Alexandra Juhasz says, “YouTube is not democratic. Its architecture supports the popular. Critical and original expression is easily lost to or censored by its busy users who not only make YouTube’s content, but sift and rate it, all the while generating its business.” Her statement sounds obvious; I am aware of trending videos and current YouTube celebrities, or at least of their existence. What I have previously overlooked, though, is the societal effects of such a popularity contest. While the service seems to be harmless on the outset, does it in fact create a culture too satisfied with the mainstream?
Youtube’s system of ratings and recommended videos effectively leads us to videos enjoyed by others. While this makes our user experience less taxing and perhaps more entertaining, it also contributes to the spread of negative stereotypes. Juhasz shows this by way of the popular portrayal of the black community. She says, “the most popular videos about black people reflect and reinforce the standard views of our society (about black hyper-sexuality, low-intelligence, and gonzo-violence)…” This is especially evident in a video made by one of her students (http://vectors.usc.edu/projects/learningfromyoutube/texteo.php?composite=42&tour=8). YouTube relies on users to “flag” content they think violates YouTube’s Terms of Use in order to be reviewed by Terms of Use staff members. While many of the videos portraying the black community do not violate Terms of Use, many people consider them offensive. YouTube encourages users to simply not watch videos they don’t like, but the rating system can encourage the watching of distasteful material if it is popular enough. Should YouTube manipulate the ratings system in order to demote offensive stereotypes?
YouTube’s slogan is “Broadcast Yourself,” which encourages anyone and everyone to put their own media content online. As discussed previously, much of this content goes relatively unseen, unless the content is deemed popular by its users. Juhasz coins these unseen videos part of “NicheTube.” She says in a self-made video, “NicheTube functions by the rule of originality, critique, difference, and zaniness, and our work has little to no relation to the standards, conventions, interests, and winners on YouTube, which much be hegemonic and corporate.” Does it matter that these "outside the box" videos are hard to find? Do you actively seek out any “niche” videos? Have you posted any “niche” videos? How do you think they affect the YouTube-watching community as opposed to more popular videos?
YouTube is a for-profit business, especially since becoming a subsidiary of Google. It makes money by way of product advertisements and partnerships with media corporations. For example, the YouTube homepage is currently donning a banner advertisement for ABC’s new drama, Pan Am, and an advertisement for State Farm Insurance plays before Justin Bieber’s “Baby” music video. Does it make a difference that YouTube is tied to other corporations? Would any of these relations drive you to not use the service? Is it fair that many of the most viewed video slots are “taken” by the music videos of media corporations?
-Paulina Goodman
-Paulina Goodman
17 comments:
In reference to Paulina’s question, should YouTube manipulate its rating system in order to demote offensive stereotypes, I think it is important to remember what Dr. Pandian said in class about ways in which marginal populations, or in this case minority populations, must make a space for themselves in mainstream society by depicting themselves according to particular codes and conventions set out by the dominant authority. Thus, while the propensity of videos depicting blacks on YouTube promote the reproduction of negative stereotypes, students in Dr. Juhasz’s class make the point that most of these videos were made by the very people they depict, an example of “taking on for oneself, the picture others have to begin with.” Although there were some videos depicting blacks in a positive light, most of these didn’t have very many views. If YouTube were to take off the offensive, stereotyped videos with high ratings, would the black population have a face on the website? Would blacks be absent from view if they refused to participate in the reproduction of these negative stereotypes, playing into what’s most popularly viewed, or is it possible that the positive videos would gain prominence if the others were removed?
--Sarah Schulman
Like Paulina, I also wondered about NicheTube versus more popular videos featured on YouTube which leads me to reference Dr. Juhasz and her class' question on YouTube's democracy--is it democratic? While users have the ability to upload their own videos, most videos will not be viewed by many people. The "most viewed" clips on YouTube are featured on the site's homepage, but how do they get there? Students of the "Learning from YouTube" class researched this very topic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeF79Fvqguk&feature=player_embedded#!) and found that the most highly rated videos (rated by viewers) are "pick[ed] at random" by YouTube editors. This may seem democratic but what about all of the videos that aren't part of the mainstream? Who is actually creating the contents of YouTube's "featured" and "top rated" videos? It seems to be an ongoing cycle: YouTube users watch featured videos, rate them, YouTube editors "sift" through the top rated videos and choose the best to be featured and the cycle starts over. This makes me wonder: what about all of the YouTube users who do not have a YouTube account and therefore can not rate videos?
