mechoman444

Looking at you five guys.

Story time. We t to five guys, go up to the country asked for a burger combo. Person behind counter says they don’t have combos so I have to say out loud: lemme get a burger fries and a coke.

Like I get it but a combo is a burger fries and a coke.

Lol. The smug is strong with this one.

Christ on a stick. What a bunch of inane self important dribble. I bet you like to fart in a wine glass and smell it.

I have stated my points clearly. The fact that media and correspondence is posted in a public or private fasion is irrelevant.

This platform and others like it are not used as classically considered social media like Facebook point blank period. The function of this platform compared to other social media platforms is not the same it is so drastically different that it should not be categorized as social media. If anything these kinds of platforms are media aggregators or as I like to call them news aggregators. Regardless of your opinions on it and anonymity does play a role here.

The definition of social media is too vague and encompasses too many kinds of websites to be considered useful.

I’m not stating my opinion I’m challenging the fact that platforms like this are considered social media and I’m stating facts as to why that is. So far the only thing you’ve managed to do is “I’m very smart this is what social media is defined as”.

You haven’t actually countered any of my points in any way shape or form.

But you are concerned about the two other people that are going to read this common thread before it gets deleted fantastic. Good on you for thinking of the Everyman.

All you’re doing now is adding a modifier to suit your needs, shaping it into the definition of social media. By your logic, any website that hosts media and allows correspondence qualifies as social media. The fact that content is created by journalists (or who ever) rather than the public makes no difference under this definition.

Take ESPN.com, for example—it’s not comparable to platforms like Facebook or Reddit. Yet, it hosts media and provides a slight ability to correspond. Does that make it social media? Similarly, people watching a news broadcast on cable television and then discussing it over the phone wouldn’t turn cable TV into social media, even though discussion occurs. It’s simply not defined that way.

My contention is this: a website having media and a comment section doesn’t automatically qualify it as social media. Whether it operates as a public or private forum is irrelevant.

As for my point about anonymity, it’s a critical distinction between this platform and others like Facebook and Instagram. That distinction is relevant because it highlights a key difference in how these platforms function.

More importantly, I am making a personal statement: I do not consider Lemmy or Reddit to be social media. I understand they are categorized as such, but I am stating my disagreement with that classification.

This was my response to the exact same argument you have presented, although the other person was considerate enough to not include any personal attacks in his commentary to me.

I haven’t made up anything, I am simply using the definition of “social media” precisely.

In the same way, Reddit and Lemmy are categorized as social media because they share some elements traditionally associated with social media platforms. These elements are similar to features found on Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok, but are far more limited and only loosely resemble them.

The primary focus of platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok is to promote interaction and connection between users, often through real-world identities rather than anonymity. On the other hand, interactions on Reddit and Lemmy are almost exclusively anonymous and not necessarily encouraged as a central function of the platform.

By your definition, nearly anything could qualify as social media as long as it involves media and some capacity for correspondence. This broad and vague categorization dilutes the meaning of the term, making it less useful as a precise descriptor.

For this reason, I do not consider platforms like Reddit and Lemmy to be social media.

Ratio?

Look a car and a truck are basically the same thing. Visual appearance and application might be slightly different but ultimately they do the same thing one more than the other perhaps.

Lemmy and reddit don’t do the same things as other social media like Facebook Instagram and tiktok.

I already had this argument with another person in his comments thread I’m not going to have it with you.

You can believe what you want you can agree disagree with what you want. Lemmy and reddit are not social media.

Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

Yeah I knew there’d be one of you I don’t consider lemmy or reddit social media.

I considered them to be more or less news aggregators than anything else.

Just because there’s the ability to leave comments doesn’t necessarily make it social media.

This is how I sleep knowing the only social media account I have is Facebook and I hardly use it.

Looks like we dodged a bullet with God of war live service.