Strypey@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz: I've posted here at least a couple of times about the difference between "social networks" (many-to-many, relationship-based), and "social media" (one-to-many, content-based). I said that the fediverse can accommodate both, but they come with very different design and deployment considerations.<br><br>(3/?)

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
Strypey@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz (2026-04-15 06:36:03)
Ben identified this risk in the talk,  so I don't want to give the impression it's something they're not aware of. What I'm trying to describe here is the weird feeling of double consciousness, where Ben pitched things that I've advocated for myself, and I was able to respond to them as if I was hearing them for the first time. Understanding some of the objections I've encountered from the inside, for a change.

(2/?)
---Reply---
Strypey@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz (2026-04-15 06:44:22)
I've posted here at least a couple of times about the difference between "social networks" (many-to-many, relationship-based), and "social media" (one-to-many, content-based). I said that the fediverse can accommodate both, but they come with very different design and deployment considerations.

(3/?)


---Replies---

Strypey@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz (2026-04-15 06:55:31)
I've noticed that mainstream use of "social media" is mostly following Jonathan Haidt's usage to describe only the mostly parasocial DataFarming platforms;

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/podcasts/jonathan-haidt-strikes-again-what-you-vibecoded-an-update-on-the-forkiverse.html

So in response, I'll reframe the above as 2 kinds of social networks;

* social communication networks: many-to-many, relationship-based, ephemeral, eg Mastodon, Friendica, Misskey, GoToSocial

* social publishing networks: one-to-many, content-based, persistent, eg PeerTube, FunkWhale, WriteFreely, BandWagon

(4/?)