The issue of race was very interesting as well: alarmingly (but not surprisingly), videos featuring black stereotypes had many more views than other videos featuring black people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efkx7Pg2Tg&feature=player_embedded#!). Consider the YouTube comedian "dcigs": one of his videos, "Black Man Angry at KFC" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKjl3YL1eFg), is of him yelling (at the camera with a KFC in the background) about KFC. He uses profane and vulgar language, accuses KFC and Colonel Sanders of racism, and degrades a woman working there--all of which are the stereotypes defined in the "Blacks on YouTube pt 2" video I cited above. 2,154,465 people took the time to watch this video, and out of 18,767 ratings, 18,066 viewers liked the video. Though this video is obscene, it appeals to the public. It seems as though society has come to favor any kind of entertainment over morally or politically correct messages.
I find the concept and designation of “most viewed” or popular videos a very interesting topic as well. While, as Geena mentioned, there is no particular reasoning behind such a choice, what we can notice is that all the videos attaining this “most viewed” status are ones which reaffirm beliefs that we as a society in general already hold or are at least familiar with. As Juhasz sarcastically points out, “Hey, the most viewed deserve such attention! These special videos, well, they look like television, featuring the faces, formats, and feelings we’re already familiar with, or at least aspiring to them.” In essence we seek through Youtube to see things we already know exist, favorite songs, silly dance moves, celebrities etc. This idea of the familiar also comes into play, I think, with regards to the issues of stereotyping and negative racial representations on the site. As a society we are affirming stereotypes we all know exist, despite the negative consequences, because these ideas are familiar though morally reprehensible. For this same reason, new, innovative and intellectually provoking videos fall into the recesses of Nichetube. As we search for what we already know to be true, novel ideas and new interpretations are scorned. Moreover the disjunctive format and limited search capacities of the site prohibit uncovering the videos which characterize Nichetube unless the user already knows what they are looking for. One must paradoxically be familiar with the ideas proffered in such a video to even gain access to it. Youtube’s organization around the familiar thus limits exploration of new concepts and divergence from the mainstream.
I, too, was intrigued by the question Geena raised in the middle of her response: “This makes me wonder: what about all of the YouTube users who do not have a YouTube account and therefore cannot rate videos?” While this is certainly an interesting question, I was most interested in the more general concept of YouTube users who do not have an account. I do not have a YouTube account, I never use the popular video option on the homepage, and I have never rated a video. I use YouTube when I am looking for something specific or when someone recommends a video to me. The viral videos I see are the ones people on the news are recommending, the ones people are linking on Twitter and Facebook. This made me realize that while the argument Paulina presents about a popularity contest makes sense, perhaps the “societal effect” is not just an effect of the rating system and, additionally, something external. The videos that go viral enough to be featured on the home page have to start off at “zero” – so to speak – too. The attention from celebrities on Twitter, friends on Facebook, and broadcasters on various news programs launch an overwhelming number of hits on YouTube, especially by those who are not account holders. In my opinion, YouTube hits represent a society linked to so many other forms of media. There are videos on YouTube who, arguably, owe their popularity to various social media websites and outlets and all other forms of media. I think it is therefore harder to make an overarching claim about YouTube and its societal effects than about other media. While interesting theories are presented and they seem logical and rational, with such few concrete answers (as shown by the video Geena linked) it seems few concrete claims can be made as well.
