Microsharing is for Morons
The problem with the term “Microsharing” is that no one has really, truly defined it.
The best definition I’ve read of microsharing is:
Microsharing (def) : “you know, applications like Twitter and Pownce.”
Seriously, people. That’s the “best” definition I’ve found!
Fail!
The bigger problem with the term “microsharing”, of course, is that it’s inherently stupid.
We all know what real sharing is. We learned when we were three years old. With one cupcake and two siblings, Mom said,
“Share!”
And we knew, instantly.
“Share!” meant that we tried to divide the cupcake into two equal pieces, and give an equal piece to our brother. Or sister.
“Share!” also led to arguments. Debates. Fits of pique.
But it’s nice to share. After a little bickering over who scored the bigger half, we both came to realize that the act of sharing bonded us together. It created conversation. It created discussions about fairness and harmony and values.
It’s didn’t happen right away. It took time. One little act of sharing didn’t do the trick — but a repeated culture of parent-enforced sharing ultimately deepened our familial relationships.
That’s the Basic Tenet of Learning the Value of Sharing! It takes time. Appreciating the value of sharing didn’t happen right away, but eventually, we learned that participating in a culture that values sharing makes us better people. More polite. Mannerly. Gracious. Richer.
Less likely to call people “Morons!”
So, it’s not nice to “microshare”. The term “micro” sharing seems stingy. Like we’re giving a measly crumb.
And the worst part about the microsharing term… it pretends that a platform that supports multiple conversations is somehow a tiny, little, insignificant thing — instead of almost everything there is to fostering and nurturing valuable human relationships!
If you’re using the term “microsharing” — please stop. It’s demeaning.
And can we come up with a better term? And a better definition?
How about:
Public Conversation Platform — or PCP?
Many people say that Twitter is like crack, so why not PCP?
And as for a definition, how about:
PCP (def.): online sites that
a) support multiple public and private conversations and collections
b) enhance networking, communications, and relationships; and
c) encourage brevity, the very soul of wit?
Whew! That’s a lot for something “micro” to do!
But hey, I’m open to other terms and definitions.
Comment away!
What’s a better term — and definition — for the utterly offensive “microsharing”?
Related Posts:If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
@maniactive
Thanks for this. You cut, I’ll pick.
Was thinking about your definition of PCP. In the spirit of things, still to wordy – it couldn’t be shared in one go on one of the respective platforms.
PCP: sites that enable
a) many public & private dialogs & collections;
b) communications, & relationships;
c) brevity, the very soul of wit
viz: http://is.gd/3LRB
Dennis
Dennis –
aka @denthewise http://twitter.com/denthewise at Twitter:
I am humbled by your wisdom!
OF COURSE you are RIGHT!
PCP needs to be defined in 140 characters or less!
Your definition is definitely superior.
I’m not entirely sold on the microsharing term either, mostly because it doesn’t seem to cover the entire spectrum of microblogging activity.
I think the original term sourced by the masses, microblogging, fits perfectly. I defined it as, “A small-scale form of blogging, generally made up of short, succinct messages, used by both consumers and businesses to share news, post status updates and carry on conversations.”
Microsharing seems to fit in as a portion of microblogging, but it’s definitely not a term that can describe the breadth of activity going on.
I agree. Micro is inappropriate to use in conjunction with “sharing”, “boobs” and “management.” It is, however, appropriate when applied to the term “brew.”