There is probably no term tossed about with such reckless abandon on StumbleUpon as “spam.” If one Stumbler does not like another, for whatever reason, the reason for that dislike will almost invariably include the term “spam” or “spammer.” To make it worse, there may not be a term where there is less agreement on the definition, either. So what is spam, really? I suppose if you want an internet definition, you should go to an internet authority, so here is the definition from Wikipedia:

Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages.

That would be a reasonable definition for general use, and would certainly include SU. However, the prevailing usage on StumbleUpon would seem to be that spam is whatever stuff the person speaking doesn’t like. Inevitably, this means that what is spam to one user is not spam to someone else. Or, sometimes, is not spam to anybody else. And that just as inevitably leads to disputes of one kind or another.

One of the more common disagreements is over whether or not a Stumbler should be submitting his or her own stuff. Although there is a certain Stumbler contingent that says such submissions are always wrong, the truth is that if no one ever submitted their own material there would not be a lot in StumbleUpon to look at. The don’t-submit-your-own-material Stumblers are making the following statement: “If what you are submitting is something you wrote, it sucks.”

Well, sorry, no, that’s very dim thinking. Quite obviously, the item being submitted is of equal value no matter who submitted it. We should not care who discovers it, period. Random discovery is not better that any other kind of discovery. What we should care about is whether the content is any good. What we should be looking for is original content, something where the writer has added value to some discussion. Obviously, some self-discovered items do indeed absolutely suck, while others are brilliant. Most are somewhere in between. It is the content that matters, not the methodology.

Of course, there is even going to be controversy on that front, because all people don’t like the same things. StumbleUpon solves part of this problem for us by allowing us to define what categories and topics we are interested in. That’s good because we don’t have to look at a lot of stuff we don’t care about at all. But that is not to say we are going to agree with the content of an item in a preferred category.

If you’re a McCain fan, you’re not going to agree with a lot of the pro-Obama posts, even though they all could be in “Politics.” That does not mean they are bad. That just means you don’t agree with them. If you can manage to be open-minded, which is to say non-bigoted, reading opinions from the another viewpoint may actually help you learn something, whether they change your mind or not. Either way, you’re ahead of the game. You are smarter after than before.

So, what is StumbleUpon spam? I have my definition(s). Spam is the fourth time you read the same posting, using the same words and pictures, about the same widget or product. Spam is the third time you see the same lolcat graphic that was not funny the first time. Spam is any bigoted, hurtful, profane, vulgar statement, all venom and no thought. Spam is comments that can be described by the preceding sentence. Spam is anything not original. The list could. and does, go on.

What do you think spam is?