It seems to me that most of the contributors here want to define it simply by how they use it. That, I think, is why there are so many different definitions, and angst over a sense that no one else understands what it really is except for "me". When one constructs a definition solely around one's own unique interaction with the medium it's not surprising that one ends up with an almost infinite number of interpretations.
Because this is what I do with it, this is what it is. And the corollary, How could it possibly be anything else? Which inevitably leads to, Those guys don't know what they are talking about!
I prefer to drill down to deeper levels in order to define it in its physical foundational terms. How it is used, why it is used, whether or not it can tell the "truth" (whatever that is), how much money we can make with it... those are all questions from far higher up on the food chain. None of them tell me anything about what it really is.
And, of course, if one can (hopefully) better discern what it really is, then it becomes much easier to know what, in the case of that other technology, it really is not.