/lit/ - Literature

>>21799848
I still disagree, most of your blather is just you getting pissed off at the fact that I called 4chan a "social media" which it is. It is social because people interact with each other over various topics. It's a form of media because it provides the user the option to upload pictures and videos to the imageboard. It's not to hard to understand why I think this and why many others would agree.

4chan itself isn't even a good thing, even most users would agree with me on this point. Why? Because this place usually tends to a mind rotting endless circlejerk filled to the berm with pornography (just like social media). Just because you can say nigger forever doesn't main anything in the long run; that word has become so meaningless it's as common as saying "the". inb4 ze left still gives it meaning; which is true somewhat, but at the end of the day most people don't give a shit.

Also Myspace (launched August 2003) came before 4chan (launched October 2003). Myspace was very similar to Facebook in it's time. It may not be at it's height anymore but social media does date back to that similar time era, even before 4chan. inb4 2chan, 2chan was mostly centered in Japan before moot took it's formula and turned it into his own website for the U.S.

If you look at early screenshots of 4chan at that time, people usually used names, most weren't anonymous like today. Don't believe me? Here's a link for proof: https://web.archive.org/web/20031010203044/http://img.4chan.net/b/20.htm