# The Top Social Media Thread



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I know "social media" serves a valid purpose for some people, and I have even been "forced" to use it, but by far and large IMO it is and does exactly the opposite of what it purports to be in my experience.

For the most part from what I have seen, it is just a means to berate others who most would not do in a face to face meeting.

It may be all the rage but it does not mean it is a good thing.

When I think about it this thread seems old now that I have posted it but with the ubiquity of SM it seems to me it needs some re-evaluation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The worst part of it is the illusion that its users become "famous" or "popular" by sharing photos of their breakfast. I ate dinner at a restaurant last week and the table next to me was a hive of activity as the diners took endless "selfies." Most of what constitutes "content" in social media is endless dross.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Uh, guys.....we're using social media right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Uh, guys.....we're using social media right now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Uh, no, we're on a special interest group forum.

It it was truly social media, you would never see, 'Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk' allowed.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)




----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Uh, no, we're on a special interest group forum.
> 
> 
> 
> It it was truly social media, you would never see, 'Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk' allowed.



Accessed via your computer, tablet or cellphone, for the purposes of communicating with people you've likely never met in person. That's what a social network is. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Accessed via your computer, tablet or cellphone, for the purposes of communicating with people you've likely never met in person. That's what a social network is.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would say "should be," not is. It's an invaluable tool for communicating with those you otherwise could not. But they tend to be filled with otherwise irrelevant noise; degenerating into either a popularity contest or a "woe is me" pity party.

Perhaps social networks are a good idea ruined by its participants, or at least those who don't know what a social network "should" be.I found, with the rise in popularity of sites like Facebook, the quality of the internet took a dive similar to "Eternal September." Although in this case, a massive influx of people who don't understand the difference between a group conversation, and a personal one. Those who don't understand discussing a recent newsworthy event vs. discussing their choice of attire for today.

I find the current state of social networks to be somewhat like having a forum like ehMac, with only one topic, and only one thread: at once your message is lost in a sea of irrelevance while you cannot find anything of interest to you.

Personal pet peeve: the dreaded articles shared with ridiculous click bait amateurish headlines (like "He double parked his car. You won't believe what happened next!")


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

fjnmusic said:


> Accessed via your computer, tablet or cellphone, for the purposes of communicating with people you've likely never met in person. That's what a social network is.


While they might technically qualify, the vernacular when people refer to 'social networks' generally does not extend to full function user forums. When someone says "social network" without explanation, they mean low function, single thread, user-to-user interfaces. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are the three they usually mean, with the fourth spot a constant rotation of "me too" variants (these days it's Google Plus, before that it was Vine, etc). Some try to put Pinterest, Tumblr or even Youtube in that last spot, but once you go there, you're broadening the definition beyond what most people are thinking about.

_/pedantic rant._


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

heavyall said:


> While they might technically qualify, the vernacular when people refer to 'social networks' generally does not extend to full function user forums. When someone says "social network" without explanation, they mean low function, single thread, user-to-user interfaces. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are the three they usually mean, with the fourth spot a constant rotation of "me too" variants (these days it's Google Plus, before that it was Vine, etc). Some try to put Pinterest, Tumblr or even Youtube in that last spot, but once you go there, you're broadening the definition beyond what most people are thinking about.
> 
> _/pedantic rant._


Yep, THIS.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Accessed via your computer, tablet or cellphone, for the purposes of communicating with people you've likely never met in person. That's what a social network is.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You'll notice emac is missing. 

List of social networking websites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*



SINC said:


> You'll notice emac is missing.
> 
> 
> 
> List of social networking websites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Probably because it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. We have, what, 30 regular users?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Uh, guys.....we're using social media right now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not in the terms in which the phrase is meant today. Forums existed long before the term social media came into existence.

While forums may technically meet the requirements for being social media, in common nomenclature they really aren't considered as such by the public at large.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

heavyall said:


> While they might technically qualify, the vernacular when people refer to 'social networks' generally does not extend to full function user forums. When someone says "social network" without explanation, they mean low function, single thread, user-to-user interfaces. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are the three they usually mean, with the fourth spot a constant rotation of "me too" variants (these days it's Google Plus, before that it was Vine, etc). Some try to put Pinterest, Tumblr or even Youtube in that last spot, but once you go there, you're broadening the definition beyond what most people are thinking about.
> 
> _/pedantic rant._


Exactly. If you asked Joe or Jane average to list a few examples of social media forums such as ehMac would not even register.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

gwillikers said:


>


:lmao:


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

I think the biggest distinction, regardless of the platform you're talking about, is modern "social media" refers to push content. You CAN reply, but the OP is the message, and it gets directly delivered with pop-up notifications and the like. 

User forums like this are pull content, you have to go to it and check to see what's there, otherwise you'd never know it even happened.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

polywog said:


> *I would say "should be," not is. It's an invaluable tool for communicating with those you otherwise could not. But they tend to be filled with otherwise irrelevant noise; degenerating into either a popularity contest or a "woe is me" pity party.*
> 
> Perhaps social networks are a good idea ruined by its participants, or at least those who don't know what a social network "should" be.I found, with the rise in popularity of sites like Facebook, the quality of the internet took a dive similar to "Eternal September." Although in this case, a massive influx of people who don't understand the difference between a group conversation, and a personal one. Those who don't understand discussing a recent newsworthy event vs. discussing their choice of attire for today.
> 
> ...


Agreed... at best. Often from what I have seen on Twitter and Facebook and even comments sections of online traditional media, e.g. the Globe and Mail end up in resorting to bullying, name calling and worse.