I first would like to start off by saying that I agree with Jillian’s point regarding videos popularity due to other social media and how Youtube hits represent a society linked to so many other forms of social media. I also do not have a Youtube account and often find videos through a friend’s post on Facebook. But what I find even more interesting is how I find myself going through related videos afterward. Later on when I search for these videos I have difficulty finding them through the search bar and often have to trace back my steps. This brings us to Juhasz’s fourth lesson that Youtube “is, and will stay, a mess” and that “videos are hard to find, easy to misname, and quick to lose.” This is very surprising as Juhasz points out that Google, a company that catagoizes things for a living, owns the company. The tag system is chaotic at best as it relies on the user and is not checked by the editors of the site. This factor often contributes to the problems mentioned by some of the previous bloggers, such as a video’s inability to become a most viewed video. On her other website, one of her students made a video parodying the problems of navigating the site using to the theme of the movie Inception (http://vectors.usc.edu/projects/learningfromyoutube/texteo.php?composite=250&tour=5). I believe, as I mentioned with Professor Pandian, the site mirrors that confusion in finding videos that Youtube itself contains. I believe this was intentional on Juhasz’s part to show, on a smaller scale, the difficulties to encounter specific content that are not popularized by ratings and the editor’s of Youtube.
-Kyle Bieg
Looking at the question that Paulina brought up about the offensive stereotypes that youtube may be bringing up and the rating system surrounding these videos, I agree with Sarah's point in that most of these videos that may be depicting black people in some way are actually made by these same people. Even though there seem to be some negative consequences to stereotyping it is constantly being done and websites like youtube get brought up in conversation. Should there be a filter whether or not videos of blacks should be allowed on a site like this?
I think this is overexagerating but in the end, people tend to stereotype themselves in some respects, as in videos on youtube. Some of these videos have a huge amount of hits and high ratings and depicts blacks in a positive way as well. There needs to be positive stereotyping instead of the negative and there shouldnt be any true problem with people stereotyping themselves. Whether it be negative, positive, a comical way or any other way that may appear on a video streaming website such as youtube.
I want to start off by commenting on Geena’s final statement that “It seems as though society has come to favor any kind of entertainment over morally or politically correct messages.” This, of course, was particularly relevant in her discussion of which black related videos Youtube viewers chose to watch and why. I definitely agree that, at times, Youtube creates a dangerous atmosphere of conformity that reflects poorly upon the moral standards of society, those standards falling victim to the saturated popularity of certain videos.
After sifting through the website, I began to think about why people go on Youtube. As I started to have trouble describing it, I began to view Youtube like Facebook. One can browse along both sites, losing their sense of direction and forgetting how they are viewing a video or a friend’s profile. Additionally, one could compare the activity on someone’s Facebook wall to the ratings on the videos. Both sites seem to encourage openness: Youtube’s slogan being “Broadcast Yourself” and Marc Zuckenburg’s About Me saying “I’m trying to make the world a more open place.” While each promotes openness, they simultaneously encourage or create the means for popularity contests. Just as one can read comments, ratings, or likes on a video, one can view posts, comments, likes, and general amount of activity on a person’s Facebook wall. Both systems act as a means of generalizations and judgments. Essentially, the more people find this site pleasant, the more likely I will and the more bias I already am towards liking it. My point is not so much that their similarity is significant as much as their platforms of openness and systematic assessments of popularity. Do you think these concepts end up encouraging more individuality or conformity?
I completely agree with Jillian's comment on the interplay between YouTube and other forms of media. The views of viral videos grow quickly and out of control due to media like Facebook or Twitter, or even now, features on news shows and talk shows. All of these media are interconnected and work together to make sure the majority knows what they should be watching at that moment.
Trending videos become the "mainstream" in this context. As Stephanie mentioned, I think our tendency to follow the already-followed has to do mostly with the power of social influence. When in a novel or confusing situation, humans look to others' behavior to tell them what is appropriate. In a place as vast and messy as YouTube, the number of views and ratings of a video acts as a type of social guide-- telling us what we are supposed to like, how we are supposed to react. Often, I'll search for a video on YouTube, and amongst all of the low quality, or unrelated videos, there is the one that I actually want to watch. Usually, this video has the most views or ratings. Not only does the Most Popular video act as a entertainment guide, but also merely as a filter.
While it is inevitable for all of Nichetube to be seen and appreciated, I think YouTube provides a space for the mainstream culture and the counter-culture to broadcast videos from within their own context. The idea of "Broadcast Yourself" still comes into play here. While some may disagree, I think YouTube does create a democratic realm where every user has the opportunity to have a voice, or as Dr. Pandian described, the opportunity for a counter-narrative. Though there are cases of essentialization of certain groups, I think it is important to remember the platform for mass communication that YouTube provides. Even if the majority of videos posted on the site are barely viewed, the nature of their accessibility is powerful.
