Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube
roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoYou’re defining Twitter and Tiktok as not social media and calling everyone else out of their mind. You have lost the plot entirely. You’re far from the academic and long accepted meaning of social media and are confusing social networks as an integral part of social media. That has never been the case.
tyler@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
It has always been the case. Please provide a few sources for your claim of “academic and long accepted meaning of social media” because as far as I’ve seen the only places calling these things social media are you and news sites. And I’ve literally never even heard a news corp call fucking Wordpress “social media” because that’s so meaningless even they aren’t dumb enough to do that.
roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
How about this top result on Google scholar from 2010 with 37 thousand citations reflecting on the historical meaning of social media: researchgate.net/…/Users-of-the-World-Unite-The-C…
Jesus Christ, since you’ve never heard it obviously it must not exist.
tyler@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
hahaha omg. you literally provide a source stating that Wikipedia is social media! fuck off, you really have no clue how dumb that is do you? what is the point of the word if literally every website on the internet is grouped in it. Like I said, just call it a website then.
Nah I just wanted you to provide a shit source so I could mock it (thanks for providing a shit source so I could mock it).
fyi: number of citations has nothing to do with how credible it is. It often can be used to refute a paper, especially if it’s making such an insane claim as “wikipedia is social media”
roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Uh huh. Sure. A foundational paper with 37 thousand citations. Dictionaries. Just ancillary stuff that has no meaning. Not in your constructed reality I’m sure.