Let me first say this: I love YouTube. YouTube is pretty much where I spend most of my free time, checking out new content, new creators, and videos from creators I love.
Which is why the continued reports of sexual abuse by YouTube content creators against their fans, many of whom have been underage, really disheartens me. This community has been so strong partially because there is a level of transparency involved -- we see our favorite creators, get to openly interact with them, give and receive feedback, and there seems to be a level of personal connection which doesn't exist with, say, TV personalities.
But if there's one thing these instances have shown, it's that people in positions of power over their fans will often abuse that power.
On the other hand, YouTubers themselves have created a culture of mutual accountability -- condemning and cataloging the alleged and confirmed cases. Former friends of abusers have come forward and said that they can no longer be friends or involved with known abusers. DFTBA Records has pulled merchandise and support for former creators in light of the scandals.
This has been a community that, unlike many, has made statement after statement that abuse like this has no place in the community and WILL NOT be tolerated. And that gives me hope. Especially in light of the way some communities (here's lookin' at you, NFL) are doubling down on their current stances on abuse. Communities could learn a thing or two about how to handle allegations and cases of abuse, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, and rape from the way these have been handled.
Related: Sam Pepper is a bucket of dicks.
Yours in solidarity,
Rachel Leigh
This is a blog about things, about thinking about things, about talking about things, and about being as snarky and poignant as I can manage. I hope you enjoy it.
Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youtube. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2014
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
On Facebook, Nerdfighteria, and Being The Product
John Green's video for the week this week on the vlogbrothers' channel on YouTube (Do I have to explain this? Really?*) was called "You ARE The Product." Once again, he made me smile by making more sense than you. It was in response to the Facebook IPO, which is a topic far too complicated for me to try and flesh out right now and is not really the point of this post.
A lot of people have been wondering how Facebook's IPO could have estimated the company's worth at $100 billion. That's enough money for me to pay off my student debt, make some significant head-way into the national deficit, buy each of my immediate family members a home, invest in MULTIPLE pools filled with jello or other delicious edible food-type products, and still have some to spare. And it seems like a lot of money for a company that seems to have a business model that shouldn't be capable of generating a profit. I, and most people I know, would never pay money for Facebook, which makes it seem kind of absurd that a company with no tangible product can be worth so much.
But that's the point John raised -- it's not that Facebook has no product, it's that we, as the users, are the product. Our use of the site has commodified us and made us a product worth a multi-million dollar advertising market. But, I mean, John really only focused on one aspect of how Facebook commodifies its users -- it's not only that we are exposed to the ads that Facebook gets paid to show us. It seems naive to ignore or forget the fact that Facebook has been blasted several times for selling user information to companies and ad agencies, so those same companies get both the ad space they pay for and the added benefits of a helpful profile that makes sure they're not wasting their advertising dollars on people outside their target market. Both literally and figuratively, your online personality has been turned into a product to be bought and sold, and THAT's what makes Facebook billions.
I guess the bigger question is -- does it matter? Does the fact that the information I post and view on Facebook can be sold to an ad company so they better know how to market to me make me want to stop using Facebook? Not really. While the idea of treating human life as a commodity to be bought and sold is grotesque, in all honesty, the way Facebook does it doesn't leave me feeling that squicky, exploited feeling that I would have thought it would.
Just my two sense. I miss you, darling readers!
Productively Yours,
Rachel Leigh
* John Green is one of the YouTube-famous "VlogBrothers," the famous and wonderful real-life brothers, John and Hank Green. John Green is also a New York Times best-selling author and his videos (as well as Hank's) are alternately hilarious, breathtakingly brilliant, and, occasionally, both. These two are also the co-creators of an online community known as Nerdfighteria (home of the Nerdfighters) whose home base used to be In Your Pants, but since Your Pants has been faulty for a while now, they've transitioned back to controlling the world through YouTube. Just, like, go check them out. I'm tired of trying to explain this. DFTBA.
A lot of people have been wondering how Facebook's IPO could have estimated the company's worth at $100 billion. That's enough money for me to pay off my student debt, make some significant head-way into the national deficit, buy each of my immediate family members a home, invest in MULTIPLE pools filled with jello or other delicious edible food-type products, and still have some to spare. And it seems like a lot of money for a company that seems to have a business model that shouldn't be capable of generating a profit. I, and most people I know, would never pay money for Facebook, which makes it seem kind of absurd that a company with no tangible product can be worth so much.
But that's the point John raised -- it's not that Facebook has no product, it's that we, as the users, are the product. Our use of the site has commodified us and made us a product worth a multi-million dollar advertising market. But, I mean, John really only focused on one aspect of how Facebook commodifies its users -- it's not only that we are exposed to the ads that Facebook gets paid to show us. It seems naive to ignore or forget the fact that Facebook has been blasted several times for selling user information to companies and ad agencies, so those same companies get both the ad space they pay for and the added benefits of a helpful profile that makes sure they're not wasting their advertising dollars on people outside their target market. Both literally and figuratively, your online personality has been turned into a product to be bought and sold, and THAT's what makes Facebook billions.
I guess the bigger question is -- does it matter? Does the fact that the information I post and view on Facebook can be sold to an ad company so they better know how to market to me make me want to stop using Facebook? Not really. While the idea of treating human life as a commodity to be bought and sold is grotesque, in all honesty, the way Facebook does it doesn't leave me feeling that squicky, exploited feeling that I would have thought it would.
Just my two sense. I miss you, darling readers!
