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.
noun
Interactive forms of media that allow users to interact with and publish to each other, generally by means of the Internet.
You can have a made up definition of what “social media” is and use it to support any argument that you’d like, but you can’t make any sort of compelling case for Reddit or Lemmy not perfectly fitting the generally accepted definition.
My guess is that by defining “social media” to be Facebook and Instagram, telling yourself and others, “I don’t use social media,” allows you to feel some unearned superiority or integrity.
You’re communicating to me right now in the comments of a media post, shared to a social network. Stop making up definitions of terms and expecting anyone else to accept them.
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.
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.
This is incorrect and the point you’re failing to grasp. What makes this social media is that we the users supply the media. A regular person made the post to which we’re replying in the comments. This whole thing exists because every post is socially sourced.
A website with a comments section isn’t social media because only the website owner gets to decide what’s posted.
This IS social media because a rando posted this, and without a huge social network of randos making posts, Lemmy or Reddit (or Facebook or Tiktok) fail to exist as there would be no media.
Your arbitrary suggestion that being anonymous is a key factor in determining whether it’s social media or not is nonsensical and incorrect.
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.
I’ve had to ask myself why I’m engaging with you, why this is an argument I’m choosing to participate in. Is the inane purpose of trying to get people to correctly classify platforms as social media my hill to die on?
Of course not. You can also call a horse a pig and it won’t affect my life.
My part in this ridiculous conversation is due to watching millions and billions of people with infinitely more access to information than ever before in human history choosing to believe that their ignorance or opinion is worth just as much as fact to the contrary.
“Here’s the definition of the term you disagree with.”
“Nuh uh, it’s this other thing I made up and you should respect my opinion.”
No, I shouldn’t. Your opinion is ignorant to stated facts and has no worth. One of the diseases that social media (like this site!) has been an amazing vector for is giving anyone a platform (the definition of social media) to express their ignorance, contend that it’s rude and attacking to point out that flagrant ignorance, and probably end up convincing other people that their ignorance sounds kinda cool.
You could have searched “what is social media,” “definition of social media,” “what makes social media social media,” etc. and seen a hundred results that’s converge on an actual definition for the term that Reddit and Lemmy encompass perfectly.
Instead, you redefine a term because it’s how you feel and then use the comments section on social media to broadcast your ignorance.
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.
You’re making an argument against something that no one else is saying. I replied to this in my last comment. ESPN is not social media because you or I don’t dictate the content there. But here, in this social media environment, I can make any post about anything and interact with all the posts and comments made by anyone else who chooses to use the platform. That’s the definition of social media. We - the social part - post the media. The Reddit company doesn’t make all the posts and then you get to comment on them. Anybody can and does post the media with which everyone interacts. This isn’t a difficult concept. I made this point in my last comment and you conveniently ignored it as it’s the crux of what makes your argument meaningless.
I mean, you straight up said the stupid part out loud:
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.
“I know that things exist in fact but I redefined them to the benefit of no one except for me feeling special about myself and that’s my right!”
And it is your right to be wrong and proud. And it’s any rational person’s right to see the ignorance in your belief and wonder at the psychological mechanisms that have led to a society where people believe their opinions counter to matters of fact are valid.
I don’t care what you call Lemmy. Shout from the hilltops that this isn’t social media, make up your own special word for it, tell everyone that dogs aren’t actually mammals, that the color green doesn’t exist, and that tax cuts for the 1% will surely trickle down to the rest of us. Having an opinion based on your own definitions or feelings that’s counter to fact makes you irrational at best and allows any rational person to dismiss your opinions on things that actually do matter as you’ve proudly proven that facts aren’t a factor in your decision-making.
I’m not writing this for you. You’re dug into your ignorance and my pointing out it has probably caused you to dig in twice as deep. That’s what people tend to do. I wrote all this precisely because it’s such a stupid, trivial matter that encapsulates a big reason our society has gotten so fucked. Because people have a platform (social media) to express their tiniest thoughts, they have arrived at the conclusion that their opinions on all matters are relevant.
You redefined a term and are arguing that it’s valid and should be accepted… Other people whose last biology lesson was in grade school have impassioned arguments on how they feel vaccines work because they redefined what a vaccine is and does and in their personal definition it’s very dangerous. And we’ve all seen a video of some flat-earther performing Olympic gold mental gymnastics to justify their ignorant opinion.
You’re doing the same thing despite the subject matter being so much more insignificant. I think that’s why I zeroed in on it. This is such a stupid thing to have a stupid opinion about and yet you’re as impassioned as the next person telling cancer patients to quit their therapy and start smelling essential oils.
And the chance of you saying, “I see what you’re saying, I see that I made a definition up for a well-established term, and I’ve changed my mind,” is about as good as arguing with any of the examples above.
This isn’t for you. This was for me and for all the no one else who will ever read this.
drives a truck everywhere
“I don’t use cars like everyone else. This is a different means of conveyance altogether.”
Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
Your ratio says otherwise
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.
This is what Wiktionary says:
You can have a made up definition of what “social media” is and use it to support any argument that you’d like, but you can’t make any sort of compelling case for Reddit or Lemmy not perfectly fitting the generally accepted definition.
My guess is that by defining “social media” to be Facebook and Instagram, telling yourself and others, “I don’t use social media,” allows you to feel some unearned superiority or integrity.
You’re communicating to me right now in the comments of a media post, shared to a social network. Stop making up definitions of terms and expecting anyone else to accept them.
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.
This is incorrect and the point you’re failing to grasp. What makes this social media is that we the users supply the media. A regular person made the post to which we’re replying in the comments. This whole thing exists because every post is socially sourced.
A website with a comments section isn’t social media because only the website owner gets to decide what’s posted.
This IS social media because a rando posted this, and without a huge social network of randos making posts, Lemmy or Reddit (or Facebook or Tiktok) fail to exist as there would be no media.
Your arbitrary suggestion that being anonymous is a key factor in determining whether it’s social media or not is nonsensical and incorrect.
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.
I’ve had to ask myself why I’m engaging with you, why this is an argument I’m choosing to participate in. Is the inane purpose of trying to get people to correctly classify platforms as social media my hill to die on?
Of course not. You can also call a horse a pig and it won’t affect my life.
My part in this ridiculous conversation is due to watching millions and billions of people with infinitely more access to information than ever before in human history choosing to believe that their ignorance or opinion is worth just as much as fact to the contrary.
“Here’s the definition of the term you disagree with.”
“Nuh uh, it’s this other thing I made up and you should respect my opinion.”
No, I shouldn’t. Your opinion is ignorant to stated facts and has no worth. One of the diseases that social media (like this site!) has been an amazing vector for is giving anyone a platform (the definition of social media) to express their ignorance, contend that it’s rude and attacking to point out that flagrant ignorance, and probably end up convincing other people that their ignorance sounds kinda cool.
You could have searched “what is social media,” “definition of social media,” “what makes social media social media,” etc. and seen a hundred results that’s converge on an actual definition for the term that Reddit and Lemmy encompass perfectly.
Instead, you redefine a term because it’s how you feel and then use the comments section on social media to broadcast your ignorance.
You’re making an argument against something that no one else is saying. I replied to this in my last comment. ESPN is not social media because you or I don’t dictate the content there. But here, in this social media environment, I can make any post about anything and interact with all the posts and comments made by anyone else who chooses to use the platform. That’s the definition of social media. We - the social part - post the media. The Reddit company doesn’t make all the posts and then you get to comment on them. Anybody can and does post the media with which everyone interacts. This isn’t a difficult concept. I made this point in my last comment and you conveniently ignored it as it’s the crux of what makes your argument meaningless.
I mean, you straight up said the stupid part out loud:
“I know that things exist in fact but I redefined them to the benefit of no one except for me feeling special about myself and that’s my right!”
And it is your right to be wrong and proud. And it’s any rational person’s right to see the ignorance in your belief and wonder at the psychological mechanisms that have led to a society where people believe their opinions counter to matters of fact are valid.
I don’t care what you call Lemmy. Shout from the hilltops that this isn’t social media, make up your own special word for it, tell everyone that dogs aren’t actually mammals, that the color green doesn’t exist, and that tax cuts for the 1% will surely trickle down to the rest of us. Having an opinion based on your own definitions or feelings that’s counter to fact makes you irrational at best and allows any rational person to dismiss your opinions on things that actually do matter as you’ve proudly proven that facts aren’t a factor in your decision-making.
I’m not writing this for you. You’re dug into your ignorance and my pointing out it has probably caused you to dig in twice as deep. That’s what people tend to do. I wrote all this precisely because it’s such a stupid, trivial matter that encapsulates a big reason our society has gotten so fucked. Because people have a platform (social media) to express their tiniest thoughts, they have arrived at the conclusion that their opinions on all matters are relevant.
You redefined a term and are arguing that it’s valid and should be accepted… Other people whose last biology lesson was in grade school have impassioned arguments on how they feel vaccines work because they redefined what a vaccine is and does and in their personal definition it’s very dangerous. And we’ve all seen a video of some flat-earther performing Olympic gold mental gymnastics to justify their ignorant opinion.
You’re doing the same thing despite the subject matter being so much more insignificant. I think that’s why I zeroed in on it. This is such a stupid thing to have a stupid opinion about and yet you’re as impassioned as the next person telling cancer patients to quit their therapy and start smelling essential oils.
And the chance of you saying, “I see what you’re saying, I see that I made a definition up for a well-established term, and I’ve changed my mind,” is about as good as arguing with any of the examples above.
This isn’t for you. This was for me and for all the no one else who will ever read this.