Quit Thinking About Social Media In Zuckerberg’s Dead Language

Nearly 20 years in, and already, the language of social media has become archaic and ill-fitted. This is, in part, because social media originated as something more communal and less global, more organic and less strategic. Also, in part, because technology — with its quantum leaps — evolves faster than our old tongues and grizzled terminology.

For social media, the time has come for a language update. I’m not talking the nonsense evolution that comes from corporate jargon and business buzzwords. This isn’t smarted-up language for the sake of sounding smart … i.e., synergy, agile, bandwidth, disruption, etc. I’m talking about language that reflects impact and effect well beyond the soft phrasings of 2009, the year Facebook launched the “like” button.

Haec Verba Oportet Mutare (Whatever That Means)

The ancient language of Facebook is the infectious language of most social media … likes, shares, posts. It’s terrible language, out-of-date and from a by-gone era. You wouldn’t call Parasite — this year’s Best Picture — a “talkie” or a “one-reeler,” but that’s how we talk about today’s social (global) media. The social media language of today is an adherence to a sorta of social Sanskrit. We’re 20 years into the future, and we’re still speaking a dead dialectal.

For communicators, creators, and businesses, this dead language can lead to the dying of ideas, the dying of effort, and the dying of ingenuity. If language has the power to inspire, it also has the power to wilt. And in social media, there is a wilting within this language of the old guard, in the Zuckbergian terms — likes, shares, posts — from days long ago.

There’s So Much More To That Tiny, Little Heart

So what is this better language? My ego would love to craft words eternal, to be the Noah Webster of our social media lexicon. But anything suggested would be forced, made up for the moment, an attempt to place myself in the annals of coined terminology. So instead of offering words, I’ll offer a recent event that helps to explain away the first old word … “like.” At a later date, maybe the new words will come.

With the recent and sad passing of actor Chadwick Boseman, the tweet announcing his death became the most “liked” tweet of all time (surpassing a 2017 tweet from President Obama). But the language of “likes” does a monstrous disservice to this global outpouring of compassion. These aren’t mere “likes”; they’re more an emotional connection, with millions of people (as of this writing … 7.6M) longing to express their sorrows, their love, their empathy through the simple/singular act of touching and lighting a small, digital heart.

Granted, not every “like” in a universe of “likes” carries this gravity, weight, and emotional depth, but in social media, you hope that every “like” creates at least some kind of emotional connection. It’s the language of “likes” that risks this connection because this language suggests a mere muscular twitch in response to your passing brand, idea, creation, etc. You don’t want twitches; you want a bit of soul, and if you’re acting with this goal in mind (vs. the mere “like”), you’re attempting creation (it’s the difference between art and litter) that encourages depth and intimacy from your social media audience.

Pass The Social Carrots Please

And if “like” is a terrible social media word, so too is “share.” The “sharing” of content sounds like peas passed at the dinner table; no energy, mundane, a lateral hand-off of Tupperware and nothing more. In the smallest sense, “share” is the correct word — the shifting of information from your feed to their feed. But in the larger sense, it’s so much more.

To call it a “share” is to ignore the action as an expansion, which is what it really is. Consider the more active terms … “meme” and “viral” … both of which suggest an infectious and rampant expansion of content. “Share” invokes a limited range … i.e., the proximity of a handshake; “meme” and “viral” invoke unlimited range … i.e., a frenzy of the masses.

When we speak about “shares,” we should be thinking about expansion. Every click of the share button is an expansion and exposure of some idea, a lateral and vertical acceleration that moves information person-to-person, person-to-audience, audience-to-audience, and so on. It is, with every expansion, a deeper exploration into the depths of the outer (social) space. To call it a “share” is to minimize the intent and impact. To call it a “share” is to transform your mindset from one of global potential to one of mere handoffs.

The “Post” .. Ugh! … The “Post”

Lastly, the “post” … the worst word of them all. The “post” — contrary to today’s digital verbiage — suggests a thumbtacked message dangled from a cork board or a stapled flyer on a telephone pole. It reduces social media creation to something easily hung, something lacking dimension, something without nuance or craftsmanship.

Does Spielberg “post” scenes to a movie?

Does Coates “post” thoughts to an argument?

Does Obama “post” words to a speech?

Each question offers insult because “post” (even the word is syllabolic in its smallness) suggests an ease of output, an effortless spillage without deep thought. And like a ghost, a second word follows but goes unseen … “post something” … as if by magic something, anything, will appear and suffice. Ask Spielberg, Coates, Obama to “post something,” and you’re insulting creativity, process, and the application of deep thought.

Zuckbergian Terms: Fuel For The Philistines

Several years ago, I wrote an article for Inside Higher Ed titled “Penning a 20-Minute Power Tweet.” It simply made the case that small copy — i.e., micro-style or short writing — demands deep thinking, no different than any creative writing. Shortly thereafter, I received this response from a university professor:

(see my reply at Stereotyping on Twitter: Does the “White Man” Label Always Fit?)

Her response — myopic and lethargic — is grounded in the language of old … in likes, shares, and posts. Those words are words of play, weak words that poorly illustrate the impact, creativity, and discipline of social media.

Social media is no different than the sometimes compact, sometimes sprawling world that we call “poetry” … an art demanding skill, vision, and ingenuity. But it is often a small world, like the mere 144 words that encompass Frost’s The Road Not Taken. Of course, to berate Frost … or Whitman or Angelou or Hughes … as a person with “entirely too much time, a performance” would be the grunted view of a philistine.

But this grunted view is the small-minded view some take toward social media. In the wake of social’s dying language, dying thinkers (i.e., the philistines) mistake “likes” for twitches, “shares” for tiny winks, and “posts” as “too much time, a performance.” But in reality — if you’re willing to look — social media (despite these sub-par words) has the power to offer “likes” as deep expressions, “shares” as justice and change, and “posts” as moments of imagination and creativity.

Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.