Hey, Have you heard that France is trying to ban citizen journalism? Its unbelievably draconian...
My college roommate wrote this--and I'd love for y'all to read it (and weep unfortunately) and digg it! http://www.digg.com/politics/France_Bans_Citizen_Journalists_from_Reporting_Violence_Makes_US_Look_Good Thanks! cheers, Sarah >From: "David King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: blog vs youtube & myspace >Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:24:12 -0600 > >That's what I think, too - so that's cool. I'm so completely amazed that >this is still so new - what will it look like in 2008? > >Who knows - but it'll sure be fun to see. > >David > >On 3/7/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > David, > > > > Steve W. pointed out a thread from last summer (also initiated by >Peter). > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/47091 > > > > It doesnt have to be an either/or scenario. Though it certainly can be >for > > some. > > I have always said to use the YouTubesque services to your benefit if > > needed > > and to also maintain your own controllable space (site/blog/domain). > > Everyone is different and most people on this list, at least i can >assume, > > DO have their own sites and do not only rely on any service, not even > > blip. > > It is a mix of being more serious, dedicated, savvy and adoptive of > > "grassroots" type of technologies. > > I dont know of anyone here who only has a myspace page, a youtube >profile > > and a flickr account. > > Most take it the next level. > > > > sull > > > > On 07 Mar 2007 12:31:26 -0800, David King ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]<davidleeking%40gmail.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > > Carter (I think) said: > > > > > > > But if I want to have conversations using video content as the > > > > starting point, I wouldn't think of YouTube. > > > > > > Help me out here - why is it an either/or thing with using Youtube for > > > conversations? I'm not getting that. Because Youtube works basically >the > > > same as any other video hosting service - you can still embed your > > youtube > > > videos on your real blog, and basically ignore the youtube part of it. > > You > > > still get your videoblog's rss feed, and you still get your >videoblog's > > > comments... > > > > > > Other than the video ownership thing and downloading, what's the diff? > > > > > > david > > > > > > So you can still do rss > > > > > > > > > On 3/7/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ><steve%40dvmachine.com><steve%40dvmachine.com>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Cheers. I think I still use the hammer too much myself, even though >I > > > > have other tools available! > > > > > > > > Youtube was not the obvious candidate in my mind when talking about > > > > video conversations here in the past, but as they have a critical >mass > > > > of users, and at some point added the video responses feature, it >was > > > > the first big instance Id seen of this stuff actually happening. > > > > > > > > Forums/messageboards were where I cut my net communications teeth in > > > > text, and so Ive ocasionally waffled here about how I wanted to see > > > > video fused with the messageboard way of things. I wondered how it > > > > would be done, whether people would actually use it. Im still > > > > wondering because things havent reached that stage yet, but at least > > > > there are a few services out there such as yours, and youtube has at > > > > least stuck its toe into the water. > > > > > > > > Anyway I would like to think that there'd have been more people > > > > joining in this conversation if it were happenign a year or 2 ago, I > > > > dunoo, it seems harder to have a long conversation about what >features > > > > people dream of these days, perhaps because people basic needs are > > > > already satisfied. All the same I hope there are actually a mass of > > > > people passionately excited about all these sorts of alternative & > > > > extra uses for video on the net. I like shows and everything else > > > > thats happening but I yearn for the days when there was a chance >that > > > > any day you coudl logon and find some individual has created some > > > > funky tool, that whilst primitive shows the potential of the future. > > > > It felt like there were no frontiers, now much talk seems to centre > > > > around re-crossing the frontiers that the mass media previously >filled > > > > with concrete, but I fear far too much replication of TV and the old > > > > ways, leading to mothing different enough to truly stir my passions. > > > > > > > > Anyway I definately agree with others that its pretty essential that > > > > your comment system be built into the embedded player. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > "caroosky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > > Great observations, especially the fact that we are each experts >in > > > > > finding differences. