Social Media
I would like for us to discuss questions such as: What is a social medium? Are there better and worse social media? Is there a life cycle for a social medium? Must a social medium allow people to carry on conversations in one guise or another? Or post images?
Is SofF a social medium? Are there uses you might have for a social medium that do not apply to SofF?
Is LinkedIn a social medium? (I would say no.) How about YouTube?
Is there a tendency for other WWW constructs (blogs, discussion boards, marketplaces, etc) to become more like social media?
Is SofF a social medium? Are there uses you might have for a social medium that do not apply to SofF?
Is LinkedIn a social medium? (I would say no.) How about YouTube?
Is there a tendency for other WWW constructs (blogs, discussion boards, marketplaces, etc) to become more like social media?
Comments
Basically, internet 2.0.
So in my opinion there are distinctions between services where the interactions are essentially linear between author and reader (such as a blog), where the interaction is only ever seen within a small community or where it is private, and something that is "social media".
It is entirely possible to do something in public (such as on a bulletin board) which is a community in itself but lacks the ability to affect the masses.
The confusion is with things like Facebook, where people feel that they are communicating in semi-provate groups or with friends. The ability for memes to break across these groups and influence large numbers of users makes it a form of social media. I'm my opinion.
I am now going to look it up on Wikipedia and see whether my instinct matches more standard definitions.
Wikipedia also treats it as much broader than my instincts did.
So, IOW, the Ship, for example, wouldn't count as social media, because most of us originally just knew each other from the Ship itself. Whereas if people were posting to be read by friends they knew from their various analog churches, that would be social media, even if some of the friends had joined the on-line platform.
That makes sense, though right from the start of the internet, there were websites dedicated to numerous off-line communities, eg. bars and offices, but people weren't calling them social media.
I don't belong to the book of face, though do participate in the bluebird. Husband was social on the book of face but hasn't been there for years. I often wonder if people are trying to contact him there, to no avail.
When the kid was sick the US online forums I belonged to were so helpful, both for information but also for being able to chat with people who wanted to talk about the same things. That was so encouraging and uplifting. Conversations ranged from how to resolve constipation, clinical trials and different ways of coping with temperatures, relapse and late effects of treatment. It was a lifeline and the archive remains available for searching. However, nowadays the list is less active I think more people interact via social media now. The kindness and willingness to share reminded me a lot of how this forum operates.
No rants, no acting out, no controversies.
LinkedIn, YouTube possibly others are seeking to be such, but they are not used in this way - which makes a difference. These two are more for presentation of material to others, not discussion.
I think the other aspect of a true SM is moderated freedom of access. By which I mean, anyone can join, but there are rules about treatment of others that are enforced.
Are there good and bad SMs? Definitely. I think Mastadon is pretty good, and fulfills the definition/requirements of enabling interaction with many people. I think Twitter no longer is, because of the abusive nature of so much of the platform.
Facebook is on the edge, IMO, because the feed is so manipulated, it is more the algorithm telling me what I should see.
To be boring technical about it, Mastodon is part of the fediverse, which is a collection of interlinked but independently run and moderated servers which talk to each other.
It’s essentially federated social media, the only reason there’s any debate is because we’ve come to associate the term with large monoliths from Silicon Valley.
Agree re YouTube - though there is discussion if you know where to look for it. Disagree with LinkedIn. As someone in their early 40s working in the professional sphere LinkedIn is absolutely kin with the big social media titans of facebook and twitter/X.
It's just mind-numbingly dull, and sort of like an episode of the Apprentice, but LinkedIn is social media.
LinkedIn - point taken. it is so boring that I never read anything, but the highlights I see led me to this.
I agree with @Arethosemyfeet's observations too about a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
I've met various Shipmates in real life and these boards played a major role in shifts in theology abd approach. I apologise for boring and inflicting all that on people over the years. I found it a good sounding board when going through a 'paradigm shift'.
I'm not sure anyone else found my rants helpful though ...
As to the question about whether online platforms constitute people's sole or main means of social interaction. Well, it doesn't for me but I think it can for people who are isolated or alone.
I do worry about its effects on the young and the vulnerable.
My great grandmother's brother Thomas emigrated to America in 1908. Two sisters, Margaret and Annie, followed around 1920. My great grandmother was dead by this time; Spanish flu in 1918 at the age of 32.
The American relatives made great efforts to keep in touch with the "Old Country" The last visit from an elderly cousin of my grandmother's was in the mid 1990s, although Christmas cards continued after that.
