I’ve been pretty vocal about Mixx, the newest “Digg clone,” on TechCrunch’s recent review of the service and on a submission that hit Digg’s front page the other day. It’s about time that I bring the dialogue here since it’s evident that I’m already starting to grow fond of the brand new social network.

The Early Adopter Appeal

Mixx is a new social news site that went into private beta a mere two months ago. Already, however, it’s gaining momentum among “Digg refugees” and folks who don’t feel comfortable on other social networks. And for that reason, you should join–now.

Earlier this month, I wrote a blog post about how you cannot be a participant of a community without understanding the community members therein. I later illustrated what I meant in a short parable: if you’re an immigrant in a well-established country, you have to contribute first to be an acknowledged and respected member by your neighbors. Social media involves people who work together, not alone. In other words, if you don’t speak the same language and you’re not willing to speak the same language as the rest of the residents, you’re never going to be accepted and you’ll be a minority voice forever.

Charles Darwin is known for defining the concept surrounding of survival of the fittest. Those who adapt, survive; those who do not, die out. While this idea encapsulates evolution of the human species, or at least was intended to, it works quite stunningly in social media as well. But contrary to the notion that each man must survive alone, in social media, we’re all in this together as a community. Only those who languish behind will lose out and not reap the benefits.

Yesterday, I encountered blog post submission to a small but growing niche social news site. The post implied that the top players in social media had some alternative agenda going on (and you know how I feel about that). Essentially, the blog author had the vibe that the most dedicated person on the site was being “annoying” because his avatar (and thus his name), which he has built hard to establish through blood, sweat, and tears, was ubiquitous and that its mere presence was diluting the quality of the articles that have been promoted to the front page.

You know what I find funny? When rules of a website say one thing and the founder of the website goes against everything the Terms of Service stand for.

Kevin Rose, I’m talking to you.

I left this alone (save for a comment on a recent submission of yours) because I thought you might learn. However, it’s sadly not the case and clearly your fan base is clouding your judgment.

Allow me to point out two infractions made, perhaps intentionally, on your part.

Infraction #1:

Digg’s FAQ (Submitting Section, Question #3) says that duplicate submissions are bannable violations. Here’s the exact wording:

# Is it a duplicate story if I submit a similar story but from a different source?
That isn’t for us to decide. Sometimes there is a better story from another news outlet. We let our users determine that aspect of duplicate submissions. It is, however, a duplicate story if you submit the same story from the same source. We strongly discourage the submission of duplicate stories as it only steals credit from the first submitter. If we find abusive duplicate submission behavior from users, their accounts may be banned.

For some people, the lessons of SMX Social Media did not resonate. There really is one takeaway that doesn’t seem to be widely understood:

Understand the community. Know who you’re pitching to. Know what you’re getting into.

There’s a clear misconception that because you can contact all your friends and have them game the social news networking sites, you can submit content that doesn’t suit the community at all, instead focusing on self-promotional content that deviates from every rule in the book.

I don’t consider myself a rockstar. I do, however, feel that I have a better understanding of the community to which I submit stories because I am not only submitting stories: I am actively engaging in the community. I am commenting. I am studying what’s been successful and what hasn’t been. It’s a completely different mindset than I had when I started using these social networks — simply because I had not given the networks and the users within a chance.

I’ve been tagged against my will by Jane and Jason in one of the latest memes: do you respect media snackers?

Well first, what the heck is a media snacker? Watch this short video to see:

Here’s the transcript for the video-phobes:

Media Snackers. What’s it all about? Well, you see the world has changed and it’s not turning back. Media snackers are young people. No longer is there a set menu of mass media delivered at specific times and to the masses. Print, radio, [and] television is now “push the red button and go interactive,” “text in your request,” or “let us tell you a story.” The internet and technology ownership has changed everything: digital TV, mobile phones, iPods, weblogs, instant messaging, [and] social networking. The media landscape has shifted from the linear to one of many layers consumed by creative and empowered individuals. Young people of the new WWW generation snuck in whenever, wherever, and on whatever they like. Crucially, their expectations have changed. Everything is multi: multi-screens, multi-channeled, multi-conversations, and multitasking. Totally connected groups are average sharers, creating as much as they can consume and using free sites to display it all. Whereas before when computers were only found in banks and offices, media snackers have access at home, in school, or in libraries — all for free. Remember visiting arcade centers to play games? Media snackers play at home and against the world. How about taping your favorite tunes off the radio? Media snackers simply download them from the web and carry their whole music collection with them. Previously, to have a mobile phone, you needed a large bank account. Media snackers just have pockets. Media snackers are young people.