We want to know what you think about spam across any and all of the social networks and other platforms you use. Please comment below. What is and isn't spam?
A few months ago I needed to hire someone for a special virtual build in Second Life, an ethereal temple that would reflect the spirit of the many in the one and the one in the many without conjuring any of the symbols directly associated with any specific religions practiced in the world today. In group chat, I informed a special community of Second Life builders (known for their thought-provoking and beautiful creations that are not possible in the physical world) that I was looking to hire someone. I was promptly informed by the community leader that it was inappropriate to "spam" the group in chat. When I asked her which method she preferred for offering employment to her group members, she curtly issued a lengthy set of instructions that I was forced to ignore, because I'd rather put my time into finding a great builder than into navigating dense bureaucratic directions. After she caused a spectacle, I received a frenzy of instant messages from members of the group. They wanted to know how they could they get paid for what many of them were already doing as a labor of love, for free.
I'm not saying spam isn't a problem. But what is spam, and what isn't? It isn't just as easy as saying that an unsolicited commercial offer is spam, when people are now making a living via the Internet, and therefore they are, in many cases, the product they're offering. The product is often one's own brain and the thoughts it contains--whether for coding, or content creation, or research, or any of the other countless revenue streams gaining strength in the digital culture.
Let's take Twitter as an example. Tweets unfold along the fault lines of the soul of wit. If you can say whatever it is you need to say in 140 characters with an embedded link, you can get the attention of some of the world's most sophisticated thinkers and active participants in the society of global nomads. This level of access is changing the context in which collaborations unfold. The same way the ice caps melt faster because water attracts the sun, rapidly self-organizing groups are faster to action than any geographically isolated workforce could ever be, and that trend will only increase.
What is the role of spam in this paradigm?
One of the common complaints tweeters often post about is the way other tweeters use the platform for self-promotion. This raises a very compelling issue about creative elitism, which I believe is the most disruptive (and delightful) aspect of an increasingly digital nomadic workforce. Elites are always in charge of shaping public perception. That is what makes an individual or an institution powerful--the ability to cast a spell over the collective consciousness by framing reality. All spells break eventually and a new set of influencers emerge. Those people, whether bound by wealth (or, we are quickly learning, the appearance of wealth) or birthright, are the ruling elite. Membership in the up and coming ruling "elite" will be defined by one's capacity for creativity, organization and authentic devotion to the greater good.
I've noticed tweeters understandably complaining about marketers posting adverts in the comments section of their own commercial blogs and websites, just to turn around a few posts later and pitch their own products (further, such tweets require mention of one's own products in order to highlight the tactics of the marketers). It is not always clear where the line is between pitching one's own interests and sharing information, especially as interests converge.
I'm not talking here about people peddling pills, sex with "attractive singles in your area," "expert advice" and/or other obvious spam delivered in a completely inappropriate and socially offensive way. I'm talking about the distinction between sharing one's work for the sake of finding collaborators and remaining a part of the social and professional tapestry but not bombarding people.
When "spam" was defined, it was mostly an effort to keep unwelcome clogs, pitches and scams from our in-boxes (and keep our grandmothers from turning hundreds of sappy forwards into a bloodsport), not to inadvertently hobble the evolution of the global workforce by silencing participants into submission through fear of appearing socially exploitative. Where's the line? Please comment below.
3 comments:
I won't comment on SL groups, but as for twitter, it is impossible for someone to spam you. Either you want to see what someone has to say, and you follow them, or you don't. If you don't like what they have chosen to say, then unfollow them.
I think using "spam" to refer to things like a single job announcement in group IM isn't quite right; it's generalizing the word to mean "anything that is distributed by a channel where I don't think it's appropriate."
Now if the group's charter says "no job offers in group IM please", then the admin was perfectly correct to scold you, but she should at least have been nice about it. In Scripters of Second Life, the same kind of thing happens: the group charter says the group is not for hiring, once in awhile someone posts a job offer, and three or four times as much bandwidth is spent in telling him that he shouldn't have. And I'm guessing that in many cases he gets IMs afterward from potential hires who read the forbidden posting on the group. :)
In general people should use groups only for things within the group charter, but it has to be interpreted reasonably, and politely.
Thanks Dale. Very interesting and helpful point.
Post a Comment