Max writes more about his ping pong game of definitional problems with the term 'Social Media'. I'm not a friend of Wordpress' comment mechanism (especially when it doesn't seem to work) so I'm following up here. What bugs me about the debate is the lack of simplicity that is adopted: media - the content, the form of the content, tools and materials used to create; social - 'the interaction of the individual and the group'; 'tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others of one's kind' (MW).
Social Media, then, is content which permits, facilitates and is enhanced by interactions both between the object data (links) and between content creators. Social Media (publishing) platforms allow agents to create and publish content and faciliate interactions.
I suspect that people get confused by the term social. Does it refer to the content (is the content social?) or the creators (does the author get some social benefit from the act of participation?). From my perspective, we should enjoy this ambiguity.
Much of the other to-ing and fro-ing comes from interpretations or definitions which layer the term, and the content, in all the ancillary, derivative, cocooning business mumbo-jumbo that has jumped on board as 'social media' has become a buzzphrase associated with the next big thing (that is to say, it *will* be monetized).
Finally, the term ought to be protected as a neutral expression that prevents horrible biases and misperceptions, something that less well considered expressions such as consumer generated media clearly fail to achieve.
[Wikipedia does a reasonable job, but it uses the term 'democratization' which for me is a big turn off.]