Productively Yours,
Rachel Leigh
* John Green is one of the YouTube-famous "VlogBrothers," the famous and wonderful real-life brothers, John and Hank Green. John Green is also a New York Times best-selling author and his videos (as well as Hank's) are alternately hilarious, breathtakingly brilliant, and, occasionally, both. These two are also the co-creators of an online community known as Nerdfighteria (home of the Nerdfighters) whose home base used to be In Your Pants, but since Your Pants has been faulty for a while now, they've transitioned back to controlling the world through YouTube. Just, like, go check them out. I'm tired of trying to explain this. DFTBA.
Monday, November 21, 2011
On Censoring the Internet and Why it is Fail
Darling readers, if you have an internet and regularly use it, this post matters to you. If you do not have an internet, nor use it often, how exactly are you reading this post?
I like YouTube. I use it for a lot of my news, to waste time, and because, honestly, I find a lot of the content more interesting than cable television. So I, like a lot of the YouTube community (both viewers and content creators) got a bit riled up about S.978 (or SOPA), which would change the bounds of Fair Use and could potentially get a lot of my favorite YouTubers in trouble for having copyrighted material in their videos, by criminalizing even the smallest use of a copyrighted work (if even 2 viewers within a 180-day period view it). MY YouTube uploads (of which there are three) would violate that standard. For once, I was sympathetic to Justin Bieber. ...Let's not let that happen again.
But recently, the internet community as a whole has gotten really worked up about another act before Congress, PROTECT-IP. These bills present a very serious threat to the internet as we know it. Both bills aim to reduce the prevalence of online piracy. Protect IP aims at disabling domain names, particularly those registered overseas or with overseas proxy servers, that contain pirated material. Let it be known, this is not simply for sites like SideReel that exist for the purposes of hosting pirated copyrighted material for public consumption. If a user on a forum or a commenter on a blog includes an upload or link to a pirated work, the site could be shut down, without question and with no option to appeal. A search engine which contains a link to one of these sites? Capable of being disabled. Not by the demand of the U.S. Government, but by the corporation that holds the copyright.
First of all, while I obviously don't know anyone who has ever pirated music, movies, television shows, or any other copyrighted material...
*insert deadpan face here*
...the fact that the sites can be punished and disabled for the actions of their users is reason enough to be concerned about this bill. But the fact that control of what is and is not censored is at the control of a company? Horrifies me. Particularly because a website can be disabled without question and without possibility of appeal. What's to stop a company from flagging a site simply because they don't like the content? Who's to stop them?
There are petitions opposing both acts of legislation. I urge you to sign them.
Oppose PROTECT-IP: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs
Free Bieber (the original Anti-S.978 Petition): http://freebieber.org/
One final thought. Vlogbrother, Nerdfighter, author, and generally awesome person John Green made a comment about one of SOPA's real flaws. At the end of the embedded video (behind all the discussion of audiobooks and his adorable son), he comments that SOPA will do little to actually reduce online piracy because it's ALREADY illegal. Instead, it will punish people who have done little to nothing wrong, as opposed to wholesale, large-scale piracy.
Politically, Nerdfightastically, and (Still) Freely Yours,
Rachel Leigh
I like YouTube. I use it for a lot of my news, to waste time, and because, honestly, I find a lot of the content more interesting than cable television. So I, like a lot of the YouTube community (both viewers and content creators) got a bit riled up about S.978 (or SOPA), which would change the bounds of Fair Use and could potentially get a lot of my favorite YouTubers in trouble for having copyrighted material in their videos, by criminalizing even the smallest use of a copyrighted work (if even 2 viewers within a 180-day period view it). MY YouTube uploads (of which there are three) would violate that standard. For once, I was sympathetic to Justin Bieber. ...Let's not let that happen again.
But recently, the internet community as a whole has gotten really worked up about another act before Congress, PROTECT-IP. These bills present a very serious threat to the internet as we know it. Both bills aim to reduce the prevalence of online piracy. Protect IP aims at disabling domain names, particularly those registered overseas or with overseas proxy servers, that contain pirated material. Let it be known, this is not simply for sites like SideReel that exist for the purposes of hosting pirated copyrighted material for public consumption. If a user on a forum or a commenter on a blog includes an upload or link to a pirated work, the site could be shut down, without question and with no option to appeal. A search engine which contains a link to one of these sites? Capable of being disabled. Not by the demand of the U.S. Government, but by the corporation that holds the copyright.
First of all, while I obviously don't know anyone who has ever pirated music, movies, television shows, or any other copyrighted material...
*insert deadpan face here*
...the fact that the sites can be punished and disabled for the actions of their users is reason enough to be concerned about this bill. But the fact that control of what is and is not censored is at the control of a company? Horrifies me. Particularly because a website can be disabled without question and without possibility of appeal. What's to stop a company from flagging a site simply because they don't like the content? Who's to stop them?
There are petitions opposing both acts of legislation. I urge you to sign them.
Oppose PROTECT-IP: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/protectip_docs
Free Bieber (the original Anti-S.978 Petition): http://freebieber.org/
One final thought. Vlogbrother, Nerdfighter, author, and generally awesome person John Green made a comment about one of SOPA's real flaws. At the end of the embedded video (behind all the discussion of audiobooks and his adorable son), he comments that SOPA will do little to actually reduce online piracy because it's ALREADY illegal. Instead, it will punish people who have done little to nothing wrong, as opposed to wholesale, large-scale piracy.
Politically, Nerdfightastically, and (Still) Freely Yours,
Rachel Leigh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)