Youtube

farfromglorified

Most youtube clips have about 1 second of substance for every minute of actual content. So please understand that when you post a 20 minute youtube clip, a lot of us aren't actually going to sit there and watch it, whereas if you post a link to written content it's much more likely that your audience will read and explore the information.

spiral out

farfromglorified wrote:

Most youtube clips have about 1 second of substance for every minute of actual content. So please understand that when you post a 20 minute youtube clip, a lot of us aren't actually going to sit there and watch it, whereas if you post a link to written content it's much more likely that your audience will read and explore the information.

Written information around here will only be read by some, the others find reading as hard as watch a you tube clip.

farfromglorified

spiral out wrote:

Written information around here will only be read by some, the others find reading as hard as watch a you tube clip.

That's certainly fair.

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

Most youtube clips have about 1 second of substance for every minute of actual content. So please understand that when you post a 20 minute youtube clip, a lot of us aren't actually going to sit there and watch it, whereas if you post a link to written content it's much more likely that your audience will read and explore the information.

I second that!
My main grief with youtube clips are the time that they consume, that I dont have...

Peace
Dan

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I do not understand the constant need to bash youtube around here. Yes, people are communicating by video via the internet. There is now a visual and audio to go along with the information being shared...omg. :eek: Much like words we read on a computer screen, in the newspapers and in books....some of this info has truth to it, some of it does not....it's up to the viewer. And even stranger than that, it seems that people all have these things called different opinions....lots of them!! Let's try to remember that before we close our minds to everything different someone has to say or just because it's on a youtube clip. :rolleyes:


I like books, magazines, newspapers, website and yes, youtube. I am completely comfortable with getting my information from all kinds of sources because I know I can figure for myself if something is worth believing.

So I think your point is a bit petty unless you're going to start posting 'there's probably a book somewhere to prove it' along side your youtube dismissal. But that would sound pretty dumb.

Yeah I find this a pretty freakish phenomenon as well for some users that have this somehow stuck in their heads.

Documentaries, news articles, everything has a source. Some don't look at the sources and judge solely the presentation of information, rather than the information itself. Others blindly parrot the anti youtube sentiment because someone else said it before them.

Abookamongstthemany

I never said that mainstream media was any worse or better than youtube. As it has been pointed out, they both have their perks and downfalls.

I just think it's shortsighted and silly to write off one from of media while eating up the other kinds. People should be able to take in the info and decide for themselves instead of this knee-jerk reaction they have against anything 'youtube' or 'independent'.


I like to post Nader speeches...those are actually Nader speaking.

If you feel the content is bunk then debate that. Youtube is just somewhere to upload videos.

Abookamongstthemany

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah I find this a pretty freakish phenomenon as well for some users that have this somehow stuck in their heads.

Documentaries, news articles, everything has a source. Some don't look at the sources and judge solely the presentation of information, rather than the information itself. Others blindly parrot the anti youtube sentiment because someone else said it before them.

Yeah, I read your Columbine thread and thought people were being assholes. If they disagree that's one thing but to feel the need to repeatedly be insulting and gang up like that shows a lack of class, imo.

Hoon

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I do not understand the constant need to bash youtube around here. Yes, people are communicating by video via the internet. There is now a visual and audio to go along with the information being shared...omg. :eek: Much like words we read on a computer screen, in the newspapers and in books....some of this info has truth to it, some of it does not....it's up to the viewer. And even stranger than that, it seems that people all have these things called different opinions....lots of them!! Let's try to remember that before we close our minds to everything different someone has to say or just because it's on a youtube clip. :rolleyes:


I like books, magazines, newspapers, website and yes, youtube. I am completely comfortable with getting my information from all kinds of sources because I know I can figure for myself if something is worth believing.

So I think your point is a bit petty unless you're going to start posting 'there's probably a book somewhere to prove it' along side your youtube dismissal. But that would sound pretty dumb.

When you use to share articles from truthout (that gets their articles elsewhere) it became a 'problem' too.

With video sharing:
It takes them out of their comfortable medium they hack and puts you more in control of what you say.

A person has to view the whole thing in it's context rather than watch it all get picked apart line by line and rearranged.

Abookamongstthemany

Hoon wrote:

When you use to share articles from truthout (that gets their articles elsewhere) it became a 'problem' too.

With video sharing:
It takes them out of their comfortable medium they hack and puts you more in control of what you say.

A person has to view the whole thing in it's context rather than watch it all get picked apart line by line and rearranged.

That's right!

'Become the media'

We can be our own writers, directors, editors, producers and marketing.

People should be smart enough to discern what does and doesn't have merit for themselves.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That's right!

'Become the media'

We can be our own writers, directors, editors, producers and marketing.

Hehe...you could have done that before youtube. Because of youtube, however, there's really no more screening for talent

People should be smart enough to discern what does and doesn't have merit for themselves.

Absolutely. Most of the junk on youtube doesn't have much in the way of merit, hence the feedback you get sometimes.