That being said that kind of behavior also occurs on forums such as ehMac but at least, as it is here now, we can "police" ourselves.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

heavyall said:


> I think the biggest distinction, regardless of the platform you're talking about, is modern "social media" refers to push content. You CAN reply, but the OP is the message, and it gets directly delivered with pop-up notifications and the like.
> 
> User forums like this are pull content, you have to go to it and check to see what's there, otherwise you'd never know it even happened.


Good point.

Also a HUGE difference is anonymity vs. knowing the actual identity of the person you are talking to.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

heavyall said:


> I think the biggest distinction, regardless of the platform you're talking about, is modern "social media" refers to push content. You CAN reply, but the OP is the message, and it gets directly delivered with pop-up notifications and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> User forums like this are pull content, you have to go to it and check to see what's there, otherwise you'd never know it even happened.



Au contraire, mon ami. I use Facebook much the same way as I use ehMac. Nothing is pushed; I have to go in to find the news stories I'm interested in, big news or just friend contributions, many of which I ignore, some of which I respond to. Surely you must count Facebook as a social medium. Also, Tapatalk will let me know when someone responded to something I posted, thereby making it a "push" medium as well if I set it up that way. If you use the medium, whether it be e-mail, text message, forum, Instagram, snapchat, twitter, or other social network, and you are communicating with a group of other people, it is by definition a "social medium" regardless of whether you agree or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Agreed... at best. Often from what I have seen on Twitter and Facebook and even comments sections of online traditional media, e.g. the Globe and Mail end up in resorting to bullying, name calling and worse.
> 
> 
> 
> That being said that kind of behavior also occurs on forums such as ehMac but at least, as it is here now, we can "police" ourselves.



Bullying, name calling and worse? Goodness me, thank The Lord that never happens here. 😜


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you're desperate enough for stimulus, you could configure almost anything to mimic social media.



fjnmusic said:


> Au contraire, mon ami. I use Facebook much the same way as I use ehMac. Nothing is pushed; I have to go in to find the news stories I'm interested in, big news or just friend contributions, many of which I ignore, some of which I respond to. Surely you must count Facebook as a social medium. Also, Tapatalk will let me know when someone responded to something I posted, thereby making it a "push" medium as well if I set it up that way. If you use the medium, whether it be e-mail, text message, forum, Instagram, snapchat, twitter, or other social network, and you are communicating with a group of other people, it is by definition a "social medium" regardless of whether you agree or not.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Facebook is absolutely a push medium.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Facebook is absolutely a push medium.


Yes:



> Push, or server push, describes a style of Internet-based communication where the request for a given transaction is initiated by the publisher or central server. It is contrasted with pull/get, where the request for the transmission of information is initiated by the receiver or client.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Bullying, name calling and worse? Goodness me, thank The Lord that never happens here. 😜
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You clearly didn't take the 10 seconds to read and digest my post before posting.

Check the record.



> That being said that kind of behavior also occurs on forums such as ehMac but at least, as it is here now, we can "police" ourselves.


Despite common nomenclature you just want to oppose for the sake of it much of the time it seems to me.

That's fine... whatever floats your boat, you displace about as much water as the rest of us...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> You clearly didn't take the 10 seconds to read and digest my post before posting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't really understand what you're trying to say. "Social media" refers to media used for social purposes. Pretty simple concept really. Where computers, smart phones, tablets and what not are an advance over previous forms of media like TV, newspapers and movies are that they are interactive. Today through things like forums you can talk to other people and have discussions about articles and interpretations and so on. Whether ehMac is included on the "master list" is quite irrelevant. Look at the purpose it serves.

It's odd because some people on this thread seem to refer to social media as though it's a bad thing. It's no different than a telephone; it all depends how you use it. I think social media is the greatest invention of the modern age. Mind you, I use it responsibly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No. It is a subset of that.



fjnmusic said:


> I don't really understand what you're trying to say. "Social media" refers to media used for social purposes.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*



Macfury said:


> No. It is a subset of that.



No it is not. The definition is straightforward. Look it up.

"Social media technologies take on many different forms including blogs, business networks , enterprise social networks, forums, microblogs, photo sharing, products/services review, social bookmarking, social gaming, social networks, video sharing and virtual worlds."

From Wikipedia

Notice the word "forums" in there? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Paper is a medium and letter writing is social--so it's part of social media!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Paper is a medium and letter writing is social--so it's part of social media!



Uh huh. So now it's acceptable to just pull a definition out of your arse? Seriously, Macfury, at times you infuriate. Though I suppose perhaps that's the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> No it is not. The definition is straightforward. Look it up.
> 
> "Social media technologies take on many different forms including blogs, business networks , enterprise social networks, forums, microblogs, photo sharing, products/services review, social bookmarking, social gaming, social networks, video sharing and virtual worlds."
> 
> ...


Depends on the definition:

Social Media Definition

Notice the word "forums" NOT in there?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I don't really understand what you're trying to say. "Social media" refers to media used for social purposes. Pretty simple concept really. Where computers, smart phones, tablets and what not are an advance over previous forms of media like TV, newspapers and movies are that they are interactive. Today through things like forums you can talk to other people and have discussions about articles and interpretations and so on. Whether ehMac is included on the "master list" is quite irrelevant. Look at the purpose it serves.
> 
> It's odd because some people on this thread seem to refer to social media as though it's a bad thing. It's no different than a telephone; it all depends how you use it. I think social media is the greatest invention of the modern age. Mind you, I use it responsibly.
> 
> ...