When Juhasz states that "YoutTube is not democratic", I have to disagree with her. The way YouTube is set up is that each person who has an account can rate videos if they like them or not. Regardless of who user is, each user can vote on any video (barring age restrictions). That sounds like a democracy to me; each person having an equal say on videos. YouTube simply takes the videos that the majority of its users are rating highly and makes them easily accessible to all people visiting their website.
Paulina brings up a good question about whether or not YouTube should rate videos highly that are considered offensive to some. Although I do agree that it is unethical to promote offensive material on your website, the people that make these videos are typically of the same stereotype they are promoting in their video, so if they clearly do not think it is offensive, should others? Also, people can take offense to countless things that are displayed on the internet. Where is the line drawn where something is too offensive or it is okay to display? I think that question needs to be answered before you can totally eliminate people's free speech on YouTube
In regards to Paulina's question about weather or not youtube should manipulate its ratings to reduce negative stereotypes, i think it should not be messed with because they need to be able to have a voice. I agree with Palmer in that people need to be able to stereotype themselves. There will be just as many positive videos depicting minorities in a good light as well as bad ones. I'm sure if we looked at the videos of white people that are top rated there will be as many videos depicting whites in a negative stereotype as videos depicting them in a positive one.
I also agreed with Jillian in that the videos that become popular have a lot of credit to give to the social media networks that spread these videos so fast. I couldn't help but think that there are far more people who are not members of you tube than there are members. I don't feel trying to adjust the ratings of videos that just the people working for you tube decide is negative to a particular race. Being dishonest would not solve any issues.
Stephanie mentioned “I think our tendency to follow the already-followed has to do mostly with the power of social influence.” I completely agree with Stephanie’s comment in regards to society being highly influence by what is already trendy and popular. In discussion last week it was mentioned that people often listen to the popular radio stations as a way of keeping up with ‘what is now’. I find that the majority of the “most popular videos” are the ones that coincide with the perceptions of others we as society hold. I also was very interested in the question purposed by Geena, “This makes me wonder: what about all of the YouTube users who do not have a YouTube account and therefore cannot rate videos?” I personally do not have a youtube account and I do not know of many that do. So who exactly is rating these videos and insisting that the all users should view them? The majority of the time that I use Youtube, I am searching for a specific video. However, I am unable to find it, even when I search the exact title of the video. The highest rated videos, no matter how far their titles deviate from the search, will often enough appear throughout the first few pages. As stated by Juhasz, youtube is, “a mess.”
I think you tube is misleading for the reasons previously stated by kyle, stephanie, and others. Anyone can post a video on you tube as long as they have an account, and anyone can have an account as long as they have internet access. But this does not mean everyone's videos will be seen. Youtubes makes video-posters feel as though they sharing something with society and getting a point across or making a statement. However, if their point or statement or performance fits the popular perspectives and views of the majority, only then can it possibly be seen and noticed by others. The "you" in youtube sounds like it addresses anyone on the website as "you" and makes people feel like they are a part of the website and the posts, but this is only true if you fit the form of what kind of videos are popular.
As Jilian pointed out through her referencing of this sort of celebrity fetishism that has arisen from social media sites, YouTube allows us to have this voyeuristic attitude without feeling the same sort of guilt felt when staring at a victim of a car accident.
One thing I am surprised nobody has brought up yet (besides briefly in our discussion section when referencing "America's Funniest Home Videos") is the popularity of videos that involve people hurting themselves or getting hurt. How many times have you seen a video in which the main occurrence involves people injuring themselves or others? Why is the TV show 'Jackass' in existence?
I think these questions are relevant to the question as to why certain videos are popular on YouTube-- we seem to enjoy seeing people perform unintelligent acts.
