Youtube

                         Youtube, Produsers and World Making


I remember YouTube back in 2005 when internet based communities were only just incorporating into mainstream media sources, YouTube has defiantly played a role in societies transition from mass media outlets to a more online based information gathering process.

When YouTube was just starting out it was initially used primarily for brief comedic occurrences which  entertained and delighted millions worldwide.

As YouTube gained more and more recognition on a global level its evolved from having quite limited content up loaders to everyone with a camera uploading content ( Which i might add is mostly rubbish) .


To re-iterate this point lets take a look at the type ( and qaulity) of youtube "originals".
2006 -- content

As we can see the video style is simplistic and original and by most perceptions reasonably entertaining.
While there is nothing ground-breaking when we transition it into todays world, this video was considering one of the funniest and influential YouTube videos of all time (Forbes)
http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/30/youtube-videos-hits-ent-cx_jg_07networks_0430tube.html


Now I could compare this to any number of millions upon millions of unfunny, racist, stupid, pointless videos but I honestly couldn't bring myself to insert any of the numerous dull, mind numbing drivel I planned on using. -- to be short there is a lot of crap in 2012 in comparison to 2006 content.


Because of this suddenly influx of users youtube evolved from a source of entertianment to a produser based world making website

"World making"


the process of designing a fictional universe that will sustain franchise development, one that is sufficiently detailed to enable many different stories to emerge but coherent enough so that each story feels like it fits with the others" .<sup>-- Henry Jenkins


While this proccess is incredibly benifical to growth and recognition ( and profitable in youtubes case, sold for 1.65Billion)  The ProdUser cultural can become repetitive and bland as popular content is often recycyled over and over again in different forms  i.e</sup>

As stated by Dr Axel Bruns; Legal Frameworks such as the Creative Commons suite of license allow for this kind of re-use of content to be remixed and distorted into other forms of user content.
He also states that this opens up avenues  for creative work and publication beyond mainstream media industry, I disagree that it undermines the notion that artists are individual geniuses, I have the opposite opinion and think that this kind of re-use of work emphases the creative genius the individual and any re-cut however entertaining or funny is still just a re-use of a different individuals idea.


This is the problem with user-generated content there is no filter -- no quality control or inspectors anyone with a phone camera and a voice can record any absurd idea or thought and post it online for the world to see.

This creates an overwhemling array of social media based content which is hard to understand and enjoy.

aside from this the range and variety of possible content is astronomical and most of the time if you have the patience to filter through the garbage, there are many individuals out there with legitimate talent that have and will continue to upload interesting and entertaining ideas and videos  which make the process worth it.

Wikileaks

                                                                            WikiLeaks

Wikileaks is a website which specializes in the freedom and access to information that persons and governments would otherwise restrict. The website uses a secure drop box system in which "whistle blowers" (term used for person who divulge information that they have obtained about their company our organization)

Can safely deposit files onto a server without fear of being indentified or charged.

A quote on the types of content of information is as follows:

"Since it went online, three and a half years ago, the site has published an extensive catalogue of secret material, ranging from the Standard Operating Procedures at Camp Delta, in Guantanamo Bay, and the 'Climategate' e-mails from the University of East Anglia, in England, to the contents of Sarah Palin's private Yahoo account,"

The New Yorker's

 Raffi Khatchadourian

Over the years Wikileaks has been getting more and more attention from the American government as it claims many of the files that Wikileaks, hosts are illegal and are putting the security of the American people against terrorist and other groups that would potentially wish them harm.

With this in mind the public opinion of Wikileaks is shared as some believe that yes, while Wikileaks could rotationally damage information and secrecy it still holds an important role as independent source of information that the public deserves.

While others say that the site holds no purpose and is anti-patriotic and should be taken.

Which side of the fence are you?

Whenever wikileaks is brought up depending on what type of person you are and too a lesser extent the generation you belong too everyone seems to have an opinion what should happen to wikileaks.

Personally with a topic like this its is interesting to hear different perspectives of the issue as while everyone’s opinion is valid in its own regard, our westerns society is essentially founded on democracy and freedom of speech so even too a country like America whom holds its military secrets in high priority, the FIRST AMMENDMENT on their constitution is the right to free speech.

The hypocrisy of this aside many of those are against wikileaks will often bring up the safety of the individuals of whom some of the wikileaks cables concern could and would be comprised if the public were to obtain such information.

So lets quickly go over that again

Freedom of speech is ok.

But not ok if it can damage peoples reputations?

Don’t take my word on in though, wiki leaks is has extensive information involving thousands of governments and organizations.

And makes for fascinating reading, all I can say is that people should at least read some of the information on the site before holding and opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/wikileaks-julian-assange-on-the-simpsons-500th-episode/
http://wikileaks.org/
http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2010/12/03/why-you-should-support-wikileaks/

EXTREMISM

                                                                   E-Extremists

Internet Extremism - the fine line between opinions and blind hatred.

There was always been extremist's from racism to political gain and everything in-between if there is a common perception of any form of idea,  An extreme perception accompanies that.

The lines defining extremism are blurry at best.

Defined as ;

One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics

This begs to ask what the norm is? Does it differ from society to society? From culture to culture?

How can something that is pure perceptional be definitively explained.

Internet based extremism however is generally limited to a few major categories; Racism, Religious, Political.  (Roger 2007)

of which issue such as Anti-Abortion, staging government coups, Racial violence and other such topics can be openly and anonymously discussed on a global scale.

While these issue are not by any means new, the more recent availability of an internet based forum allows for a much broader and potentially  impressionable audience to find and read content that may otherwise be confined to a small town organization or individual.  (Roger 2007)

To examine internet extemism lets have a look at the current topic of euthnasia in europe.

Euthnasia is defined by most socities as an extreme solution to otherwise mangable issues, Howevever euthnasia has been illegal in most western socties until recently.

Following the lead of the netherlands many european countries have re-evaluted legalised euthnasia within their borders. While pro euthnasia supports may be considered extremist as sucidied is such a taboo topic. their is also much extremism opposing the change

for example

"Self-delusion is rampant in the euthanasia movement. Most proponents recognize that it is inherently dangerous to legalize killing. But they desperately want to believe that they can control the grim reaper. Thus, they continue to peddle the nonsense that "guidelines will protect against abuse" despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary." - WESLEY J. SMITH

Personally i disagree with people like this as in my culture I was raised that life is a choice, while I can be objective when regarding these issues I think that the benefit of people ending their lives outweighs the potential abuse of people committing suicide due to depression as opposed to age or disability.

This french woman fought for the right to be euthanized, under medical supervision in the presence of her family. The french court decline and she was later found dead of a self induced drug overdose

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7322520.stm

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/euthanasia/eu0025.html

BBC NEWS, Euthanasia: a continent divided 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7322520.stm

Roger. D. Extremism on the net, 2007 http://s170032534.websitehome.co.uk/extremismonthenet.html