Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

My Confession

College isn’t easy. I know I’m stating the obvious; classes, midterms, and papers have consumed every one of our lives at one point or another. Coming into finals week we reflect upon the days we missed class or the hours we could have been studying. If we weren’t studying, what were we doing? Sports and clubs do take time chunks out of our day but personally that’s not where the majority of my free time is spent. I think our problem lies in Facebook.

Facebook has become an additional limb for many of my peers. Taking a walk through the library, I would estimate one out of every three computers has Facebook open. Facebook isn’t the sole problem in our procrastination; there is YouTube, Like a Little, and StumbleUpon but Facebook links them all together. The social network has become a one stop shop as a source of news and activities. A few nights ago, my roommates and I sat on the couch, five laptops open to Facebook and a show playing on the TV. We are completely over stimulated and I don’t think I could struggle through another round of finals living like this. So, I have turned my Facebook off this week. It wasn’t enough to make a personal commitment; I had my best friend change the passoword to my account. There will be no procrastination for me this week, no status updates, pictures to comment on, or online chatting. It’s going to be a tough week but I think it would be more difficult with my Facebook newsfeed open.

YouTube-Good or Bad?

I have a confession to make: I spend a lot of time on YouTube watching other people’s video blogs. Pretty ridiculous right? Something about watching someone else talk into a camera doesn’t seem entertaining or substantive, but you will be surprised how addicted some people are to these videos. Video bloggers like Ryan Higa and UC Davis’ very own Kevin Wu are followed so religiously that they make money off their five minute video. CBS Sacramento reports that Kevin Wu, who started his video blogging endeavor in high school, has made enough money to pay for college and to donate to monthly charities.

Their rise to celebrity status on YouTube has caused countless people to create their own video blogs in hopes of making it big like Kevin Wu. People make videos on all sorts of things ranging from rants to “How to” videos. The issue that arises with the wide range of made videos is that people would make controversial videos in hopes of making a popular video. The recent video rant by the UCLA student is evidence of this. Not only were students comments offensive it prompted an equal number of video responses that were equally derogatory.

Even though YouTube has lots of controversial content, it has its fair share of substantive content. Aspiring film makers and musicians turn to YouTube to be seen and heard. Wong Fu Productions, a startup film making company started by three UC San Diego students, have turned to YouTube to share their thought provoking films.

As an avid viewer of YouTube videos, I find myself pleasantly surprised every time I watch an inspiring short film or talented musician and also disgusted whenever I watch offensive videos. I encourage viewers of videos on YouTube to consider the content you watch because whenever you view the video you are supporting their negative content.

Monday, March 14, 2011

YouTube Prepares for Battle


It was only a matter of time before YouTube (owned by Google) made a definitive move to branch outside of its current role as merely a video hosting site. According to a New York Times article, last week (Monday, 03/07/2011), YouTube acquired Next New Networks, which is a video production company. It appears that YouTube hopes to break into the markets where sites like Hulu, which (legally) provides episodes of many television shows and movies. The appeal to Hulu is that viewers can depend on the site for providing the television shows and movies listed on the site, whereas YouTube can not necessarily make these same guarantees due to copyright laws, among other issues.

If my memory serves me correctly, YouTube provides a movie rental service as well, though this has not, apparently, garnered enough of the market for the company to remain satisfied. The acquired company was reportedly acquired for less than $50 million, which seems like a steal for YouTube. Next New Networks has already established itself among its various projects, including Barely Political, Indy Mogul, Hungry Nation, and it's various works on iTunes and Vimeo.


One of the most visible changes viewers can expect from YouTube is the production value of the videos created and uploaded by YouTube's many partners, who are determined based on how many unique hits they receive on their videos and how many subscribers they accumulate. But the bottom line is that Google has got its eye on bigger and better things and is currently preparing it's visual media arm, YouTube, for war over the growing market segment currently dominated by Hulu and a few other sites. So long as this healthy competition breeds higher quality products and services, I don't see how we can complain!

*UPDATE*

Sunday, February 27, 2011

iPhone Captures Last Launch

Thanks to the constant connectivity currently available, a man who probably woke up concerned only with making his flight captured a piece of history. Thursday, February 24th, the space shuttle “Discovery” lifted off for its final voyage into space. Few people witness a shuttle launch firsthand, but due to a two hour commercial flight delay, a man named Neil Monday and those lucky enough to be seated on his side of the airplane got to watch the takeoff midair.

Tech-savvy Neil immediately whipped out his iPhone and was able to capture this historical event and upload it to Youtube within minutes. The video has gone viral, and has been used by multiple blogs and news agencies. Were it not for his quick turn to technology (though many airlines request that phones be turned off,) millions would have been denied the ability to view such a spectacular sight from such an unusual, breath-taking angle. Thank you Neil Monday!

