You are right. According to the definition of social media, Lemmy is social media. However, “social media” would by definition fit any kind of digital communication media. A forum, or a blog, or an IRC channel are also, by definition, social media.
I would argue that the social media has a distinct association with Facebook, Instagram and the diverse spawns of those, and by association doesn’t fit anything else. At best, we simply lack a different term, which splits “old-school” stuff like forums and blogs. I view lemmy more like a forum. You have categories, and users can go into categories to start discussions. You don’t follow anyone. People also don’t create and post their own content, but rather seek discussions or share other stuff from the internet. Your goal is not reach, follow count or like count.
It is social media, but it’s definitely nothing like Facebook.
We simply lack a better term.
Social networking is about connecting people, which Lemmy as a forum does. You could argue that the function of Lemmy as a link aggregator is more social media like, but I doubt people would consider an RSS feed reader to be social media either.
Social media is like TV, a one-to-many medium, usually with some sort of feed curation to promote certain topics.
That’s a totally made up definition from your part. Media is the plural of medium, which means “intermediary”. A social media is just the middleman that allows people to socialize. Lemmy is a social media, as well as a social network.
You forgot the “from your part” that is quite important. Language is a consensus, you just invented your own definition and pretend that it is the consensus.
And anyways, if “social media” and “social network” is the same, why have two different terms for it?
They’re not the same, it’s the square/rectangle thing. A social network is a kind of social media, all social medias are not social network. You could argue that Whatsapp is a social media but not a social network (but the frontier is getting blurry with groups and these kind of things).
Wat? Sorry, but your definition is even further from anything that could be called a consensus. You could maybe argue that WhatsApp is a social network, but it definitly isn’t social media and it is completly outlandish to claim so. Where do you even get the “media” part in it? You know, compound words are still made up of individual words that have a meaning by themself. Kinda funny that you accuse me of “making up definitions” 🙄
But sure there are some blurry edges between them. For example, Instagram is primarily used for social media, but the direct messages are more used like a social network.
It would be great if people stop using social media in general.
Lemmy is social media
You are right. According to the definition of social media, Lemmy is social media. However, “social media” would by definition fit any kind of digital communication media. A forum, or a blog, or an IRC channel are also, by definition, social media.
I would argue that the social media has a distinct association with Facebook, Instagram and the diverse spawns of those, and by association doesn’t fit anything else. At best, we simply lack a different term, which splits “old-school” stuff like forums and blogs. I view lemmy more like a forum. You have categories, and users can go into categories to start discussions. You don’t follow anyone. People also don’t create and post their own content, but rather seek discussions or share other stuff from the internet. Your goal is not reach, follow count or like count.
It is social media, but it’s definitely nothing like Facebook. We simply lack a better term.
I would definitely call a forum or IRC channel social media.
I wouldn’t consider blogs social media unless they had a very active comments section.
What is the social part? I change my name daily, and dont really give a shit about people following me.
Its social because you’re interacting with other people
No, it is a social network. That’s different from social media.
Its not a car, its a vehicle!
What would you define social media as?
Oxford says.
That definition certainly matches Lemmy.
Social networking is about connecting people, which Lemmy as a forum does. You could argue that the function of Lemmy as a link aggregator is more social media like, but I doubt people would consider an RSS feed reader to be social media either.
Social media is like TV, a one-to-many medium, usually with some sort of feed curation to promote certain topics.
That’s a totally made up definition from your part. Media is the plural of medium, which means “intermediary”. A social media is just the middleman that allows people to socialize. Lemmy is a social media, as well as a social network.
Every definition is “made up” 🙄
What I explained is how these terms are commonly used on the fediverse.
And anyways, if “social media” and “social network” is the same, why have two different terms for it?
You forgot the “from your part” that is quite important. Language is a consensus, you just invented your own definition and pretend that it is the consensus.
They’re not the same, it’s the square/rectangle thing. A social network is a kind of social media, all social medias are not social network. You could argue that Whatsapp is a social media but not a social network (but the frontier is getting blurry with groups and these kind of things).
Wat? Sorry, but your definition is even further from anything that could be called a consensus. You could maybe argue that WhatsApp is a social network, but it definitly isn’t social media and it is completly outlandish to claim so. Where do you even get the “media” part in it? You know, compound words are still made up of individual words that have a meaning by themself. Kinda funny that you accuse me of “making up definitions” 🙄
But sure there are some blurry edges between them. For example, Instagram is primarily used for social media, but the direct messages are more used like a social network.