You neglected the content of a previous post of mine:



> Also a HUGE difference is anonymity vs. knowing the actual identity of the person you are talking to.


Once again that makes a HUGE difference. You don't know who I am and I don't know who you are. That is why forums are not "social media" as the term is used now.

You talk to a persona named "screature" and I talk to a persona named" fjnmusic", neither of us knows the actual identity of the other and cannot use canada411 to find out the other person's phone number, etc...

And I dare say if you or I did not actually release any personal information (just say our actual names as an example) and you or I have knowledge of that we would be... well lets just say a little distressed as to how you or I could know that information.

Capiche? There is a difference.

Social media is *ALL *about knowing the identity of the "other" whereas forums like this are based on/in, for the most part, anonymity.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> You neglected the content of a previous post of mine:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd say that distinction is pretty presumptuous. We don't "know" each other any better on Facebook than we do on ehMac. It's about creating personas and then interacting with others online to learn new things, have discussions, play games, circulate memes or whatever. The medium used is electronic but the purpose is social ie. connecting with other people. Playing Flappy Birds by myself would not be "social" even though the medium is electronic. Playing "World of Warcraft" online with other players would be because one of the goals is connecting with other players, whether they use their real names or not. I think you're splitting the wrong hairs. And Wikipedia certainly categorizes this forum as an example of social media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjn appears to be saying that social media was invented in the mid-1970s with the availability of Bulletin Board Systems.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> I know "social media" serves a valid purpose for some people, and I have even been "forced" to use it, but by far and large IMO it is and does exactly the opposite of what it purports to be in my experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So ANYWAY, in response to your original post, Screature, I'd have to disagree with the assumption that the purpose of social media is to berate others. At least, that's not my experience, but then again I'm an adult. I also find on Facebook that people tend to police each other as well by telling someone when they're out of line or ultimately unfriending them if it comes to that. To me it is just another kind of communication, just as the discussion threads in this forum are, and we learn the social morés and rules of engagement as we go. As I said before, I think social media is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world, and that can be a very good thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> As I said before, I think social media is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world, and that can be a very good thing.


I think it is one of the saddest. It seems to drain away the energies of people who would normally be productive. I have watched it decimate face-to-face interaction in high schools and junior highs, as students simply go home and begin interacting through social media. It's directly responsible for less physical exercise among its adherents. It has directly fed the appetite of ordinary citizens for fame as they hunger over the possibility of having someone "like" a photo of their breakfast cereal. I also believe it is responsible for single-handedly creating the biggest pile of dross in human history as a few nuggets of good ideas get buried underneath a billion reports on the colour of Kim Kardashian's hair and tallies of Farmville scores.

Essentially, social media has exposed and focused on the worst of human interaction on one hand, while allowing a few relatives to superficially keep in touch on the other.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*



Macfury said:


> I think it is one of the saddest. It seems to drain away the energies of people who would normally be productive. I have watched it decimate face-to-face interaction in high schools and junior highs, as students simply go home and begin interacting through social media. It's directly responsible for less physical exercise among its adherents. It has directly fed the appetite of ordinary citizens for fame as they hunger over the possibility of having someone "like" a photo of their breakfast cereal. I also believe it is responsible for single-handedly creating the biggest pile of dross in human history as a few nuggets of good ideas get buried underneath a billion reports on the colour of Kim Kardashian's hair and tallies of Farmville scores.
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially, social media has exposed and focused on the worst of human interaction on one hand, while allowing a few relatives to superficially keep in touch on the other.



And yet you continue to use it several times a day yourself. How ironic.

Though I do agree that we se to celebrate the banal far too much on social media. However, I find it a source of some really insightful comments and memes and debates at the same time. My concern is the addictive nature of social media, where Is find myself checking up on the news several times a day, I certainly never needed to do that when I was a kid. Back then my bicycle was the medium to keep me connected to the world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think it is one of the saddest. It seems to drain away the energies of people who would normally be productive. I have watched it decimate face-to-face interaction in high schools and junior highs, as students simply go home and begin interacting through social media. It's directly responsible for less physical exercise among its adherents. It has directly fed the appetite of ordinary citizens for fame as they hunger over the possibility of having someone "like" a photo of their breakfast cereal. I also believe it is responsible for single-handedly creating the biggest pile of dross in human history as a few nuggets of good ideas get buried underneath a billion reports on the colour of Kim Kardashian's hair and tallies of Farmville scores.
> 
> Essentially, social media has exposed and focused on the worst of human interaction on one hand, while allowing a few relatives to superficially keep in touch on the other.


Who the hell is Kim Kardashian?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> And yet you continue to use it several times a day yourself. How ironic.


No irony. I never accepted your view of ancient linear electronic bulletin boards as social media. This form of communication is quaint and clunky and will be extinct in a few short years.



fjnmusic said:


> My concern is the addictive nature of social media, where Is find myself checking up on the news several times a day...


It is designed primarily to be addictive and all-consuming for the purposes of advertising and is succeeding beyond its wildest dreams. It has convinced hundreds of millions of people to willingly agree to become conduits for sponsored messages.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> fjn appears to be saying that social media was invented in the mid-1970s with the availability of Bulletin Board Systems.


Yep, it seems so.

Much like many of his other posts he gets fixated on one particular component of one thing or another and therefore that means they are the same. If they share one trait or another then they are the same. I guess I am a squirrel because we share 90% of the same DNA.

In terms of differentiation/classification it is not what we have in common that matters most, it is the differences that matter most. A fact seemingly not understood by fjnmusic.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> No irony. I never accepted your view of ancient linear electronic bulletin boards as social media. This form of communication is quaint and clunky and will be extinct in a few short years.


Clearly an anti-semantic post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Clearly an anti-semantic post.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

screature said:


> Social media is *ALL *about knowing the identity of the "other" whereas forums like this are based on/in, for the most part, anonymity.


I wouldn't call that the primary difference, but that certainly is a critical one.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*



Macfury said:


> No irony. I never accepted your view of ancient linear electronic bulletin boards as social media. This form of communication is quaint and clunky and will be extinct in a few short years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not my view. It's the definition, straight off Wikipedia, where most people go for "common" knowledge. And as far as being only a conduit for sponsored ads, jeez! Cynical much? I'm prepared to live with the ads to a degree in exchange for a free avenue of expression with people around the world. Very odd that you see no benefit of social media while you argue your points on an electronic interactive social media forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*



screature said:


> Yep, it seems so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know that it's rude to talk about someone in the third person when they're right there in the room with you. Oh, wait a minute, we're not in the same room after all—since we're on an ELECTRONIC FORUM, one of the many kinds of SOCIAL MEDIA that exist.

You know, for a guy who started off with decent question, one which I responded to to try to get the discussion back on track a few posts ago, you sure can be a conversation killer. Nice going.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I can go onto Wikipedia with my editor's account and change that definition right now. If you're appealing to Wiki as the last word on anything, you've lost me.

Social media exists primarily to get you to exchange your privacy in exchange for ads. That's the business model.



fjnmusic said:


> Not my view. It's the definition, straight off Wikipedia, where most people go for "common" knowledge. And as far as being only a conduit for sponsored ads, jeez! Cynical much? I'm prepared to live with the ads to a degree in exchange for a free avenue of expression with people around the world. Very odd that you see no benefit of social media while you argue your points on an electronic interactive social media forum.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I can go onto Wikipedia with my editor's account and change that definition right now. If you're appealing to Wiki as the last word on anything, you've lost me.
> 
> 
> 
> Social media exists primarily to get you to exchange your privacy in exchange for ads. That's the business model.



I hate to burst your bubble, but that's exactly what happens here at ehMac as well. Remember all the controversy about keywords being linked to ads in your posts without your consent? It still happens even if you can't see it. I will agree that advertising is the ultimate funder for pretty much all forms of social media including this one. That's why participation is free and highly encouraged. Ain't too many ways around it unfortunately.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The difference between EhMac and social media is that your privacy is affected--your personal communications are read and analyzed to help push products.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The difference between EhMac and social media is that your privacy is affected--your personal communications are read and analyzed to help push products.



You sure about that, Macfury?










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

And just one more thing: I don't believe social media started off as an advertiser's wet dream any more than ehMac did. Facebook, for example, was designed to help college guys find out where all the good looking women were. Today grandmas also use it to send pictures of their grandchildren and hipsters send selfies and funny cat videos. The idea to attach advertising was really an afterthought—a very lucrative one—but it is not part of the definition of social media, ubiquitous as it has become.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

heavyall said:


> I wouldn't call that the primary difference, but that certainly is a critical one.


Where did I use the word *primary*? You seem to understand what I am saying and it seems we agree.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yep, it spent four lonely months in 2004 without advertising. 

As Tim Cook says, with Facebook, _you_ are the product.



fjnmusic said:


> And just one more thing: I don't believe social media started off as an advertiser's wet dream any more than ehMac did. Facebook, for example, was designed to help college guys find out where all the good looking women were. Today grandmas also use it to send pictures of their grandchildren and hipsters send selfies and funny cat videos. The idea to attach advertising was really an afterthought—a very lucrative one—but it is not part of the definition of social media, ubiquitous as it has become.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bump


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*

Perhaps these examples are more to your liking since they narrow down particular strands within the "social media" umbrella.

"What Are Some Social Media Websites?

Now that we have answered the question of what is social media, we can move on to social media websites. Because social media is such a broad term, it covers a large range of websites. But the one common link between these websites is that you are able to interact with the website and interact with other visitors. Here are some examples of social media websites:

Social Bookmarking. (Del.icio.us, Blinklist, Simpy) Interact by tagging websites and searching through websites bookmarked by other people.

Social News. (Digg, Propeller, Reddit) Interact by voting for articles and commenting on them.

Social Networking. (Facebook, Hi5, Last.FM) Interact by adding friends, commenting on profiles, joining groups and having discussions.

Social Photo and Video Sharing. (YouTube, Flickr) Interact by sharing photos or videos and commenting on user submissions.

Wikis. (Wikipedia, Wikia) Interact by adding articles and editing existing articles.

And these websites are not the only social media websites. Any website that invites you to interact with the site and with other visitors falls into the definition of social media."

http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/social-media.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This definition seems too inclusive. Any online interaction seems to be branded as social media. Essentially any feedback mechanism on the Internet.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

If we're being that broad, why limit it to the internet? Written letters are social media. A group of people who have written letters to each other are a social network then too, right?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*

Now you're getting it.

If you want to talk about a particular kind of social medium, perhaps you need to be more specific: i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat or what have you. "Social Media" is a pretty wide ranging realm, but the key differentiating factor seems to be interactivity, with or without advertising as a feature. Many newspapers that publish online now have a comments section that can be accessed with, say, your Facebook account. Often in the modern world it's hard to tell where one medium ends and the next one begins. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Often in the modern world it's hard to tell where one medium ends and the next one begins.


I think you're the only one finding it hard, fjn. The rest of us here get it, in the same way that we understand that social media doesn't happen to include everything.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think you're the only one finding it hard, fjn. The rest of us here get it, in the same way that we understand that social media doesn't happen to include everything.



No, you don't get it, Macfury. You seem to have trouble with the concept of a continuum, that one thing evolves into another, and that many forms of media cross-pollinate. You definitely do not get it yet. 

Using your compartmentalized linear sequential thinking process, perhaps you can explain when exactly was the first moment social media came into existence. Then you can explain exactly what are examples of social media and what are not and why. You don't seem to feel examples from googled sources that I have cited apply in your world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> No, you don't get it, Macfury. You seem to have trouble with the concept of a continuum, that one thing evolves into another, and that many forms of media cross-pollinate. You definitely do not get it yet.


These aren't difficult at all to separate.They aren't a continuum at all--just different branches of the same thing expressed across various media. That they cross-pollinate does not make them any less distinct. 



fjnmusic said:


> Using your compartmentalized linear sequential thinking process, perhaps you can explain when exactly was the first moment social media came into existence. Then you can explain exactly what are examples of social media and what are not and why. You don't seem to feel examples from googled sources that I have cited apply in your world.


Let's work on a good definition. Do you agree that "social media" in the context which we are discussing it:
i) must be electronic ?
ii) must be accessible on the Internet?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Let's work on a good definition. Do you agree that "social media" in the context which we are discussing it:
> 
> i) must be electronic ?
> 
> ii) must be accessible on the Internet?


Yup, for our intents and purposes.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Anything else? If not, you've widened this definition far more than I would have. 😄


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just too busy to narrow it down--will get back to it!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Just too busy to narrow it down--will get back to it!



KK. No rush when we're solving the mysteries of the universe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> You know that it's rude to talk about someone in the third person when they're right there in the room with you. Oh, wait a minute, we're not in the same room after all—since we're on an ELECTRONIC FORUM, one of the many kinds of SOCIAL MEDIA that exist.
> 
> You know, for a guy who started off with decent question, one which I* responded to to try to get the discussion back on track a few posts ago, you sure can be a conversation killer.* Nice going.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was replying to MF's post regarding your post. If you would rather that I addressed it you I cannot see how I could do that.

It happens all the time, you do it regrading me and others posts regrading my posts so don't get your knickers in a knot and be so hypocritical.

You derailed the thread in the 3rd post... what I am supposed to do...? Give you a  "hero biscuit"?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

oops.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> So ANYWAY, in response to your original post, Screature, *I'd have to disagree with the assumption that the purpose of social media is to berate others*. At least, that's not my experience, but then again I'm an adult. I also find on Facebook that people tend to police each other as well by telling someone when they're out of line or ultimately unfriending them if it comes to that. To me it is just another kind of communication, just as the discussion threads in this forum are, and we learn the social morés and rules of engagement as we go. As I said before, I think social media is one of the greatest inventions of the modern world, and that can be a very good thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





> I'Id have to disagree with the assumption that the purpose of social media is to berate others


I made no such statement or assumption. The error is yours in your interpretation of what I said.

Check the record. What I did say is this:



screature said:


> *I know "social media" serves a valid purpose for some people*, and I have even been "forced" to use it, *but by far and large IMO it is and does exactly the opposite of what it purports to be in my experience.
> 
> For the most part from what I have seen, it is just a means to berate others who most would not do in a face to face meeting.
> 
> ...


Kids are committing suicide because of SM bullying that would have never have happened if SM didn't exist just as one example... that is just *one* reason to* re-evaluate* it alone. Not to mention the promotion of hatred and terrorism.

A caveat I will add is that I don't use SM very much so that what I do see is probably the worst of it because it makes the headlines and so my statement, "by far and large" is probably in error in terms of percentages. 

I still do believe SM has significant faults/flaws that go largely unaddressed due to its ubiquity.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*



screature said:


> I was replying to MF's post regarding your post. If you would rather that I addressed it you I cannot see how I could do that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How does pointing that the very forum we are using is a form of social media derail the thread? Pretty weak topic if that's the case. I hear a lot of old people bitching and moaning about how social media is destroying the younger generation, and here we are, strangers as far as ever meeting face to face, using this very medium on the Internet to communicate with each other in a social way. Talk about hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> I made no such statement or assumption. The error is yours in your interpretation of what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you final paragraph; significant faults/flaws go largely unaddressed. The mining of data alone is enough to make me caution my students about what they post, even on Snapchat, which supposedly deletes content after it is sent (but not really if you read the fine print of the EULA). However, if one is mature about it, social media such as Facebook can go a long way for uniting old friends or family. I have reconnected with many of my cousins using FB as well as old high school mates. I see that as a pretty positive consequence. The big problem with kids and the Internet is that for the most part their parents have absolutely no idea what their kids are posting. Bullying is nothing knew, but the newer tactic of cyber bullying is something we haven't really come to terms with as a society yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> *How does pointing that the very forum we are using is a form of social media derail the thread? *Pretty weak topic if that's the case. I hear a lot of old people bitching and moaning about how social media is destroying the younger generation, and here we are, strangers as far as ever meeting face to face, using this very medium on the Internet to communicate with each other in a social way. Talk about hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because it is not. As has been illustrated to you time and again. You admitted to derailing the thread and now you are saying you didn't, make up your mind.

You waffle constantly... you sure you don't want a career in politics, maybe under JT ??!!

That sounds about right to me.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

When a celebrity, or athlete, or business leader, or politician is said to be "active on social media", they are not referring to internet forums. EVER. They are very specifically talking about Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

heavyall said:


> When a celebrity, or athlete, or business leader, or politician is said to be "active on social media", they are not referring to internet forums. EVER. They are very specifically talking about Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.



I see. So no Snapchat then. No Pinterest. Only those three. Glad you clarified. 😳


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Because it is not. As has been illustrated to you time and again. You admitted to derailing the thread and now you are saying you didn't,  make up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ignorance abounds. Such narrow minds on this social media forum sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Again, courtesy of Wikipedia. I count well more than 3 possibilities, Heavyall.

"This list is not exhaustive, and is limited to notable, well-known sites."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

fjnmusic said:


> I see. So no Snapchat then. No Pinterest. Only those three. Glad you clarified. 😳


You're welcome. I'm glad you've finally learned the proper terminology.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

*The "Social" Media Thread*



heavyall said:


> You're welcome. I'm glad you've finally learned the proper terminology.



I never said I agree with you; just verifying that this is your understanding of what social media is. Looks like at least others here agree with you, so there's some comfort in thinking that you're correct. 

Check out the list of social networking sites on Wikipedia (the link is in my previous post). I'm interested to see how you are going to refute the hundreds of other forms of "social media" that are not Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, including a number of forums that are listed. Good luck.

Here are a whole bunch of other websites that are not Facebook, Instagram or Twitter that some misguided people on the Internet seem to have identified as examples of social media.



Sure are a lot of misguided people out there.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

heavyall said:


> When a celebrity, or athlete, or business leader, or politician is said to be "active on social media", they are not referring to internet forums. EVER. They are very specifically talking about Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.


Agreed. Despite fjnmusic's repeated, incessant attempts to include ehMac as being SM he simply does not make his case very convincingly when the opposition's case IMO is much more valid.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ok.

So let's take a break from fjnmusic's post number #3 and pretend it it didn't happen and we can focus on what the general public considers to be SM... that being #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8. 9, 10 etc., SM giants and talk about them instead of this incessant derailment by fjnmusic.

I have changed the title and the subject of the thread to be "The Top Social Media Thread" so this ridiculous, fruitless banter can stop.

Happy now fjnmusic? 

God what a PITA. You must generate a lot of laughs and comradery at parties.

fjnmusic you can be combative for no reason at all other than just to be combative.

It was made clear to you *abundantly* what was being talked about and yet you persisted just so you could be "right/correct".
*
THAT* does not make for very good or polite discussion.

So... take a breath and try and talk about the subject at hand without resorting to trying to define what is and is not SM and just comment on the top SM sites.

That might make things more affable.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Screature, you are an asshole. I'm also willing to bet you write on ehMac more than any other Internet forum, which makes it one of YOUR top social media forms. I can't help if you insist on being obtuse. Good luck on your journey, and you still haven't proved why Internet forums are not a form of social media in your view, even when that understanding is pretty common. It is still ironic that you use social media to slam social media. So much for the concept of discussion when you can't even clarify your premises.

And for the record, I think most forms of social media are great if used responsibly, including the TOP ones. Next I expect to hear how I'm not allowed to express an opinion on your thread unless I agree with you.

P.S. Your use of the term "PITA" (pain in the ass) and my use of the term "asshole" would be called "flames" in social media circles, but since this forum is not a form of social media, I guess they don't apply. So it's all good, man.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

This definition from About.com includes Wikipedia and other wiki sites as social media as well because there is an opportunity to interact with the content or the content producers. I certainly find Wikipedia to be useful, although not t always accurate. I could say the same about a traditional encyclopedia in that the information becomes outdated very quickly while WP is updated frequently and monitored for accuracy by all of its users. Would you consider Wikipedia to he one of the "top" forms of social media?

http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/social-media.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

polywog said:


> I would say "should be," not is. It's an invaluable tool for communicating with those you otherwise could not. But they tend to be filled with otherwise irrelevant noise; degenerating into either a popularity contest or a "woe is me" pity party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed on the click bait thing. "You won't believe what happened next!" Is kind of like the way-too-loud studio audience letting you know where the funny parts are. Or the movie reviewer telling you "You're going to love the twist ending in this movie!" Oversharing is undercaring.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> *Screature, you are an asshole.*...


You never disappoint fjnmusic, right on cue as expected...

When logic fails you, you resort to name calling and insults.

It is your MO.

Bravo for being consistent. :clap:

Thank you once again for making a thread that someone else started all about you as you have done with other threads before this one...

You must hold the record in doing that.

This thread officially belongs to fjnmusic and whatever he says is the god's honest truth, seeing as he knows everything about god, as well as everything else, even though he starts little to no threads of his own. He just wants to rule them all the same.

From here on out I don't give a s**t, "whatever fjnmusic says is correct" I am done with this thread even though I started it with the intention of having an open discussion but that seems impossible when fjnmusic becomes involved.

Over to you overlord....

Just to add, do you have the guts to reveal your full name to your students and employers know exactly who you are are?

If you don't or won't then you just reveal what a real asshole and pussy you are... If this is real SM as you purport it to be.

Have the courage of your convictions and don't hide behind anonymity. beejacon

Who is fjnmusic, name in full !!!???


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Next...

Please someone else have something else to say...

Enough of this chite...

Does any one remember the old childhood game where you whispered something into someone's else ear and then the it went around the rounds and it came out as something totally different?

Now that is social media!!!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Steve, you know my name as I've told you before on a number of occasions. If you can't take insults, don't dish them out. But what do I know? I'm just a pain in the ass (PITA would be the pussy form). Take your meds, man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Just too busy to narrow it down--will get back to it!



