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.
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:
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.