And then came Facebook. Three of my late father's second cousins friended me, as Dad didn't do social media. I have a further three who are a generation down, my third cousins. And a generation below that, I am FB friends with one of my children's fourth cousins. FB is the only place I have ever seen myself described by anyone as "Jeannie's great-granddaughter." Again, Jeannie died in 1918. Only amongst my American cousins is "Jeannie's great granddaughter" a meaningful descriptor.
I think I love it.
# ETA: and, of course, this one.
About the same here, ML.
Find that Instragram worse than useless for keeping in touch. Immediate family & close friends I find sms or whatsapp fine: FB messenger works for everyone else
I do too. You’re so lucky!
I have seen a number of people begin to move to other platforms, mastodon and bluesky, but some remain active on the former bluebird as well.
I am not on FB because I don't want to be contacted by every person that ever knew me for a year 40 years ago. I've also been annoyed when people have approached my kids to use them as a conduit to contact me. I think that's really off.
But for me the biggest benefit is in the Groups. I am a member of organists/liturgy groups, motorbiking groups and photography groups. They contain a huge amount of experience, knowledge and expertise that I really value.
I suspect that you can distinguish in principle between arenas where there is a focus on discussions of a particular topic, and arenas where the focus is the relationship between specific groups of people, but both such kinds of arena can be found on all platforms.
(There are, for example, facebook groups for discussions of an author's works by fans of that particular author; there are also groups devoted to any discussion at all within a particular circle of friends.)
I'd tend to disagree, social media presupposes an existing network (hence the oft close proximity of the term 'social networks'), and the earliest incarnations would be things like sixdegrees and friendster,
My groups are mainly gardening, wildlife and art groups, so of course the ads are all related to those subjects. Still annoying and often nothing to do with actual gardens - more like outdoor rooms.
Also, if you do comment on something and get a reply it's often impossible to actually see the reply, because Facebook filters comments (even if you select "all comments) by arcane means.
I'd answer both with the fact that many USENET groups did grow out of existing social networks, and many groups local to a particular institution or area existed.
Six Degrees was I think the first thing to explicitly base itself on a web/network model of acquaintance: I suppose that could be what makes a medium "social". But I think in pretty much all cases, actual people's use of these platforms is rather wider and more varied than "how they are supposed to work".
To an extent, but intention and primary use is useful as tools of classification and to avoid flattening out definitions into nothingness (*all* communications mediums thrive on a network effect, and anything with humans at both ends has the potential to be 'social' - to that extent there are large numbers of priors to USENET; BBSes, systems like Talkomatic, Minitel*, telephones, telegraph lines).
And if you inadvertently or out of curiosity (it's like not looking at a car crash) interact with it, the algorithm poisons your feed for all time. You can keep clicking "show me less of this sort of crap" but it's like bailing a rowing boat with a sieve.
Learn from my fail if your algorithm is still untainted.
Yes, and this has changed in the last twelve months, I think. No doubt AI is speeding everything up.
Heh. I'm getting hearing aid stuff now. It beats the hospice crap I got following me around the internet when my sister was dying! I had one, I kid you not, that went like this: "Tired of so many doctor's visits? Try hospice!" I pinned it up on my cubicle wall, and for months the answer to any problem at work was "try hospice..."
I've been thinking about that and am undecided as I think it is in the strict sense of the term but I do think discussion forums are different in practice. My limited experience is that people tend to remain anonymous on discussion forums, usually keeping behind a board name (or Nom de Net) and not always sharing personal details. Of course, no one has to be who they say they are on Facebook or Twitter and nothing shared there (or on a discussion forum) has to be true, but it's more the norm for people to use their real names and on Facebook particularly the idea is to link you with people you know in real life.
I stepped away from Facebook and Twitter many months ago and am much better for it.
I think sometimes the type of use is in the intent or the need that the board or app fills in the life of the person joining and that is different for everyone. For me it is a form of social media and joining rather than just lurking has been beneficial in having people with whom to interact. I have noticed IRL friends dropping their contact off in recent months, but I too have been remiss and need to step up my own act.
I note that the kid's cancer board that I belonged to had to bring in some tighter controls as on more than one occasion people who were fakers did join. As you could imagine that had quite a profound effect on some members. I am sure people like that do exist on other apps as well, though probably slip through more easily due to volume and fewer controls.
Lately, I have been getting a lot of links to military history sites. I figure it is because I list myself as a veteran. I know if I linger on them FB will send me more of such links. I am starting to delete them too. As much as I like history, I am getting tired of reading the same information of the development of the B52 over and over and over again.