Perhaps you should realize that social media features predominate in the modern web and have similar complex problems due to that. It’s a sea change but that doesn’t make it useless. Example: some news orgs did shift heavily into social media citizen journalist models to enable retention but realized that they were not making money from it and the content moderation came at a cost that was onerous. That’s why it’s a useful term. It’s not some categorizing specific websites term. It’s a functional term about how a website operates. And it hasn’t changed despite your belief that it once was very narrow. If anything your narrow usage of the term is what makes it entirely useless because you’re tossing out a descriptor for functionality and it’s associated problems because it doesn’t match whatever imaginary categories you’ve developed.
Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube
tyler@programming.dev 2 weeks agoI honestly do not give one shit what merriam Webster says, nor any dictionary. It’s an idiotic way to describe what amounts to almost every website on the Internet. That definition includes personal blogs and news websites for fucks sake. You might as well just say “website” because that’s just as descriptive.
Merriam-Webster added that as a definition because that’s how people started referring to everything they did or didn’t like. It’s not because it’s the actual definition or even a good definition.
roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
rumba@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Ahh, yes, the old I don’t care what the actual definitions are or what people in this community are telling me it means, I have my own definitions and you all are wrong defense, smart man.