And by that definition you include every website on the planet. Your blog, the comment section of your local news, etc.
Just because you think that news sites comment sections aren’t included doesn’t mean that definition doesn’t include it, cause it does. That applies to that entire definition.
No it doesn’t. It’s in plural. A blog is a single person creating and sharing, others may comment but that’s it. It’s a single person (well it can be many authors but that’s covered in the newspaper example), that’s why I used newspaper sites, they don’t facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content amongst virtual communities and network.
Reddit, facebook, instagram, tiktok, lemmy allows people to create communities, content and sharing. A blog allows ONE person to publish stuff, rarely it builds a community but it can happen, so can happen if you manage to read my diary with a bunch of strangers.
The definition you quoted comes from a 2010 business paper that literally states that it includes blogs. So yes, it does, because that’s where all these business and political morons got the definition.
If you create a website, then you are sharing content. And if people read that content then you have created a network. That’s the “definition” according to the government.
But that’s not what social media ever meant. Honestly I’m not going to argue this again, if you really want to see the true nexus of what social media was and is you can read my previous comments on the matter. I’m sure you can find them in my profile.
Suffice to say, social media is an incredibly narrow subset of social networks and the internet isn’t a social network though it is a “network where people are social”.
And by that definition you include every website on the planet. Your blog, the comment section of your local news, etc.
Just because you think that news sites comment sections aren’t included doesn’t mean that definition doesn’t include it, cause it does. That applies to that entire definition.
No it doesn’t. It’s in plural. A blog is a single person creating and sharing, others may comment but that’s it. It’s a single person (well it can be many authors but that’s covered in the newspaper example), that’s why I used newspaper sites, they don’t facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content amongst virtual communities and network.
Reddit, facebook, instagram, tiktok, lemmy allows people to create communities, content and sharing. A blog allows ONE person to publish stuff, rarely it builds a community but it can happen, so can happen if you manage to read my diary with a bunch of strangers.
The definition you quoted comes from a 2010 business paper that literally states that it includes blogs. So yes, it does, because that’s where all these business and political morons got the definition.
If you create a website, then you are sharing content. And if people read that content then you have created a network. That’s the “definition” according to the government.
But that’s not what social media ever meant. Honestly I’m not going to argue this again, if you really want to see the true nexus of what social media was and is you can read my previous comments on the matter. I’m sure you can find them in my profile.
Suffice to say, social media is an incredibly narrow subset of social networks and the internet isn’t a social network though it is a “network where people are social”.