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Taking Anonymity Too Far?





We've been hearing a lot of arguments about the benefits and deficits of anonymity online. Personally, I believe that benefits like being able to freely talk about personal problems, ask questions without the fear of being judged, and easily make all different types of new friends outweigh the negatives. However, there's always a group of people that takes things to the extreme. In terms of embracing and reveling in anonymity online, there is nobody who has taken this to such as an extreme as the infamous Anonymous.

Anonymous are a group of "hacktivists" (people who use hacking/cleaver usage of computers as a means to promote a political goal) who hide behind the mask of the Internet, as well as their symbolic Guy Fawkes masks (first seen in the movie V for Vendetta) to express their opinions. These people basically come together through the 4chan Internet community, which is an anonymous imageboard website that I have heard eloquently described by friends as a "condensation of the cesspool that is the internet". 4chan is extremely good at banding together for a cause, whether that is locating an image of a chart you vaguely remember seeing once in a text book, populating the latest meme, or launching an assault against human rights violators.

One of the most notable things Anonymous done is its crusade against the Church of Scientology. It all began as a little quibble over an video uploaded onto YouTube that the Church asked to have removed, and Anonymous insisted removing it would infringe upon free speech. This evolved into a war against the Scientologists for "exploiting church members and limiting free speech". They organized a series of attacks through the internet. Some of these carried over into the real world, manifesting as actual protests spurred by videos like this, causing over 7,000 protesters to gather worldwide on two occasions. While the merits of this particular agenda can be debated, they sometimes do have truly good intentions.

To cite a timely example, 4chan have been standing up for the Tunisian people. Together, they launched attacks on Tunisian government websites and even managed to post this message of warning ending in:
We are Anonymous.
We are the angry avatar of free speech.

We are the immune system of democracy.

We do not forgive censorship.

We do not forget free speech.

Expect us - always.
This looks philanthropic and lovely, but they also have a sick, anti-society side. Their 4chan roots show and they uphold the "cesspool" qualities the website is famous for. Many people were quite disturbed, for example, on May 20, 2009 when YouTube was flooded with uploads of porn. Often, it was disguised as a family or kid-friendly video. While they claimed to be doing this as a response to the removal of some music videos, I think that they just wanted to show off their power by pulling off something abhorrent.

I think that as long as Anonymous don't get so radical that they begin blurring the lines between activism and terrorism, it is probably good to have a group of people out there who is organized enough to speak against wrongdoings with a single, powerful voice. I'll pose the question to you, though: champions of human rights, or ne'er-do-well hackers with too much time on their hands?

Internet Vigilantes


A few weeks ago, one of my Unitrans coworkers posted a video on our Facebook group of a bus driver running over a snowman in the street. A few guys had built the snowman in the street as a joke and videotaped it. This bus driver’s employer saw the video and proceeded to fire him. As a result, a Facebook group was formed to protest this action and save the driver’s job. This sparked my interest in finding out what usually happens to an unsuspecting individual when a video of them committing a crime is posted, without their knowledge or consent, for the world to see.

It turns out, Internet vigilantism is often a result. These Internet vigilantes attack and put to shame any “culprit” in these videos of individuals performing unlawful or unethical acts. The vigilantes do so in an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice--similar to a citizen’s arrest. Although these vigilantes seek justice, they attempt to administer it by using two unjust methods. Firstly, they dig through every detail of the “culprit’s” life to discover their identity, which is effectively stalking. Secondly, the vigilantes follow up by turning these “culprits” in to the authorities, while also effectively labeling them as criminals for the world to judge.

One popular example of this is the South Korean woman deemed “dog poop girl,” who was attacked by Internet vigilantes and then felt so much shame that she left her university. She refused to clean up her dog’s mess after it defecated on a subway train, and a passenger recorded this on video and posted it online. Internet vigilantes worked fervently to glean information from the video and other Internet sources to learn of the woman’s identity. These Internet vigilantes blew a minor offense out of proportion, convinced that this woman’s actions necessitated her humiliation.

Another article showed that Internet vigilantes can actually lead to justice being served. Almost two years ago, someone posted a video of a 14-year-old boy abusing his cat. Again, online groups and Internet vigilantes analyzed the video with enough detail to determine the identity of the boy and where he lived. The local law enforcement charged the boy with animal abuse after they were prompted to investigate him. Even though the same process was used in both of these situations, in the case of the cat-abusing boy, the proper authorities were subsequently able to administer justice.

As a result of today’s online culture and our constant connectivity, Internet vigilantism is developing across the world. Internet vigilantes tear apart a “culprit’s” identity and put them to shame before finally turning them in to the authorities. These vigilantes assume that the “culprit” actually committed a crime. Although Internet vigilantism usually results in the administration of justice, the question of vigilantism as a whole arises, whether it takes place over the Internet or on the street. Do we have the right to incriminate someone online for doing something that society doesn’t agree with, even if they haven’t actually committed a crime? This anarchical administration of justice is actually a miscarriage of justice in many cases.

