Is Youtube Social Media?

[lakes]

I used to accept the idea that Youtube was more of a streaming service than a social media. But I just realized why is it that Tiktok, another video sharing website, is unilaterally considered social media but not Youtube? Youtube's like a middle ground between a streaming service and social media to me. It's definitely trying to be both. It hosts professionally made licensed movies & TV shows on top of the normal shared videos, yes, but they're also copying Tiktok shorts like Instagram & pretty much every social media website.
Plus you don't hear about people being addicted to Netflix in the same way as Youtube, but I'm sure they exist.
I'd like to hear everyone's opinions on this because whenever I categorize Youtube as social media I get push back from people.

[Melooon]

We were discussing what counts as social media in the shoutbox the other day and I think concluded that since we (the general social-media-dislikers) don't actually have a definition of social media, none of us actually know what anyone else means when they say social media

I don't know if Youtube is social media, but I would strongly suggest that it is at least "para-social-media"; meaning it is mostly a platform of influencers followed by (mostly) silent fans. If you follow a youtuber for any length of time (I have followed some for over 10 years), you are following their life like the Truman Show - was the Truman Show social media? (I would say it was not, but it was para-socal-media)

The difference between Youtube and the Truman show is that youtubers can, and mostly do talk to their fans, so its a little more two way. However youtubers also have their own "upper-social-media" within youtube, where YouTubers collaborate or reference each others videos.

Anyone can become a youtuber though, so anyone can collaborate in the upper-socla-media circle if they put in enough time to build out a channel. That's the same pattern on other sites like Instagram or TicTok, where popular people are followed by many people who mostly post nothing (para-social-media), but could start interacting and gaining followers if they wanted (social-media). Soooo I think I have argued myself into saying yes it is social media 

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

Both Youtube and TikTok are streaming services with a social media component. Their main difference is less the amount of social media but rather what can be viewed on them and how users are supposed to interact - searching deliberately for something is much less intended for TikTok, where the "auto play" (that is also present on Youtube) is, to my knowledge, the usual way to access content, while with Youtube, at least the initial video is usually viewed deliberately.

Both play with the longing of their users to find something great, fundamental - and TikTok, with its flood of videos, promises more. However, since neither the community nor the format are directed to deliver anything meaningful, it is even less likely to ever fulfill its promise to the user than Youtube.

[lakes]

We were discussing what counts as social media in the shoutbox the other day and I think concluded that since we (the general social-media-dislikers) don't actually have a definition of social media, none of us actually know what anyone else means when they say social media

I think this is a fair point. If I had to describe social media, it'd probably be a place where normal people can follow, like, etc other's accounts. But I'm sure there's a problem with that definition.

I don't know if Youtube is social media, but I would strongly suggest that it is at least "para-social-media"; meaning it is mostly a platform of influencers followed by (mostly) silent fans. If you follow a youtuber for any length of time (I have followed some for over 10 years), you are following their life like the Truman Show - was the Truman Show social media? (I would say it was not, but it was para-socal-media)

The difference between Youtube and the Truman show is that youtubers can, and mostly do talk to their fans, so its a little more two way. However youtubers also have their own "upper-social-media" within youtube, where YouTubers collaborate or reference each others videos.

Anyone can become a youtuber though, so anyone can collaborate in the upper-socla-media circle if they put in enough time to build out a channel. That's the same pattern on other sites like Instagram or TicTok, where popular people are followed by many people who mostly post nothing (para-social-media), but could start interacting and gaining followers if they wanted (social-media). Soooo I think I have argued myself into saying yes it is social media 

Yeah, I feel like a lot of problems people have with social media can be boiled down to corporate influence and celebrity culture being applied to people we won't normally think of as celebrities for better or worse.

[lakes]

Both Youtube and TikTok are streaming services with a social media component. Their main difference is less the amount of social media but rather what can be viewed on them and how users are supposed to interact - searching deliberately for something is much less intended for TikTok, where the "auto play" (that is also present on Youtube) is, to my knowledge, the usual way to access content, while with Youtube, at least the initial video is usually viewed deliberately.

Both play with the longing of their users to find something great, fundamental - and TikTok, with its flood of videos, promises more. However, since neither the community nor the format are directed to deliver anything meaningful, it is even less likely to ever fulfill its promise to the user than Youtube.

That position makes sense. Honestly I remember when Tiktok 1st got big and I mostly avoided it because I heard the algorithm sucked and there was no way to search for videos. Plus my introduction to Tiktok was like, ragebait cooking shorts where people did stuff like boil potato chips or make tacos directly on the counter (no plate).

[cyberdreamz]

I've seen this question come up a number of times, but honestly I don't see why it wouldn't be? There's a comment section where people can discuss the content with each other, a way to follow and interact with the video creators, a way for creators to interact with their followers. Basically, the "social" aspect is there, so I'd say you can call youtube a social media website, yeah. Or a video hosting platform with social media features.

[Onio]

I tend to take terms a bit literally at times, so when one says 'social media', I think 'social' + 'media'. In my mind, I think of social activity as being interaction between people for any reason beyond necessity, and when I think media, I think of anything from words to video. So yes, I'd consider even forums and YouTube as social media! But I also acknowledge that when we say 'social media', most people are often using that term to refer to the most popular massive social media platforms such as Meta's options, and many more people may have never experienced social online platforms beyond say TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Discord, etc. They may paint 'social media' with a broad brush covered in negative paint, but I don't think all social media (as far as I understand what 'social' + 'media' to be) is bad! So yes, I'd say YouTube is social media, but I don't think that means it's necessarily "bad" or "good". It's been far more productive and enriching for me, but at other times it drives me nuts, but no where as nuts as Instagram etc have.

It's really an interesting topic. I think there are social media platforms that fit within the definition of 'indie web' because they were developed entirely by one person or a small handful of people.

[KeyJayHD]

I consider YouTube social media. Likes, dislikes, replies, an algorithm, what was video replies, yep....all the ingredients to a social media platform.