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "If the only tool you have in >your > > > > > kit is a hammer, every problem you encounter starts to look like a > > > > nail." > > > > > > > > > > As someone spending a great deal of time thinking about how to >build > > > > > social tools, I'm perhaps all too quick to criticize YouTube's > > hammer > > > > > (in this case, their comment feature). In doing this, I'm not >about > > > > > to criticize content creators who use YouTube for what it does >best: > > > > > getting video up on the web and available to a massively large > > > > > potential audience. I put things on YouTube when that is my goal. > > > > > When I want to have more control over my files, and need to use >the > > > > > content in many different ways, I've found blip.tv to be an > > > > > indispensible tool. > > > > > > > > > > But if I want to have conversations using video content as the > > > > > starting point, I wouldn't think of YouTube. This is partly >because > > > > > of an admittedly snobbish opinion of the quality of conversation > > > > > taking place there, but it's also because I don't think the > > commenting > > > > > system they have deployed is good for much else beyond the quick > > > > > drive-by style comment. This snobbery does not extend to content > > > > > creators, though. > > > > > > > > > > And while I'm making admissions, I will additionally confess that >I > > am > > > > > wildly idealistic about how our collective community of content > > > > > creators can mold and shape the fabric of the internet, as well as > > the > > > > > discussions taking place not only in this medium, but offline as > > well. > > > > > But as a builder of tools, I try (although I probably don't > > > > > always succeed) to just build something cool, and then let others > > tell > > > > > me how they prefer to use it. I am often surprised to learn the >ways > > > > > that people are using a tool for an advantage I never would have > > > > > imagined in a hundred years. The creativity of others is >inspiring, > > > > > to say the least. > > > > > > > > > > And much of that inspiration is viewable on YouTube. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Carter Harkins > > > > > http://crowdabout.us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In >videoblogging@yahoogroups.com<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > "Steve Watkins" <steve@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There was some talk in this group about youtuber's that I >thought > > > was > > > > > > a bit snobbish a while ago, because it made me rant, but it was > > > > > > probably only mild and it can be hard to seperate criticism of >the > > > > > > service with those using it sometimes. > > > > > > > > > > > > But on a certain level I would not be surprised if the 'brand > > > > > > repputation' of youtube can heavily influence the reputation of > > > > > > someone posting there. I could forsee plenty of exceptions, a >show > > > > > > that gets enough attention will be talked about in terms of > > itself, > > > > > > that its on youtube is incidental. And this just re-inforces the > > > fact > > > > > > that one off clips, copyrighted stuff, other popular 'viral' > > videos > > > > > > without a strong identity of their own are what will link most > > > > > > strongly to the word 'youtube'. > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is any snobbishness around, I suppose its bourn from >some > > > > > > peoples high expectations and ideals about what videoblogging > > would > > > be > > > > > > used for. What I could describe as the 'liberal intellectual' >wing > > > > > > could understandably make such noises sometimes. Reminds me of >the > > > old > > > > > > days of British broadcast television... > > > > > > > > > > > > First there was the BBC, which was (and remains) very > > paternalistic. > > > > > > Lots of corporate agenda's focussed on their role in society as >a > > > > > > public service, and lots of intellectual thinking on how the > > medium > > > > > > could be used for the masses to better themselves. Resulting in > > lots > > > > > > of high-brow programming that could be a bit stuffy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then along came the first commercial channel, ITV, which didnt > > mind > > > > > > putting on lots of cheap popular entertainment, which got very > > high > > > > > > viewing figures, gave a lot of people what they wanted, but was > > > > > > regarded by the aforementioned BBC patriarch's as 'vulgar'. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess its not a new phenomenon, and 'class' still matters, > > > > > > unfortunately, no matter if everyone pretends it doesnt mean > > > anything > > > > > > anymore. vlogtellectuals vs youtube, bbc vs itv, music hall vs > > opera > > > > > > and stuff like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Plus humans are dead good at noticing differences. What >seperates > > > us, > > > > > > why are they different, they seem like a different tribe. Even > > > > > > something like using webcams as the norm rather than DV cams can > > > > > > create a funny sort of divide and noticable difference. I have >to > > be > > > > > > careful here too because class may play a role in that - for > > poorer > > > > > > humans, webcams are a lot more accessible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway I just cant use the word youtube as one blanket >description > > > for > > > > > > content type anymore. There seems to be 3 or 4 very different >ways > > > of > > > > > > using youtube. Much of the actual community/social aspect of it > > > seemed > > > > > > extremely similar to social networking sites, with the same age > > bias > > > > > > and some underlying sense of a lot of youthful energy , directed > > at > > > > > > the sorts of things young people focus on. So I was extremely > > happy > > > o > > > > > > see how popular that old uk bloke is on there, geriatric1927 or > > > > > > whatever his handle is. Yes there are quite a lot of people past > > > their > > > > > > teens and 20's on there, but Im sure age is one imbalance that >has > > a > > > > > > marked effect on youtube, its certainly responsible for many of > > the > > > > > > awful text comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In >videoblogging@yahoogroups.com<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In >videoblogging@yahoogroups.com<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > "Mark Day" <markdaycomedy@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q: Why are videobloggers like mainstream media executives? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A: They both look down on people who post videos on YouTube. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, that's unfair. To mainstream media executives (ba >- > > > > dum - > > > > > > > bing!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's funny, as we like to say in comedy, because it's true. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just some food for thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark Day > > > > > > > > http://markdaycomedy.blip.tv > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/markdaycomedy > > > > > > > > http://www.myspace.com/markday > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the most part, I agree with your generalization. Of course > > > > > > > generalizations don't apply to everyone and perhaps not even > > most > > > > > > > people, though one could gather from the conversations that go > > on > > > in > > > > > > > this group that you would be correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > YouTube is a vehicle... an arena. Nothing more and nothing >less. > > > > > > > There are people that have technical issues with YT and >complain > > > > that > > > > > > > they're a closed environment. That really doesn't have >anything > > > > to do > > > > > > > with the posters, because it's not their choice. They're not >the > > > > > > > management. YouTube just happens to be an easy way to put >video > > on > > > > > > > the internet and distribute that video to a lot of people, > > > > practically > > > > > > > immediately, and TOTALLY for free (assuming you already have >the > > > > > > > computer equipment / camera). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, the same thing that makes YT easy to get >involved > > > > with > > > > > > > makes it a source of endless buffoonery. The signal/noise >ratio > > is > > > > > > > outlandish. Unfortunately for the prospect of YT being > > 'accepted' > > > > > > > outside of its own walls (not that it needs acceptance at >all), > > > > > > > there's so much garbage on it that it's not likely that the > > casual > > > > > > > observer coming into contact with YT by accident is going to >see > > > > > > > something that endears them to the site. Well... Unless you > > > > count the > > > > > > > fact that there' so much pirated material on YT, but that's >not > > > what > > > > > > > this discussion is about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully, with the successes of "shows" like Lonelygirl15 and > > > > > > > LisaNova, the YT environment will evolve into more than >sending > > > > video > > > > > > > chats back and forth and making comments about them. I think > > > > that's a > > > > > > > really valuable use for YT, but the opportunity is there for >the > > > > same > > > > > > > people to apply themselves creatively and develop their > > abilities > > > at > > > > > > > broadcasting and communication, if that's what their goals >are. > > > For > > > > > > > some people, it's just easier to make videos and watch them > > online > > > > > > > than go to the mall and meet people, so that's what they do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there are people developing characters and creating > > > > situations to > > > > > > > portray them in and making up comedy skits and stop-motion > > > > videos and > > > > > > > all kinds of interesting, intelligent, progressive and VERY > > > TALENTED > > > > > > > stuff. Unfortunately, there's no way to find those except for > > > > trial & > > > > > > > error. In 'defending' what's creative about YT, you also have >to > > > > > > > defend what isn't creative, because there's no distinction. > > > > There are > > > > > > > director accounts, but that doesn't mean that those channels > > > > have been > > > > > > > held to any standard of quality, content-wise or > > > > > > > production-value-wise. It's like saying someone's a good > > > basketball > > > > > > > player because they're on the varsity team, but you don't > > > > mention that > > > > > > > they ride the bench and never set foot on the basketball >court. > > :) > > > > > > > They get to wear the jacket, though. Everyone on YT is wearing > > the > > > > > > > same jacket. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, you have people learning to put video on the >internet > > > out > > > > > > > in the wild. No walled garden. No guaranteed visibility. No > > > > social > > > > > > > network to ping-pong your video around causing more views. No > > > > "video > > > > > > > response" so you can automatically piggyback on a video that > > gets > > > > > > > viewed literally a million times. No ability to leech off of > > > > the top > > > > > > > subscribed people/groups in the community just by mentioning > > their > > > > > > > names in the titles of your videos. No arbitrarily decided > > > > > > > "featuring" of your video....... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's going to be a certain amount of "looking down upon" by > > > > people > > > > > > > who are doing MORE towards people who are doing LESS. It's >just > > > > > > > natural. MLB players look down on AAA players. AAA players > > > > look down > > > > > > > on little league players. World Cup soccer players look down >on > > > the > > > > > > > local American teams. NFL players look down upon CFL players. > > > > People > > > > > > > making movies in Hollywood look down on independent filmmakers > > > > without > > > > > > > the budget even to get someone to score their film properly. > > Does > > > > > > > this mean that CFL players can't make it to the NFL? No. It > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > mean that independent filmmakers aren't going to make it to > > > > Hollywood > > > > > > > or make a film that has more value and integrity than films > > > > currently > > > > > > > being produced in Hollywood. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no doubt that there's SOME quality on YouTube. :) The > > > > problem > > > > > > > is that without the ability to separate the "YT Elite" from >the > > > > > > > garbage, all of youse have to stand together when someone > > chooses > > > to > > > > > > > evaluate the site as a whole. When someone posts a video of > > > > some lady > > > > > > > slipping on a banana peel and gets 100,000 views for that on > > > > YouTube, > > > > > > > that doesn't make them a good filmmaker. If they stole the > > > > video from > > > > > > > somewhere else, they're less than that. There's no regulation > > > > and no > > > > > > > quality control. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's like having your GED <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GED>. > > > > > > > Basically, you can opt-out of High School and take a test. If > > you > > > > > > > pass that test, the government will agree that you have enough > > > > > > > knowledge that you WOULD HAVE graduated High School if you had > > > > > > > bothered (or been able, in some circumstances) to go. :D Are > > > people > > > > > > > with GEDs looked down upon? Yep. Does it mean they can't do > > > > the job > > > > > > > you're hiring for? Nope. They might be the best applicant for > > the > > > > > > > position. However, they're still going to be categorized with > > > > > > > alllllll the rest of the people that walked through the doors >of > > > the > > > > > > > emploment office with evidence that they passed one test on >one > > > day > > > > > > > instead of going to High School and graduating like everyone > > else. > > > > > > > Even if you dropped out of High School to get a job to help >your > > > > > > > mother pay the rent, you're going to be stigmatized along with > > the > > > > > > > kids that spent all day smoking pot and ditching class..... >Same > > > > > > > thing with YouTube. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Bill C. > > > > > > > http://ReelSolid.TV > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > David King > > > davidleeking.com - blog > > > http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sull > > http://vlogdir.com (a project) > > http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) > > http://interdigitate.com (otherly) > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > >-- >David King >davidleeking.com - blog >http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > _________________________________________________________________ Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and moreĀ .then map the best route! http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
