[close04]

> And no, HN is not social media in any normal sense of the word. The pedantry involved in that comparison is extremely tiresome.

For an arbitrary definition of "normal"? The last remark is unwarranted and can only have a chilling effect on the conversation. Or outrage bait, a typical sign on social media.

Why is it not social media? It exhibits the same signs as seen on any social media platform. Can you define social media so we can all follow the same play sheet?

I see the same opinions here as I see on Reddit, Facebook, LinkedIn, or X even from the same people here as there. The topics that reach the front page are the most popular, or divisive, or "addictive". A lot of people post for the karma, there's a lot of pandering to popular opinion. There's an opaque algorithm that decides which topic stays on the front page and for how long, which comment stays on top and for how long, when a post or comment gets flagged or reappears, etc. that dictates how the conversation can be carried and on which topics. There are a lot of political topics where some voices or opinions are buried while others are pinned to the top. Some people spend hours and days posting here. There's a lot of astroturfing. The parallels can go on. The main difference is scale and at this small scale it can maintain a higher level of quality... most times. But quality isn't what defines social media, is it?

Many on HN see themselves as better than the "simpletons" who fall for "normal" social media, and any view that challenges that is tiresome. But your dismissal of whether HN is social media holds water like a sieve.

[jquery]

Well said. But I think when people say “HN isn’t social media” what they’re really saying is “HN is nutritious social media, not junk food social media”. Not sure I agree with that, but there’s some arguments to be made at least. HN generally doesn’t let itself get too political. Anyone who posts too much political or polemic stuff will get put on a “cooldown list” that rate limits their posting (ask me how I know).

HN is also highly resistant to jokes and memes dominating the conversation. On other social media sites, the top comments are generally jokes or jabs.

HN also lacks pictures or video or ads or infinite scrolling, and makes self-promotion quite difficult.

Is HN social media? Yes. So were BBS’s back in the day. But is it the omnipresent toxic social media that’s currently rotting society’s collective brain on a generational level? At the very least, it’s not that.

[chownie]

Is it not clear at this point that the real issue is how lacking the term "social media" even is? We have people here arguing that BBSs were social media, it will not be long until email is considered social media.

At this point it's a vague term meaning "a place where you talk to another person online" and nothing more than that.

I'm solidly of the opinion especially after seeing so many arguments of this form on HN that the whole world has accidentally forgotten the term "social network" at some point, because "social media" means nothing.

[close04]

> Is it not clear at this point that the real issue is how lacking the term "social media" even is?

It's very clear. Empirically a common sign across all social media is basing very strong opinions on very vague personal interpretation of something that that will forever stay unwritten so it can't be challenged. Anyone can just cement their claim to eternal correctness by ending a personal opinion with some outrage bait like "anyone who doesn't agree with me is tiresome".

[armchairhacker]

“Social network” is a better term. I think “parasocial network” is better; the former implies small group chats while the latter doesn’t.

Except “mainstream social media”, because everyone knows what you’re talking about, including some who’d be confused by “mainstream parasocial network” because they don’t know what parasocial means.

[anonymars]

I think it can become diluted to a meaningless term, or co-opted to mean different things to different audiences (not to sidetrack from the point but the first two examples I can think of what I mean are "fake news" or "woke")

So you're not wrong at all, but I think there's also a significant difference when the personalized algorithms come into play, which can segregate people into their own epistemological echo chambers

I suppose I'd summarize as

1. I don't think we have a precise term for the actual thing, and "social media" is one loose term people use for it

2. There's a spectrum for this, maybe multidimensional:

* Does it display the same reality for everyone? For example obviously true social media will be different depending on your friends, but chronological vs engagement are different. Even new reddit and old reddit I think differ here too

* Infinite scrolling? Or specific page advancement?

* Text? Pictures? Video? (Video duration?) Each one is different

So in that respect, sure, they're all social media, but they're very different, and I think there's probably combinations of those features that result in very different effects/harms