Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that the definitions are broad, it's that many sites have been incrementally integration social media features over the years in the belief that doing so drives engagement, so the lines between what is and isn't social media (or what should and shouldn't be) have been intentionally blurred. Just as with literary or media genres, "social media" as a classification mostly exists as a marketing term, not scienc…
> Just as with literary or media genres, "social media" as a classification mostly exists as a marketing term, not science. I agree there. I disagree with the idea that the incremental integration of "social media features" necessarily makes something a "social media" platform, and I think the semantic distinctions are important because there is a lot of discussion about the societal harms of "social media" and the t…
Yes, when people talk about those problems, they're usually only referring to two or three sites (Twitter, Facebook and maybe Youtube) but those sites don't comprise all of social media. The issue is discussing "social media" as an entity rather than recognizing that the cultures and implementations of social media differ between platforms. Social media is just an umbrella term for any site that allows users to create and share content. And it exists on a spectrum, with simple forums and imageboards on one end to the complex, algorithmically driven big three at the other.
Otherwise, one could say that Pornhub could implement literally every feature that exists on Facebook and yet somehow still not be "social media" for no other reason than discussions of social media tending not to include Pornhub. The features are what make it social media.