Tell you what, why don't we just start with one really prominent one and talk about that for now. Facebook comes to mind, although most of my students have moved on to other sites because they see Facebook as overpopulated by people their parents' age.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Steve, you know my name as I've told you before on a number of occasions. If you can't take insults, don't dish them out. But what do I know? I'm just a pain in the ass (PITA would be the pussy form). Take your meds, man.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I know your first name as you know mine. We have no idea of the other's actual identity. Take *your *meds.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature, to be honest although I feel that most of fjn's thought processes are inconclusive and circular, he has every right to express those ideas here. He's been pretty open about who he is in real life as well. Being more specific with the thread title solves a lot of the angst.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> I know your first name as you know mine. We have no idea of the other's actual identity. Take *your *meds.



I am not sure why you feel full disclosure of names is important or even relevant. It is an odd request.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature, *to be honest although I feel that most of fjn's thought processes are inconclusive and circular, he has every right to express those ideas here.* He's been pretty open about who he is in real life as well. Being more specific with the thread title solves a lot of the angst.


Agreed. But just as you have no real idea as to who I am or me to you neither of us knows who fjnmusic is so it bears no resemblance to SM as it is known today where everyone knows exactly who they are talking to...

You carry on amongst yourselves... I have no interest in where this thread is going.

I regret starting it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Agreed. But just as you have no real idea as to who I am or me to you neither of us knows who fjnmusic is so it bears no resemblance to SM as it is known today where everyone knows exactly who they are talking to.


I know who he is through some links he posted, but you're right that this is not known to everyone by looking at his avatar.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I am not sure why you feel full disclosure of names is important or even relevant. It is an odd request.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In real SM it it is required.

You know that, I know that you just won't admit it... Pussy. beejacon


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I know who he is through some links he posted, but you're right that this is not known to everyone by looking at his avatar.


What is his full name?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I look exactly like Leonard Nimoy, the same way Groovetube looks exactly like Bill the cat. In any event, I think it's a very good thread, but I just wish we didn't take things so personally sometimes. I certainly don't believe full disclosure is ever the case on any form of social media, including Facebook. As Paul Reiser once said, the Internet is all about someone pretending to be someone they're not talking to someone else pretending to be someone they're not about something that neither one knows anything about. 

Having said that, you can still have some pretty interesting conversations with people you don't actually know and will likely never meet. About cats. And pictures of dinner. Or swearing babies. Or wipeouts. Or pranks. Or........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I know who he is through some links he posted, but you're right that this is not known to everyone by looking at his avatar.


To be honest, I don't look much like Stimpy.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> ...As Paul Reiser once said, the Internet is all about someone pretending to be someone they're not talking to someone else pretending to be someone they're not about something that neither one knows anything about...


I think that's overly generalized. Take for example someone who cripplingly shy in public; they may be fully comfortable having a discussion online. They aren't pretending to be someone they are not but rather being the person they wish they could be.

Besides I would hardly limit that behaviour to the internet - there are plenty of phoney people in real life, pretending they are someone they are not, and not being shy to discuss things they know nothing about. Like politicians.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

polywog said:


> I think that's overly generalized. Take for example someone who cripplingly shy in public; they may be fully comfortable having a discussion online. They aren't pretending to be someone they are not but rather being the person they wish they could be.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides I would hardly limit that behaviour to the internet - there are plenty of phoney people in real life, pretending they are someone they are not, and not being shy to discuss things they know nothing about. Like politicians.



I dig what you're saying, man. It's kind of like going to parties: some people live them, some people hate them, others are meh. We kind if get the signals back that we send out. At one time everyone on a ehMac was a stranger to me, both physically and in conversation, and all I could do was test the waters through conversation, just like in any other social endeavor. It's also possible that social media allows us to rehearse and mold our online personas before we try out these skills in the "real world."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

polywog said:


> To be honest, I don't look much like Stimpy.


I thought you were identifying with Ren Höek!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> What is his full name?


I can honestly tell you that I know what it is, based on information supplied on EhMac, but I always act on the side of caution and won't post someone's identity on the possibility that they may have regretted posting the information or erased the original posts.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I can honestly tell you that I know what it is, based on information supplied on EhMac, but I always act on the side of caution and won't post someone's identity on the possibility that they may have regretted posting the information or erased the original posts.



A well reasoned decision MF. Besides, If ehMac isn't social media we shouldn't have to use our actual names anyway, now should we? 😉👍


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

polywog said:


> ...Besides I would hardly limit that behaviour to the internet - there are plenty of phoney people in real life, pretending they are someone they are not, and not being shy to discuss things they know nothing about. Like politicians.


In the world of politics one would be very hard pressed to name exceptions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> A well reasoned decision MF. Besides, If ehMac isn't social media we shouldn't have to use our actual names anyway, now should we? 😉👍


We don't, because it isn't!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I can honestly tell you that I know what it is, based on information supplied on EhMac, but I always act on the side of caution and won't post someone's identity on the possibility that they may have regretted posting the information or erased the original posts.


Ok so you may know that (but it still seems you re keeping some sort of secret) but he didn't reveal it as as a necessity of joining ehMac now did he.

I don't why but this thread all of a sudden reminds me of the Austin Powers movies.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Ok so you may know that (but it still seems you re keeping some sort of secret) but he didn't reveal it as as a necessity of joining ehMac now did he.


