An Open Apology to Paris Hilton and Snoop Dogg

Correcting a “Casual Use” prejudice and discussing the flaws of the “Meritocracy Stipulation”.

An introduction to the “Meritocracy Stipulation”
In the wake of the official suggested user list fiasco, I made a number of posts and comments discussing what I am calling the “Meritocracy Stipulation” — an idea that was simultaneously spawned by a number of users. The most “visible” (due to sheer number of Followers and minor incidences of media coverage) discussion of this idea was +Robert Scoble‘s “Remove Me From the List” post.

The “Meritocracy Stipulation”, briefly, is the insinuation that if a user is to receive any sort of recognition that they should have earned it by providing something of extraordinary “value” or “intrinsic worth” to the platform. Scoble said, “Any list that has Paris Hilton but not so many other deserving people on it isn’t a list I want to be on.” By promoting these individuals, he says Google isn’t setting the “right” or “best” example.

(If you haven’t seen the post, I encourage you to go read it so you can understand Scoble’s full message, the context of the quote, and the idea that I paraphrased.)

Examining and learning from my hypocrisy…
Now, like I had mentioned, Scoble’s thoughts on meritocracy were not unique; other users had the same opinion.

I had the same opinion.

And so, while I found myself arguing for the benefits of the list’s existence, I was not so subtly sneering at the inclusion of Paris and Snoop Dogg on the list. At the time, I wasn’t really aware of how hypocritical I was being.

“What’s that you say?” If you’ve read my stuff for over a week or over two weeks, you’ll have realized that I am a firm believer in the importance of creating your own experience. Sure, I offer advice on ways you can do that, but I always try to say (especially when it’s not a technical tip I’m sharing) that the way you use Google+ is your choice. Do it for yourself. Choose to explore your passions. Whatever choice you make, in the end, is yours (well, hopefully).

OK, you were wrong, but what about Goo…”

Google was including them as an example? As interesting people? Suggested users? What have Paris and Snoop done wrong? “Well, nothing but…” Hm? If you strip away the names and the fact that they are on the list, you’ll see that they (let’s pretend like it’s actually them posting) are using G+ as a place to share their interests, talk about themselves, post pictures and videos, post news items, etc.

A startling revelation…
Hold on then. Snoop and Paris are casual users.

Google is not setting the “best” example? Hmph… well, maybe not the best example of super-involved-platform-thought-leaders-extraordinaire, but maybe they are giving prime examples of casual G+ usage. Maybe that’s what merits Snoop and Paris being on the list. And whether or not you’ve thought about this, casual users WILL make up the larger part of the platform. In fact, they already do. They deserve to be on the list because they represent the largest part of the user base: the casual users.

So, I’m not really apologizing to just Snoop and Paris… I’m also apologizing to the people they represent.

To the “casual users” that Follow me — if I made any of you feel like you were doing something wrong or gave you the idea that what you were doing was without worth or merit, I was wrong. I’m sorry for that.

So, in the famous words of Captain Planet, “The power [to use the platform as you wish] is yours!”

What do you think? Was I right to begin with? Am I spot on? Am I missing something? Why in the hell am I so long-winded?