Another fascinating subject I stumbled across whilst reading Juhasz's "Learning from YouTube" was the role of cinema verité in Iranian political activism. Many of you may have seen the video "Death of Neda"(GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioAyKuI_jpg ), a viral video explicitly depicting the death of a protester shot in the heart by a governmental sniper in Iran. Why do people watch this? I theorize that it is due to the fact that we are fascinated by the unfamiliar (death is a mostly-unfamiliar concept to most people), but one could make many other arguments different from my own idea.
Overall I can pose no definitive answer to these questions of voyeurism and neither can anyone else- we all just seem to sit back and watch.
I’m not certain that I agree with Mark’s assertion that on YouTube, there is an equivalent distribution of positive and negative depictions of whites and minorities. On Dr. Juhasz’s website in lesson 1b, she states that “the most popular videos about black people reflect and reinforce the standard views of our society (about black hyper-sexuality, low-intelligence, and gonzo-violence)”. As Dr. Pandian mentioned in class, this may reflect the need of minority communities to ‘essentialize’ themselves in order to express themselves on media where it is easy for one’s content to go unnoticed, such as YouTube. Since the prevailing stereotypes about the black community in the United States are what Dr. Juhasz mentions, the most popular videos and the ones that garner the most attention are the ones that play into the expectations that the viewer has regarding the race of the people in the video.
I believe that when one absentmindedly browses YouTube and comes across something that challenges one’s beliefs and expectations (in this case a minority group not acting in ways that prevailing stereotypes about the group would indicate), one ‘tunes-out’ the challenging input. This results in the outcome that these kinds of videos are buried under the more popular ones that depict minorities in ways that fall into the framework set by the stereotypes about that group.
Summary of discussion
Paulina began our discussion by mentioning the societal effects and impacts of Youtube on our culture, questioning whether it causes our culture to be too concerned with the mainstream. She further reminded us of the negative effects and a general breakdown of how Youtube’s rating system works as well as the inherent flaws in that process. Furthermore we were asked of our opinions in regards to the “Niche Tube” videos and Google’s involvement with Youtube and other companies in regards to its videos.
Throughout our blogging there were some core topics that the class seemed to cover. The role of minorities on Youtube was by far the most discussed topic this week. We discussed how the most popular videos with minorities in them tend to play into stereotypes about these minorities. This raised two common discussion themes. The first was minorities could only create “most viewed” or popular content by acknowledging these stereotypes in their videos. The second theme involved whether Youtube should control negative content, or content that displays negative stereotypes, on the website. Another common theme was the idea of the Niche Tube versus popular video content as well as if Youtube utilizes a democratic system or not. This brought many in the class to question its rating system and discuss the difficulty of finding content on the website. The last trend I noticed was a theme of how Youtube videos become popular. Many pointed out how non users often find the videos through other media outlets such as Facebook or Twitter. We all appear to acknowledge that Youtube interacts with other media in order to spread videos in popularity, thereby showing how the rating system may not accurately reflect what is truly popular or express the views on everyone who watches the videos.
I want to start off by commenting on Geena’s final statement that “It seems as though society has come to favor any kind of entertainment over morally or politically correct messages.” This, of course, was particularly relevant in her discussion of which black related videos Youtube viewers chose to watch and why. I definitely agree that, at times, Youtube creates a dangerous atmosphere of conformity that reflects poorly upon the moral standards of society because those standards often fall victim to the saturated popularity of certain videos.
After sifting through the website, I began to think about why people go on Youtube. As I started to have trouble describing it, I began to view Youtube like Facebook. One can browse along both sites, losing their sense of direction and forgetting how they are viewing a video or a friend’s profile. Additionally, one could compare the activity on someone’s Facebook wall to the ratings on the videos. Both sites seem to encourage openness: Youtube’s slogan being “Broadcast Yourself” and Marc Zuckenburg’s About Me saying “I’m trying to make the world a more open place.” While each promotes openness, they simultaneously encourage or create the means for popularity contests. Just as one can read comments, ratings, or likes on a video, one can view posts, comments, likes, and general amount of activity on a person’s Facebook wall. Both systems act as a means of generalizations and judgments. Essentially, the more people find this site pleasant, the more likely I will and the more bias I already am towards liking it. My point is not so much that their similarity is significant as much as their platforms of openness and systematic assessments of popularity. Do these concepts end up encouraging more individuality or conformity?
Post a Comment