social media, present company included

[Soloist]

Josh I would disagree. Perhaps you should read up on it before posting.

[temporal1]

^^i haven’t read above. i will.

Soloist:
.. 1) It’s a poor argument to say Facebook is bad because it’s social media and Mennonet is not.

.. 2) At the end of the day, just because I believe it’s social media and you don’t (you being generalized)
doesn’t make either position true.

1) i haven’t noticed anyone claiming MN is “not bad,” and plenty who say it is bad.

2) agreed, and, important to remember: it’s discussion, opinions, etc. (easier concept for some than others)

3) (for me) an important aspect that keeps MN rolling is its “plain” (not flashy) presentation. no bells+whistles.
it’s relatively cerebral. a place for readers+writers. decades ago, i discovered, not many people read+write.
they can. if not required, they don’t.

because of that early impression, i’m surprised there is as much internet reading+writing as there is - on social media.
but not much of it goes beyond superficial attacks, exploitation, drama .. it’s more than i would have guessed, but. limited in scope.

MD-MN attracts people who are more willing to read and invest. imho. (Some hold their own in any arena.)
These add intriguing depth, whatever the topic.

4) (for me) “the real glue that holds MD-MN together” is the common interest in Jesus Christ. (Not always as evident as any of us might prefer.) Still, undeniable.

i may be borderline in agreeing MN is a form of social media. Not sure. It’s internet-based.
If the internet disappeared tomorrow, would members find each other? Very likely. Possibly the core members had their offline ways of communication before the internet, i believe it continues, probably more efficiently than open forum, and would continue,
“in the event.”

This forum is the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” (for CMs). More goes on than is outwardly evident.

[My outsider’s observations.]

[Pelerin]

(like the spies from CAM :o ).

Wait…what did I miss?

[Szdfan]

Regardless of whether MD is social media or something else, this statement is still true:

...disembodied user names that can be insulted at will without fear of consequences...

[Josh]

Josh I would disagree. Perhaps you should read up on it before posting.

I have certainly read up on it (and have played a small part in building a few tiny pieces of it).

[Josh]

Regardless of whether MD is social media or something else, this statement is still true:

...disembodied user names that can be insulted at will without fear of consequences...

Some of us our actual names, and when I see a name like “Ernie” or “RZehr” or “jahertz” I think of the actual person I have met and spent time with at a conference, or in a shopping mall’s food court, or around a campfire.

[Soloist]

Josh I would disagree. Perhaps you should read up on it before posting.

I have certainly read up on it (and have played a small part in building a few tiny pieces of it).

Then you should know that your view isn’t the only accepted view and it’s debated.
I have not built any social media platform but I have ran forums and managed a few websites.

[Josh]

Then you should know that your view isn’t the only accepted view and it’s debated.
I have not built any social media platform but I have ran forums and managed a few websites.

Yes, there are multiple views. I continue to hold my position that a text based discussion forum is not the same type of thing as MySpace, TikTok, Facebook, etc.

Furthermore, I hold this position in spite of people who like to call me a hypocrite or say I am somehow being inconsistent with holding a church stance against social media. The simple fact of the matter is people in our church have long used discussion forums, listservs, e-mail discussion lists, and so on before social media was invented and then we did take an explicit stance against "social media", which doesn't include text based discussion.

[Soloist]

Yes, there are multiple views. I continue to hold my position that a text based discussion forum is not the same type of thing as MySpace, TikTok, Facebook, etc.

It’s quite obvious there is a difference between those and a forum. I am stating Mennonet is social media. I’m not saying Mennonet is the same as Facebook.

Furthermore, I hold this position in spite of people who like to call me a hypocrite or say I am somehow being inconsistent with holding a church stance against social media. The simple fact of the matter is people in our church have long used discussion forums, listservs, e-mail discussion lists, and so on before social media was invented and then we did take an explicit stance against "social media", which doesn't include text based discussion.

My church here doesn’t object to Mennonet as they see it not as social media (at least the bishop) but back at the prior church (you know which one) they did identify Mennonet as social media. I would hazard a guess that more conservative churches would and as we head away from “ultra” conservatives if you will, it becomes more acceptable.
I don’t call you a hypocrite over using Mennonet, that I reserve for your views on other threads we argue on.
Do you think Reddit then is not social media?

[Josh]

Reddit has subreddits that are very much social media, as they primarily are used to carry media like photos and videos. Other subreddits are basically a text based discussion. I would basically say I would judge something by its function, not its form.