The Internet has done wonders for the average person's ability to post content. Be it youtube, blogs, message boards, etc, it's really awesome that pretty much anyone can get out there and share their views, ideas and information. With that, however, comes a whole lot of absolute garbage. So, as you say, people have to really think about the merit of that information and need to approach user-driven content with a healthy dose of objectivity and skepticism. That not only goes for the audience, but also for the sharer.

Number 18

I just hate YouTube because they block it on my work's network. :(

I think all sources, whether they be mainstream media, YouTube, or some random "independent" site, should be scrutinized for accuracy and credibility. To assume a site has MORE credibility because it is not part of the mainstream media is just as absurd as to assume the mainstream media has credibility.

decides2dream

farfromglorified wrote:

Most youtube clips have about 1 second of substance for every minute of actual content. So please understand that when you post a 20 minute youtube clip, a lot of us aren't actually going to sit there and watch it, whereas if you post a link to written content it's much more likely that your audience will read and explore the information.

EXACTLY.

that is probably my main beef with youtube links. also, i don't click links at work. period. so then i miss the content of the discussion.


i FAR prefer reading here. i can read at my own pace, not the pace predetermined by some video clip. also easier to refer back to instead of having to rewatch thru, trying to find the exact spot where something of significance is said.


youtube obviously has a purpose, and a good function for many things.....but as a preference for real information, give me the written word.

GreenTeaDisease

farfromglorified wrote:

Blanket crticisms of youtube are unfair, but treating youtube as a primary or unbiased source is foolish. Much of the content on youtube is exceptionally biased, shallow, and often times inaccurate or misleading. In the political arena, youtube's primary function is as a propaganda platform, not an information source. That said, there is certainly good content on youtube and it is a very powerful platform for sharing information.

It really comes down to what you use it for. If you post a clip from youtube that was obviously produced by someone with an agenda, don't be surprised if you get backlash.

Do people actually use youtube as a source of info like that?

I mean I don't get it, don't they train you in like 2nd grade to know the primary source and its credibility when you gather information?

farfromglorified

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

Do people actually use youtube as a source of info like that?

Absolutely. People use all kinds of sources like that, be them youtube, foxnews.com, lewrockwell.com, commondreams.org, the nightly news, dailykos.com, the list goes on and on. I'm sure I've been guilty of this too, in the interest of full disclosure.

I'd guess that 95% of the debates here that involve sources probably utilize highly laughable sources for the bulk of their evidence while treating them as primary sources. One poster will put something up from some blatantly liberal website, another will put something up from some blatantly conservative website, and then both will piss at each other back and forth about whose source is "objective" when neither is.

I mean I don't get it, don't they train you in like 2nd grade to know the primary source and its credibility when you gather information?

Hehe...probably not 2nd grade. Regardless, I think we all forget those lessons sometimes.

There's really nothing inherently wrong with using youtube or any other website as a source of some kind. The problem comes from people treating these sources as something different than what they are. A youtube video of Ralph Nader or Ron Paul or someone else giving a speech can be treated as a primary source in a discussion about facts regarding those men and their positions. A youtube video featuring snippets from those people sandwiched in between a bunch of silly conclusions utilizing piecemeal evidence, however, should never be treated as a source of anything except for the original poster's or original creator's opinions. In far too many instances here, we attempt to pass off blatantly agenda-driven content as fact or, even worse, assume the facts within blatantly agenda-driven content represent a basis from which conclusions can be drawn.

LikeAnOcean

lazymoon13 wrote:

you tube is more for entertainment purposes then fact gathering.

As in all forms of communication.. There's a lot of educational stuff on there as well.

rebornFixer

Its the way people use youtube on here ... One can no more bash youtube as a concept than you can bash verbal debate, or TV, or any other communication medium.

What irks me is when people make illogical or otherwise unsupported arguments, and then attempt to back them up with propagandist video bytes from youtube, as if somehow that makes the argument hold up better. Using youtube in this way is no better than using soundbytes or jingoistic language to artificially bolster one's credibility. Sorry, but some youtube clip that says Israelis drink the blood of Palestinian babies, made by ALLAHIZGR8@KILLTHEJEWZ.ORG/UN, is not going to help your case ... Its just going to make people think that youtube is full of garbage.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

Its the way people use youtube on here ... One can no more bash youtube as a concept than you can bash verbal debate, or TV, or any other communication medium.

What irks me is when people make illogical or otherwise unsupported arguments, and then attempt to back them up with propagandist video bytes from youtube, as if somehow that makes the argument hold up better. Using youtube in this way is no better than using soundbytes or jingoistic language to artificially bolster one's credibility. Sorry, but some youtube clip that says Israelis drink the blood of Palestinian babies, made by ALLAHIZGR8@KILLTHEJEWZ.ORG/UN, is not going to help your case ... Its just going to make people think that youtube is full of garbage.

Of course, there's crap on youtube....and in books, articles, the nightly news and newpapers...you name it.

The point was how silly it is to bash one form of media over others, when they all can have information that isn't very objective.