Do things become more difficult as we get older? Do more grey areas appear? I remember back when SPAM was easy to identify. It was simply that crap that you got in your INBOX. You didn't ask for it, you didn't want it, it annoyed you, and it was usually trying to advertise some rediciouls product to you that you'd never buy in a million years. (Though I suspect some folks did cuz the spam is still out there) Sometime later, I started getting emails from friends. These were the early version of memes that asked me to fill out information about myself (or something similar) and forward to everyone in my address book. Technically these weren't "SPAM". They could be annoying, viral ,clog up email servers and never did anything valuable, but nothing was being advertised or sold to me. I would pretty much ignore these, or email my friends back to educate them on why it isn't a good idea to send to everyone in your address book. Somewhat similar were the urban legend emails. Supposidly "true" stories the people just "had" to send to everyone in their address book, to warn them about someone or something. These email rumors could also be annoying, clog up email systems, and were definitely viral, but again nothing was being advertised to me. Just some mis-informed people (including myself) who sometimes got duped. [LESSON: It's never approperate to send an email to EVERYONE in your address book, no matter how important it seems to be. There are much better ways to share information as shown below. I think blogging, social networking, and related utilities, changed the rules. Blogging opened the internet to a wider audience of people (who before only knew how to send emails). Specific sites were setup to let you share you content with all your friends. Now you could send those memes, and urban legends to everyone you know, in a much 'safer' way. Email would not be clogged up with uninteresting information, but perhaps you favorite social network would be? To further confuse things you can become more popular on a social network by sharing information that others find usefull. People submit information (eg: YouTube videos) to try and get an audience of millions, to get noticed. It either works or it doesn't depending upon the nature, content of the information and how widely appealing it may be. So today, I think we have 2 somewhat related but often misunderstood and confused concepts: 1) SPAM -> Just because you find some content annoying, or uninteresting, or even downright offensive does not making something SPAM. SPAM is NOT a subjective concept. SPAM is a mass marketing attempt to reach a wide audience in attempt to sell a particular product or service. Usually this is done via email, though other mediums may also be exploited. SPAM is unsolicitied (you didn't sign up for it). SPAM clogs servers. SPAM does harm...SPAM is BAD..Don't do it...got it? 2) VIRAL -> Viral content drives a desire in the reader to pass the information along to as many people as possible usually in an attempt to boost the popularity of the content (or the creator/submittor) of the content. Viral content may or may not include advertising. Viral content maybe sent in email. Though it is more common to see it on social networks, forums, or subscribed feeds. Viral content may annoy or offend some, while others may find it the next great thing. Whether or not content becomes viral is a decision of the community at large, choosing to spread the information along the web or to leave it sit stagnating. Where viral items are sent via a social network that you signed-up for, and you agreed to recieve items from your friends..can these really be considered unsolicited? Now, the problem lies when VIRAL items contain advertising..Does this make the content SPAM? Consider the following analogy: a) Everyday I recieve the morning newspaper, I pay a montlhy fee to have it delivered to my house. The paper includes current events and articles that I find interesting. It also includes advertsing for just about every product imaginable. The advertising sold for the newspaper makes the newspaper money. If I wanted a newspaper without advertising, I would likely pay a higher montly fee. b) Everyday in my mailbox, I recieve flyers (many from the same companies as in the newpaper ads). The flyers advertise to me all of the things they would like me to buy. They contain no 'content'. There are no articles to read or activites or comics. Just advertising. I did not request the flyers to be delivered to me, they are sent via "Bulk 3rd class mail" In situation A) I have a choice..I can subscribe to the newspaper or not. Perhaps I can even subscribe to an "Ad free newspaper" by paying a higher fee. The control of the content is in my hands. It is voluntary. In situation B) I get the flyers whether I want them or not. I can choose, of course not to read it, but I can't do much to prevent it from coming to my house. There may even be items of interest in these flyers but often they travel direct from my mailbox to the garbage and eventually to the landfill?...perhaps recycling if we live in an environmental friendly neighbourhood. So if you can subscribe, and you don't like what you recieve, you can unsubscribe easily with no ramifications. This is not SPAM If you get it, and you can't stop getting it, and it has little or no value, and is advertising to you. This is SPAM. Just my 2 cents. All comments/suggestions welcome. Nothing ever seems black and white anymore