> Social media are interactive technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content (such as ideas, interests, and other forms of expression) amongst virtual communities and networks.
Forums satisfy all of these requirements. The key factor is not what kind of content users can post but that users can post, and more importantly that they post with the primary intention of interacting with other users. This covers Hacker News and other forums but excludes guest books and contact forms.
The key factor is that a third party has an algorithm that decides what you gets on your feed, based on the content. This is used to feed you ads or occasionally steer the election of the most powerful democracy.
> The key factor is that a third party has an algorithm that decides what you gets on your feed, based on the content.
You are describing Hacker News.
There is a distinct experience and ecosystem that arises from those types of sites that we all recognize, which didn't exist in the same way before the advent of social media sites. And it warrants discussion. When you try to say "actually, technically, ALL human communication is social media!" and won't let it go, you derail a conversation in a way that benefits nobody and is functionally (if not literally at this point) untrue for anyone who's experienced the internet over the last 20 years.
TikTok, IG Reels, and YouTube don't depend on a social graph at all
> There is a distinct experience and ecosystem that arises from those types of sites that we all recognize, which didn't exist in the same way before the advent of social media sites. And it warrants discussion.
No that's the intellectual trap that allows you to use different standards to judge the two types of social networks. HN, Reddit, and Facebook all suffer from the same types of social problems. Bots, astroturfers, growth hackers, zealots who spread exaggerated or fake information to further their cause, conspiracy ideation reinforced by the network, etc. To classify these networks separately is to be blind to how similar they all are.
The entire premise of these platforms is how many followers / subscribers you have. This controls how you interact with the algorithm and whether you get promoted, etc. They have incredibly complex and nuanced social graphs that govern everything that happens on those sites.
> No that's the intellectual trap that allows you to use different standards to judge the two types of social networks
Disagee. Meta-discussion of users at the platform scale, UIs that are so algorithmically tailored that I often can't find the same information as another user even if I wanted, and re-enforcement loops designed to alter the website to maximize engagement over all else are among the things that make these sites distinct. You're being obtuse because you have a foregone conclusion you want to reach. The social problems I'm discussing are unique to those platforms.
> Bots, astroturfers, growth hackers, zealots who spread exaggerated or fake information to further their cause, conspiracy ideation reinforced by the network, etc. To classify these networks separately is to be blind to how similar they all are.
The problems you listed here are possible by definition on every website that exists. None of these problems are what make a website social media or not. Hell, those problems exist in traditional broadcast media.