Photo credit

Monday, February 7, 2011

"YouTube, thank you for Super Bowl Ads"

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday was the Super Bowl. It was that beautiful, quasi-American holiday, television extravaganza that is anticipated for months before and spoken about for exactly one week after. This is simply because after seven days, everyone who cares has already seen it, read about it, or listened to a friend carry on about the highlights and/or how their team got robbed. Naturally, these options are not mutually exclusive. I will contribute to the post-Bowl hype by stating that it was a well-played game and fun to watch (Spoiler Alert: the Packers beat the Steelers, 31-25).

As usual, though, a sizeable group of individuals claim the ads were the best part. This is the one time of year that people look forward to watching and discussing advertisements. While football fans may disagree with the notion that “the ads are the best part,” it is important to point out that the ad people are the ones who keep talk of the Super Bowl alive far past its one week expiration date.

This talking-about-advertisements phenomenon would not be possible if not for the advent and prevalence of social media and video sharing websites. YouTube, especially, allows people anywhere to access the latest car, soda, phone, fast-food, candy, beer, or talking-baby commercial. People can pull up their favorite commercial on their smart phone or laptop, show a friend, and have a good laugh. Or they can just watch it, say something like, “Seriously?” and then talk about how they could make a better commercial.

I have not seen any data yet on how much a 30-second spot cost during this year’s game, but I would imagine it was something exorbitant. Nonetheless, Super Bowl Sunday is traditionally one of the highest television viewership days in the US, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of times an ad will be watched on YouTube and other social media sites. I think it is safe to say that the companies featured in each ad will see positive results.

Next time I’m at the store though, I, as the consumer, will face a tough decision: Coke or Pepsi Maxx?

Check out the ads here on YouTube's AdBlitz.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Anonymity in Cyberspace: Faceless Cage-Fighting from the Safety of Your Home?


Last week, 17-year-old Kayla, a girl from my theatre community in my hometown, stood up on stage and “came out” to her high school at an all-school assembly. She did not do this just to inform the world that she was gay; in a powerful and touching speech, she cracked open the taboos and barricades surrounding the acceptance of gay teens and gay marriage. Kayla’s speech was heartfelt and brave as she spoke about a personal subject that is very controversial. Kayla’s words were not confined to the time and space of the assembly, however; a video of her speech was posted on Youtube.

I was one of the very first people to watch the video on Youtube. I immediately posted the video onto my Facebook to share it with all of my online friends. By the end of the day, thirty of my friends had reposted the video. After three days, all of our friends and many friends of friends had seen the video. After six days, almost everyone in my hometown had seen or at least heard of Kayla’s speech. It was the talk of the town. It did not stop there; after a week, the video went beyond the boundaries of people who know Kayla: the video went viral.

Before the video went viral, the comment section was full of friend and family’s support, love, and admiration. As the video began to spread, complete strangers praised her words, her bravery, and her message. The upheaval of positive support was enormous. Yesterday, however, as the video reached 16,000 views since it was posted last Monday, some anonymous person wrote a short and hateful comment violently opposing not just the girl’s argument, but also the girl and everyone who supported her. There was an instant outcry against this comment, and things immediately got messy: the comment forum exploded into a battleground against this negative comment. It was like Pandora’s box had been cracked open: everyone began hashing out their opinions against the offender in a brusque manner. A few more rude and negative comments against Kayla’s argument appeared. These negative comments sparked angry and sometimes equally hurtful responses. Even the people who were against the comment were violent in the way the dealt with and answered the original offender. 

The conversations soon escalated into branched-out cyberspace fights, and soon a large majority of the conversation threads on the comment page no longer had anything to do with the actual video. Instead, every few seconds new comments would appear to bash apart a previous commentator. The majority of the people shooting angry comments back and forth did not even make an effort to censor what they were saying by trying to be polite and reasonable. Those that tried to do this initially quickly became incensed by the “ignorance” or unwillingness for the offender to see their point of view.

I was left wondering: what on Earth made it all right for people to brawl in such an undignified way on a public forum? Part of the answer, without a doubt, is the veil of anonymity cloaking a person to the point where they find themselves at liberty to say whatever they please, no matter how insensitive, hurtful or extreme. The comment section for Kayla’s video has turned into a bitter brawl as angry comments are flung back and forth between completely anonymous people. These people stopped arguing about the video and started openly insulting each other with profanities and accusations, most of which have nothing to do with any of the issues presented in Kayla's argument. 


What does this say about the power of anonymity in such a public forum? It allows people to say violent things that they would never say in person. Yet from the safety of their perch behind their computer screen, a person can say anything that they please and distance themselves emotionally from the repercussions their words might cause.

