I wrote about the 'Lazysphere' the other day without blinking an eyelid at yet another neologism. Probably because (a) I've become so used to tech jargon that I don't even notice it anymore, and (b) because I think neologisms are, in moderation, a bit of harmless fun.
So in one way I agree with Alexia when she gives us techie (micro)bloggers a collective slap on the wrist -
"While many of the terms are used to describe well-known situations in short busts of effort, I find that more and more of the terms creeping in usage are simply cynical stakes in the ground. They are invented by mavens to be as a way to notch up tracking trends or movements happening just below the surface of connected communities and pull some eyeball time from readers."
Hugh MacLeod is one such blogger who immediately spring to mind in that regard. I love Hugh's work but he's a sucker for creating neologisms like "Armchair Militia" and "Techmeme Slaves". Alexia's criticisms are squarely aimed there. But on the other hand she goes way too far in condemning the usage of an age-old term like 'subscribe' -
"Many of these labels are also meant to separate techies from non-techies through a literary digital divide. For example, even using the word ’subscribe’ when describing that one reads another’s blog in an RSS reader is misleading. People don’t subscribe. RSS readers subscribe. We just read."
Ah now c'mon there Alexia. There's co comparison between the actions of subscribing to a feed and reading one. Two totally different verbs. Just like there's a difference between subscribing to a newsletter and reading one.
Personally I'll make a fresh effort to Keep It Simple, as Alexia says, in my future tech writings. But I'm not joining her in the grammar police force. Titterheoa isn't a good thing but neither is blogstipation.