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.
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.