Understanding the "Social Web": From One-Way to Two-Way Interaction
So, in the past, I had a conversation with my favourite AI chatbot Google Gemini about the meaning of "media" and whether it is true that "social" adds social elements to media. However, Gemini explained more than I assumed or understood.
My Conversation with My AI Chatbot
Me:
"Does 'media' only mean newspapers and TV? Does social media incorporate social elements?"
Google Gemini:
"Media is a broad term encompassing all channels of communication—print, broadcast, digital, and more. It includes newspapers, TV, radio, magazines, film, and the internet. Traditional media primarily transmits information one-way to audiences, while social media enables two-way interaction, user participation, and community building. In essence, social media transforms communication into an interactive, community-driven experience."
Me:
"I now better understand the "social web": unlike in the past, which was one-way, it is now interactive, two-way or multi-way, allowing me to host and share my web and communications with others in return."
"The shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 (the Social or Participative Web) marks the web's evolution.
"Web 1.0: 'Read-Only' (Past) – resembling a digital library, static content created by a few; one-way communication; passive consumers."
"Web 2.0: 'Read-Write' (Present) – akin to a global conversation, with two-way interaction; users as active creators of blogs, comments, photos, videos."
Me:
"So, why has the term "social web" only gained emphasis recently? Why do some websites not claim to be "social web" even though they are, and why do others, such as Bluesky, MeWe, and their implementations or front-ends like the OpenVibe social app, explicitly describe themselves as "social web"?"
"The term "Social Web" has gained renewed focus due to concerns over centralisation by giants like Facebook and Twitter, prompting a shift towards decentralised, open-protocol platforms such as Bluesky and Mastodon. Major companies prefer "Social Media" to emphasise product features over underlying philosophy, avoiding technical associations."
"Conversely, platforms like Bluesky, MeWe, and OpenVibe use "Social Web" deliberately to signal their commitment to decentralisation, privacy, openness, and user control, differentiating them from mainstream social media giants."
The Thing That Confused Me and Distracts Me
I want to add to this article that the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) – Malaysia's communication and media authority – has instructed YouTube and Google to request or apply for the latest MCMC licensing (regime) called the "Application Service Provider" licence.
The mainstream media here in Malaysia claimed that social media platforms with 8 million users need to apply for this licence or face consequences or legal action. They also stated that YouTube, owned by Google, is included.
However, Google has previously resisted this demand, telling Malaysian media that YouTube is a video sharing app and not social media (wait, what? 🤷🤦). Nevertheless, the media argue that YouTube should be considered social media because of its social elements, including short videos, commenting, and the ability to post new content.
What do you think? It seems like these situations have made me confused about what social media is and what it is not. What social web is and what it is not. Why did Google and YouTube deny that they are literally social media, like, lol? What? Well. I also wonder why they want to control everything, as if we were a new dystopian country.