No. It was not required to know his name to join. At some point he offered it.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Is revealing your identity now a requirement of all forms of social media? Because I can certainly think of a few false names on Facebook. I have an FB alter-ego named "Freddie Biff" that I use from time to time myself. I have a friend who used to go by "Harry Nutzak". Surely we would count Facebook as a form of social media (or S&M if you prefer).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> No. It was not required to know his name to join. At some point he offered it.


Exactly!!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Have a nice night all... we will be watching the 2nd half of "Whiplash"... it seems appropriate and we didn't even plan it.

Peace out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> *Is revealing your identity now a requirement of all forms of social media?* Because I can certainly think of a few false names on Facebook. I have an FB alter-ego named "Freddie Biff" that I use from time to time myself. I have a friend who used to go by "Harry Nutzak". Surely we would count Facebook as a form of social media (or S&M if you prefer).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is for those that are truly *social *media. People can and will always lie, you know, the anti-social types.

But the point of SM is to connect with real people not fake ones.

Here we are all essentially just avatars of who we really are. The multiple personalities of a certain entity here just proves that point.

Look, if you consider that ehMac is SM fine I am tired of your usual "trees for the forest" form of argumentation and as I said to you in a PM we will just have to agree to disagree.

So now maybe, just maybe, we can for once talk about the pros and cons of SM which is what this thread was meant to be about in the first place.

Actually MF did in the 2nd post (so did others, but his was the first post on topic) so maybe we can just go from there.



Macfury said:


> The worst part of it is the illusion that its users become "famous" or "popular" by sharing photos of their breakfast. I ate dinner at a restaurant last week and the table next to me was a hive of activity as the diners took endless "selfies." Most of what constitutes "content" in social media is endless dross.


 Next...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

My teen-age daughter an her friends certainly don't view full disclosure of one's Christian name as a requirement for social media and they use many more forms of it than I do, but whatever. I believe it is the "interactive" part that is the important characteristic, which is why the comments sections of online newspapers are often classed as a form of social media. On the old days, you could write a letter to the editor, but the feedback if any was quite delayed and limited. These days every article seems to have a comments section which keeps people I interested. In fact, sometimes I'll skip the article and go straight to the comments because I find them to be more interesting.

I definitely understand the cons of SM as well though, seeing the effects of it on the kids I teach. Their phones are their umbilical cord and they become frantic some of them when you ask them to turn in their phones because they have become too much of a destruction. It's like you're asking them to give up a kidney.

I feel it too, truth be told. If I don't check my e-mail several times a day it fills up an becomes unwieldy. Same with my FB inbox. There's a certain neuroses that goes with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

P.S. Who the hell invented a keyboard where three vowels are right beside each other?? I can't count the number of times I've typed "in" instead of "on", "of" instead of "if"—the mind boggles.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Is not joining Facebook a sign you may be a psychopath? Some food for thought. 😜

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-employers-psychologists-say-suspicious.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I joined Facebook for one reson and that was to see what our two boys post about the grand children and see pics we might not otherwise see. Our adult daughter who lives with us is a member as well, but I am not her online friend as I respect her privacy. I do see her posts in response to her brothers and her neices and nephews and that is all I wish to see.

I do tire of a couple of 'friends' from a former part of my life who insist on posting inspirational crap too many times a day, but do not know how to unfriend them without insulting them as I have no wish to do that.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> P.S. Who the hell invented a keyboard where three vowels are right beside each other?? I can't count the number of times I've typed "in" instead of "on", "of" instead of "if"—the mind boggles.


 ..."and sometimes Y " so 4 in a row...sometimes.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Here is a response I found on a different forum for Walking Dead fans.



and138 said:


> I think those are both examples of social media. It's like the internet in general. You have all of humankind's information available to you, at your fingertips. You can choose to use this resource wisely, or you can document every mundane event of your day on Instagram and look at free porn.
> 
> "Social media" is a pretty broad term, but I take it to mean an online platform where you're interacting with other people, versus passively accepting information. For example, if I create a website about my lint ball collection that comprises photographs of all my lint balls accompanied by a description of each one, that isn't social media. But if I add a blogging widget where people can leave comments about my lint balls, reblog my photos, and interact with me, then that becomes "social media," imo.
> 
> So LinkedIn is "social media" in that my resume isn't just sitting stagnant online. My contacts can interact with me by writing recommendations for me or by endorsing my skills, for example, and I can interact with others by posting in the various industry-specific groups. It isn't necessarily a "fun" interaction like posting filtered photos of my lunch, but it is social.



Some people believe you need to use your real identity, others not so much. But a key aspect seems to be interactivity. Even something as simple as a comments section after an article turns the medium from passive to active.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Again, your definitions cast so broad a net that they include BBSs from the 1970s. Play along with the thread and stick to the top ones.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Again, your definitions cast so broad a net that they include BBSs from the 1970s. Play along with the thread and stick to the top ones.



Trying to play along, MF. You don't consider LinkedIn a form of social media now? Whenever I provide an example I get shat upon because it doesn't fit someone's preconceived idea of what "social media" is. Also makes it hard to have an actual conversation. For the record, BBS's from the 70's were the precursors to today's social media. Oddly though, all I've read so far on this thread are people that want to bash social media and see no merit in it. Why is that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A comments section is not a "top social media. However, LinkedIn is--though it is a rather bizarre and sad place.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Is not joining Facebook a sign you may be a psychopath? Some food for thought. 😜


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Tell ya what, here's some psychology of my own: There are far more insecure, narcissistic psychopaths on FB than off.

"YeR wEiRd 'CaUsE yOu GoT nO fAcEbOoK pAgE, mAn."

Jeezuz. Where's that just-shaking-my-head emoticon when ya need it...


----------

