No feed. No social network. Et c.

Reasonable people disagree over whether it's appropriate to label any piece of software in which two or more people interact "social media". I tend to think it renders the term uselessly broad.

Reasonable people know how to use a dictionary:

"websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking"

Right. Because some people use it that way and dictionaries have (not inappropriately!) leaned strongly descriptivist for decades. They should have such a definition in them.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure what about my post prompted you to jump to suggesting I'm an imbecile.

> Meanwhile, I'm not sure what about my post prompted you to jump to suggesting I'm an imbecile.

If that's your take I can't stop you but it's just a play on your own wording.

You are correct, of course, but to me HN is more similar to a bbPHP forum than Facebook or Twitter. (Forums are themselves central-platform social media sites, but to me they are quite different.)

Good point. I was aware of that, of course, but, like some others here, I like to believe that HN is different in significant ways: no images or videos, no personalized feed, no following or being followed, no targeted advertising, etc.