individual personalities, which is probably pretty close to social media. But most large forums are basically anonymous, and you don’t engage with the user so much as you engage with the discussion.
If you just define “social media” as media which involves others, then all media besides a private personal journal is ultimately social.
Eh. I feel like people are choosing to change the definition so they can feel better about themselves. They aren’t the unwashed masses on Facebook or other “social media”, they are enlightened thinkers who use “forums” to converse instead.
The change in definition seems to be done specifically so people can say they are better than others.
Maybe…but they also aren’t getting the real world “clout” that they are getting (or think they are getting) from real identity posturing and curated profiles. I’m not saying you’re wrong, necessarily. Just that there’s two types of arrogance at play here.
Ok so first of all, how dare you
Forums were good, but I suppose many of the members left them to herd over to Facebook and Twitter.
The key attributes of forums that I think make them superior:
-
Chronological posts. There is no upranking or downranking. And certainly no voting. Sometimes just an option to “thank” users for posts. I hate the social consensus formation effect of up/downvoting so much that I’ve disabled visibility of up/downvotes from my lemmy account.
-
Slower pace. Threads often live much longer, with participants dropping in and out over the course of weeks or months. Sometimes years. Posts themselves are often more thoughtful and better drafted because of this slow pace.
-
Index structure. Topics are sorted first by their category or subcategory. Exploring into these is like thumbing through a file cabinet. In contrast, the “reddit way” groups topics by community association, more clique-enabling IMO.
-
Forums often work without any hard javascript requirement.
Also forums are usually one subject that is then broken down into more specific subjects. Car forums are often specific to a model, then the subs would be pictures, cleaning, engines, troubleshooting etc.
Also there’s no algorithm trying to push you to click on something.
-
I find forums to be anti-social media.
Why? You’re talking with other people just like others do on Facebook.
Everyone is a bot or russian shill besides me here.
Shills are people too.