As of this afternoon, the video has jumped from the 16,000 views it had yesterday to a whopping 70,000 hits. Since this morning, over 600 comments have accumulated in the comment forum. Watching a video spread so rapidly and generate such a large response is an eye-opening vision of the strange functions of this modern world of cyberspace. It leaves me with these questions: is it OK to argue in this uncivilized, potentially hurtful way on a public forum? Or has the internet reduced human disagreements into faceless cage-fighting from the safety of your home? 

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Tunisia: Trouble in Paradise

Flash back a little more than one month ago to December 17th of 2010—Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian citizen and recent college graduate with a computer science degree, had started a fruit and vegetable stand to make ends meet. There was already a sense of unrest n the air as Tunisia was supposedly undergoing some of the worst unemployment rates in recent history as well as a spike in food prices across the country.


Due to Mohamed’s lack of a vending license, authorities shut down his cart, confiscated his wares, and were even said to have slapped him around a bit. In protest over a lack of jobs, Mohamed set himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid, in front of a government building in an act of self-immolation. I seriously doubt that he had any idea of how great the scope of events his actions sparked would turn out to be: Mohamed became a symbol of resistance in the Arab world as several others copied his self-immolation protest in Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. While he survived the initial suicide attempt, he died later in the hospital after a visit from the President Ben Ali.

Mohamed’s death turned out to be the United States’ equivalent of “the shot heard ‘round the world” in 1775. Thousands took to the streets in protest of the government and of how the country’s leader received 90% of the vote over multiple elections and had been in power for over twenty years along with the issues mentioned in the first lines of this post.

This might have all fizzled out with the government either making a few concessions to smoothen out relations thereby calming down some of the more moderate protestors, or simply with the passing of time. The government’s reaction, however, would be their undoing. According to a BBC article published earlier today, between January 8th-10th, there were dozens of reported deaths during the protests.


Many have referred to this movement and these protests as a social media, and more specifically, a Twitter revolution. There is some credence to these claims as protesters organized and spread the word through their use of Twitter and Facebook. There is no doubt that technology and the newfound connectivity between Tunisians, in how their plight was played out in the eyes of the international community, played a huge role in the sacking of the interior minister, the dissolving of the parliament and Ben Ali’s subsequent flight.

Many claim, however, that it would be inaccurate to attribute this revolution to social media as there was already great dissatisfaction with the government and how Ben Ali and his wife’s families seemed to own every big business in Tunisia. Apparently they possessed extravagant wealth even as the rest of the country struggled to get by. Condoleezza Rice, in a state visit to Tunisia during the Bush administration, praised the country for its stability. The price of this stability, however, was limited freedoms in press and television as well as an excessive display of propaganda around the capital city.

But would the protests have been remotely as successful (I’m using the word “successful” very loosely as the killings were inexcusable) without mobile phones, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs? I don’t think so. But what really charged the atmosphere for us in the United States (who in general are oblivious to the struggles of those outside our own country) were the videos rife with acts of violence posted online as well as the cables released by WikiLeaks which assert, in detail, the corruption of Ben Ali’s administration.

Here's Obama's take on the situation:

"I condemn and deplore the use of violence against citizens peacefully voicing their opinion in Tunisia, and I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people. The United States stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold, and we will long remember the images of the Tunisian people seeking to make their voices heard. I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future that reflect the true will and aspirations of the Tunisian people.

As I have said before, each nation gives life to the principle of democracy in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people, and those countries that respect the universal rights of their people are stronger and more successful than those that do not. I have no doubt that Tunisia’s future will be brighter if it is guided by the voices of the Tunisian people."

But there’s little value in arguing the case, what matters is what lies ahead for Tunisia and its people, and whether there are further implications for other oppressed nations and whether these tools promoting connectivity will play a role in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead. Already there is evidence of this as Slim Amamou, one of the most prominent bloggers in Tunisia, accepted the post of Secretary of Youth and Sport. He has promised to keep the people updated via Twitter and would like for other cabinet members to also use Twitters as a means of communicating with citizens.

Currently, with no opposition leaders taking the mantle of leadership, Ben Ali’s Prime Minister has taken control and the future of the country is uncertain, though he has promised to step down as soon as elections are conducted democratically. I suppose all that’s left to do now is wait and see what’s next.

*UPDATE*

Professor Pruitt has brought it to my attention that there is a discrepancy between my source, International Business Times, and NPR with regards to Mohamed Bouazizi's academic standing. In my post, I stated that he had graduated from college with a computer science degree, but the more recently published article from NPR says that he had dropped out of high school. Wikipedia agrees with NPR.

Also, I read an article titled "Tunisian TV boss arrested for 'treason' as popular station that supported deposed president is closed down." I highly recommend checking it out if you want to follow up on the country's progress.


Other sources: