What counts as social media? - ☞ ∙ Life on the Web - MelonLand Forum-
What do you think 'counts' as social media?
I've been thinking about this recently, specifically in regards to substack and substack notes. I've been using substack for a little while to post fiction, and I occasionally check in on the 'notes' section, which, for those who don't know, is essentially the same format as twitter, threads, mastodon, etc. Many people on substack would say that substack is better than social media, and in some ways I agree but also... it is still social media right? Substack notes definitely is. You could make the argument that the newletters are as well, what with their visible follower lists, like buttons, and comment sections. But then where is the line between a social media site and a blogging platform? Does having these features push a platform into that category?
On the other hand, if we define a social media platform as being social... many of these platforms actively discourage that. They encourage either lurking or posting like its your side hustle. I'm not sure what's happening over on tiktok, but I don't think its socialization. And then, if social media is defined only by being online and social, is any online community with their own domain a 'social media'?
Probably this question doesn't matter. I just have a negative connotation with the phrase 'social media' now, and I end up trying to avoid anything that starts to look or sound too much like it...
I've had this pet theory for a while that the technology closest to actually being 'social media' was snapchat. I used it for a couple of years, it was an easy way to make group chats, I'd check it for a few minutes a day to see my friend's 'stories'... it was just a messaging app with bells and whistles and felt like an actual 'social' piece of tech. I only used ever it with friends and acquaintances from my real life. Or at least that was my experience. I deleted it a couple of years ago, so I have no idea what the app is like nowadays. -
to be completely honest, im… not really sure?? you bring up a lot of really good points, & i think that i would use social media to describe a lot of the sites i use if it werent for the negative connotation associated with the word. there are sites i use that i definitely dont consider social media, like toyhou.se. sure, you can socialize on the forums & in peoples comments & dms, but its character/art storage first & foremost. this is a hard question & im very confused thinking about it hmmm
-
I think personally it's as simple as "media that is intended to be created for a community" though I admit I also view the term as a very vague and broad thing. I don't think you can necessarily give it a super defined definition given how many things classify as "social media" these days.
I've noticed that people use various sites for far different things, to someone a website like tumblr could be social media; to someone else it could be nothing more than a personal blogging site. Because the difference comes down to the use-case per user but the ability to use it as both applies, I'd argue it could be called "a social media site" or "a personal blogging site" depending on who's using it and neither individual would technically be incorrect per se.
I do agree however that social media has sort of become more of something people do as a side hustle, if not just... a job.
Everything from popularity, to note farming; communities aren't about being social and talking about a topic of shared interest anymore. Not after people found out that popularity brings power, and that power ranges from social hierarchy power to even financial power. If I'm popular enough, people won't want to disagree with me out of fear of being ostracized from the community, so my word becomes law even when I say something completely crazy, because my opinion becomes the popular opinion. If I'm popular enough I can ask people for financial compensation for things, like saying I have a patreon people could join for access to my discord or some such. This in my opinion is what primarily lead to people sort of seeing social media as a ladder of social hierarchy to climb rather than a platform with which to share media with others.
Even this forum to me could be classified as social media, if we count things like writing, photos, videos, projects, programming, etc. as "media" and the act of sharing that media with others makes it social. I'd argue you and I are socializing right now, me talking to you, having read what you posted and now you reading my response; it's a sort of conversation even if it's not immediate. However I think this really depends on your idea of media.
Youtube used to be social media when it first launched, you could actually leave video responses to videos that were uploaded to the site and back in the day there were entire channels that used this as a sort of gimmick for vlogging to one another as a group or team. People would post videos back and forth as a form of essentially "socializing via the media they made" and I feel like at it's core, that's what social media is; media with the intent to be social. Though I fear I'm speaking in circles as I'm prone to do so I'll leave it off there. -
As VelvetSoul said, it really depends on the person. For example, I feel like I tend to use Tumblr as part-blogging, part-fan forum site, with maybe a little bit of social media thrown in, but I wouldn't put it in the same category as Twitter or Instagram. I think the modern social media culture is an important part of defining what is and isn't social media---Reddit and Tumblr, for instance, seem to have different enough cultures that I'd at least categorize them differently. But then again, you could also argue that some people could use Instagram as nothing more than a photoblog. I think it really is case-by-case.
-
I'd argue that what make a media "social" is some kind of profile.
For example [auto redacted] (the word seems to be censored but I think you get which one I'm talking about) is a message board, not a social media.
Another thing that makes a media "social" for me is the possibility to send PMs to someone cause if you can't communicate, it's not social
That's why for me a blog, or even a blog platform like overblog is not a social media but twitter which is, at his core, a microblogging website is social. Even forums like this one are social media but in a form more like reddit, which is itself some kind of big forum -
i think its a sort of continuum? there isn't a strict line you can draw. it's like mountains. its really tricky to tell when it's a weirdly shaped single mountain or actually just 2 mountains. everything is a spectrum. but i take "social media" very broadly. if it's media sharing with notable social aspect, i think it counts. i would argue forums count for this. i think the negative associations with social media are something we should get over. its nit an inherently bad format and it can even be very good for certain contexts, the problem is corporations, not the basic format. and the corporations would mess anything up.
-
This is such an interesting thread, I read through what you all wrote front to back!!
I do agree that it depends on the way the user uses it but more so how many users use it/what the culture of the website is like. I feel like based on the features of the website Tumblr for example could also be a social media but people use it for blogging frequently (like PurpleHello98 also said!!)
I was thinking of websites that are social media but not quite to me! So far I have Flickr, Tumblr, Reddit, Anilist, toyhou.se, substack like glitchlynx said? (more to be added probably)
These move in a weird in-between space for me? I think it's a difficult topic because of the negative connotation social media has become for me as well.
I used to "go on the internet" and not "look at social media" on my phone/laptop and I seek anything that feels like "going on the internet" again. I feel like exploration makes the difference for me and the algorithmic nature of social media. On twitter/insta etc I am shown content whereas on forums etc I seek it out. I think that's also where the use-case argument comes from. Using instagram as a photoblogging website for example foregoes the algorithm entirely. I think instead of being social media these websites are often more like content recommendation places. -
I really like the idea of 'social media' being the way a product is used and not the product itself. That's going to be rattling around in my brain for a while. It makes a lot of sense - someone using facebook just as a tool to promote their business is doing a much different activity than someone scrolling.
i think its a sort of continuum? there isn't a strict line you can draw. it's like mountains. its really tricky to tell when it's a weirdly shaped single mountain or actually just 2 mountains. everything is a spectrum. but i take "social media" very broadly. if it's media sharing with notable social aspect, i think it counts. i would argue forums count for this. i think the negative associations with social media are something we should get over. its nit an inherently bad format and it can even be very good for certain contexts, the problem is corporations, not the basic format. and the corporations would mess anything up.
I think you're right about it being a spectrum, and using the term broadly makes sense too. Where it starts to be a grey area for me is the fact that many features of the format (likes, infinite scrolling, etc) are the creations of the corporations. How many features like this can be replicated in a product with good intentions before it starts to go sour?
(or maybe that's just my own negative bias talking again whoops) -
It’s interesting to see how the term “social media” has evolved alongside smartphones, and has attained such a negative connotation along with the proliferation of that technology. Technically, the term has existed since the mid ’90s, but did we really start using it before 2010? Newgrounds is a platform that relies on user-generated content and people communicating and collaborating with each other; so are the chans and DeviantArt. But those three platforms aren’t typically thought of as “social media”, are they? And when was the last time you heard of a chat room, forum, or Discord referred to as “social media”?
“Social media” these days seems to come with the implication that they’re heavily built on:- Discrete Mobile apps which take the lion’s share of user time and developer resources
- Endless scrolling and other design decisions meant to maximise time spent on the Mobile app
- Public access to most content, even user-generated content (closing off X to non-registered users is a recent exception); no emphasis on enabling users to manage and curate gated communities
- Rapid ephemerality of content; users are enticed to keep coming back to the platform on an even hourly basis due to the pushing down of old content by new content
- Most content is found primarily through an algorithmic feed controlled by the platform, passively consumed by the user, not by intentful user exploration
- Emphasis on virality of content, and features that actively promote explosive content virality over long-term vitality (e.g. Likes, Upvotes, quick Reblog/Retweet); e.g. lack of an in-thread quoting system which promotes evolution of focused, involved discourse over “shareability”/virality
I think the commonality of the above six characteristics of actually make much of “social media” almost distinguishable from each other, outside of chief content format (e.g. TikTok’s short videos versus X’s short Tweets). I think that’s why the “rot” is so common and similar amongst those platforms—you know, the doomscrolling, the stress, the anxiety, the anger and fighting, etc.
On that note, Reddit occupies an interesting place. Because it does have curated, gatekept communities, and it does have a quoting system that’s meant to foster continuous, evolving discussion. But it’s trying very hard to be more like the “popular” social media apps and less like the community forums of “yesteryear”.On the other hand, if we define a social media platform as being social... many of these platforms actively discourage that. They encourage either lurking or posting like its your side hustle. I'm not sure what's happening over on tiktok, but I don't think its socialization.
A pointed and painful observation of the current “social media” environment today. I think the following observation from a 2019 research paper by an entertainment think-tank, “The Post-Peak Attention Economy”, is something you’ll find clarifying.QuoteWith only 24 hours in a day and an ever-growing number of entertainment services competing for consumer choice to spend them on, consumers have reached the limits of their available time – and therefore attention – to allocate to propositions across the digital market. As a result, businesses are being driven to vie for engagement, interest and spend which, if they do not win, can and will be allocated elsewhere. In a world where every spare moment has been opened to capitalisation by the advent and inundation of the mobile smartphone, there is no “free time” left for companies to cannibalise – only attention to be sought in the stead of a simultaneously-available other.
[/list]
Key Findings- Mass adoption of smartphones and the rise of app stores in the early 2000s enabled an unprecedented rise in attention-seeking propositions (apps)
- The rise of 4G alongside music, video and (more recently) games streaming services has brought consumers to the limits of their allocable attention
- Companies used to compete for consumers’ available time. With no more time available, they have to unseat competitors to gain engagement
- In the peak attention economy everyone competes against one another, instead of isolated competition within separate entertainment verticals
- The total size of the audience that can be effectively targeted by conventional digital advertising is shrinking, in both size and value
-
“Social media” these days seems to come with the implication that they’re heavily built on:- Discrete Mobile apps which take the lion’s share of user time and developer resources
- Endless scrolling and other design decisions meant to maximise time spent on the Mobile app
- Public access to most content, even user-generated content (closing off X to non-registered users is a recent exception); no emphasis on enabling users to manage and curate gated communities
- Rapid ephemerality of content; users are enticed to keep coming back to the platform on an even hourly basis due to the pushing down of old content by new content
- Most content is found primarily through an algorithmic feed controlled by the platform, passively consumed by the user, not by intentful user exploration
- Emphasis on virality of content, and features that actively promote explosive content virality over long-term vitality (e.g. Likes, Upvotes, quick Reblog/Retweet); e.g. lack of an in-thread quoting system which promotes evolution of focused, involved discourse over “shareability”/virality
I think this list really sums it up well, especially the point about ephemerality. What's been keeping me hooked to social media on phones is that new content is just one scroll or refresh away. The rate at which you are served a new post or video differs per app, but I've found that those that can serve new content immediately are also the most addictive. Heck, I turned off my YouTube history because scrolling through and refreshing the feed was really taking up so much time. The sad part is, also, that I was unable to control myself from that mindless refreshing. But once you view these social media sites on PC you notice how aggressively unwelcoming their layouts are, essentially forcing you back to the designated app on your phone, far away from any browser-side checks and balances (e.g. extensions like DeArrow). I think that element of coercion to use the platform in a space they fully control is central to modern social media.
Tumblr counts as a social media but it feels like a fringe case to me, carrying a lot of the initial LiveJournal legacy. Tumblr users have worked hard to maintain the usability of the website in spite of corporate decisions, and I think the culture that exists there now is a result of that. Many users outright reject the app and prefer tinkering with XKit or some other extension. And compared to other social media, discussions are deeper and more expansive, posts are less ephemeral, and website discourse is (somehow) no longer as intense as it used to be. In my personal case, I am also capable of putting away the app as I am more aware that not everyone is permanently online and posting new stuff. The chronological dashboard surely helps with that (fuck big tech for killing this off).
The report that you linked is an interesting one and I will definitely read it. I think the notion that companies are now (aggressively so) competing for our attention feeds into my thread about parental controls, which is actually just a facet of a larger discussion about controlling big tech lest it control us.[/list] -
It's very interesting what you have to say about Tumblr as a community now; I haven't really been a part of the platform since its ban on "adult content" in 2018 (almost... 7 years ago, wow), so I've no idea what the scene is like nowadays. Ironically I was mostly on Tumblr for blogs that had nothing to do with the banned content: architecture, photography, modern graphic design. I was excited that you could find and make hashtags for anything, and that made it so easy to find other artists who were say, also doing interior lighting studies like you were! There were a few blogs I was following that posted now-forbidden content, but that was in the tiniest minority of my browsing compared to everything else I was looking at. I guess I left because the vibes felt "off". I don't know. Thank you for the fascinating info on modern Tumblr.
I think this list really sums it up well, especially the point about ephemerality. What's been keeping me hooked to social media on phones is that new content is just one scroll or refresh away. The rate at which you are served a new post or video differs per app, but I've found that those that can serve new content immediately are also the most addictive. Heck, I turned off my YouTube history because scrolling through and refreshing the feed was really taking up so much time.
Ah, your reiteration of the relentless feed of new content, and all the UX design choices made to encourage that, has made me appreciate something... When it comes to YouTube, the "shortest" videos that I watch (that aren't singular songs) are albums, lengthy concert performances, and other mixtapes. Something like 18 minutes minimum. 45 minutes is the more common "short-form" for me, and often the mixes I have playing are at least 2 hours long. So, that safeguards me from getting into the caffeine-fuelled "hamster wheels" that many people seem to be funnelled into; if the next video I put on is going to be two hours long, I don't and won't compulsively scroll, compared to people who jump from 11-minute videos to 8-minute videos to 6-minute videos to 18-minute videos to Shorts. -
I saw this topic posted a few days ago, and I was so interested in, yet stumped by, this question that I sat on it. I've been thinking about it on and off until now, taking notes whenever I came to a solid realization. Here are the conclusions I've come to.
- I think that "social media" does not have one understood definition in the public consciousness. Instead, the public understanding of what makes a "social media" is very vague, with the specifics of the definition highly depending on the person. So, the following is how I, personally, define social media, not how I think social media should be defined.
- Social media, blogging platforms, chatting platforms and forums are all different things to me. If I qualify a platform as one, it automatically excludes it from being one of the others.
- A blogging platform is intended for/has a culture around more in-depth content, has a more targeted and niche audience, and is used primarily to share information and build community. This differs from social media, which tends to focus on short-form content, has a general audience, and is used primarily to promote one's self and build connections. Tumblr and Medium are both blogging platforms, not social media.
- I feel like the definition of a forum vs social media and a chatting platform vs social media are more apparent, so I won't spell out the differences in my mind. However, to me, Reddit is a forum, not a social media. It's categorized by topics, people create threads of discussion, and there's little to no concept of followers and followings.
- Things I consider essential to defining something a "social media" includes a mobile app, an algorithm, an emphasis on followers/following (public follower counts are a big indicator of this), some sort of emphasis on socializing/interaction, shorter-form content, and things put in place to keep a user endlessly scrolling and returning. Instagram, the artist formerly known as Twitter, Pinterest, and TikTok all fit into this definition.
- Interestingly, despite falling into nearly all of that named criteria, I do not consider YouTube a social media. I think this is because of the amount of long-form content (especially in my experience, as I mainly watch video essays), and the lack of emphasis on socializing with others. If YouTube videos had a TikTok-like "stitching" feature, that would 100% push it into the realm of social media for me, and, if YouTube Shorts were made into its own app, I would classify that as social media as well.
-
Its websites where you can be social. This is opposed to websites which are one way, like a static HTML page.
The broad definition is important. How can we discuss social media, its past and its future, without being holistic. How can we discuss its successes and shortcomings while pigeonholing it.
Social media isn't Facebook, and isn't an app. Its this website, its sending an email, its a bulletin board, its a guest book, its the fediverse, its a p2p network, its an oekaki board, its a tiktok duet.
What works? What facilitates discussion? And what doesn't? How can we know in the case of social media, unless we paint with a broad and inclusive brush?
(or maybe that's just my own negative bias talking again whoops)