Technological breakthroughs in recent years have allowed for the individual to harness power of film that has traditionally been held by large conglomerated companies. A vast array of users can now film, edit, and publish their work with minimal required capital and virtually no experience. This technological availability coupled with an open-access, mass distribution platform like YouTube has redefined traditional notions of celebrity in film, especially the process leading up to stardom. In contrast with Andrew Keen notion of it as a collection of pathetic amateur film, YouTube actually is a democratizing force that affords massive opportunities to success in the media industry.
Becoming a film star in the traditional way generally entailed a longer process and career to reach the top. This process generally takes quite a bit of time and persistence. Once there, conventional methods of advertisement such as television, radio, newspaper, and billboards are needed to manufacture popularity. For this reason, large amounts of capital are generally needed to finance this path; suffice to say, the individual does typically not possess such capital. Celebrity here recognizes corporate marketability. This path is not always linear. There exist a number of counter examples such as the ‘nobody’ who gets a big shot and becomes famous instantly, or the underpublicized cult classic actor with a dedicated niche audience. These cases are important to highlight the complexity of the issue, something Keen shies from.
Cheaper access to use of video technology has caused an increase in the popularity of individuals buying and using video cameras. In the last decade or so, video cameras have decreased in price as well as become increasingly more powerful and more portable. Although camcorders have existed for some time, not until more recently have they become so widely used. Furthermore, additional video technology has become more popular such as web cameras, especially those built into computers, which can deliver high quality video, and video editing software. In Keen’s eyes, this would signify the arming of each monkey with a typewriter.
Also crucial to YouTube success is a general proliferation of Internet users. In the last two decades, the Internet has very rapidly expanded, thus creating a user a large user base. In the context of YouTube, they create the audience. Eager netizens spread their opinion about that entertainment, making them an ideal audience for amateur video production and consumption. Keen regards them as his species of “infinite monkeys” (Keen 2007). While the expanding number of Internet users may seem infinite, their diversity can no more be homogenized than can human interests or characteristics.
The final piece of the puzzle is the creation of YouTube, an open-access, easy to use, platform that allows the public to upload and view an uninterrupted stream of videos. Following the proliferation of video technology and Internet users, YouTube channels these forces to provide a new community of video producers and consumers. Within this new community emerges an entirely new type of star: the YouTube star. Here, certain videos receive more attention than others, and of those an even smaller portion receive enormous attention. However, a distinguishing factor of this ‘film star’ is the way in which he is discovered. For example a video might be viewed, enjoyed, and circulated via numerous online currents such as blogs and social networking sites. This free, more democratic, method of advertisement replaces traditional, cost intensive ones. Another factor is the possibility of anonymity. One need not divulge personal information to become a YouTube personality or celebrity. Arguably this could lead to misrepresentation and fraud. However, it may just as easily encourage users to be more honest or open. This elimination of barriers promotes a freer production of culturally relevant material, which is democratic in a sense.
Andrew Keen would have us believe that all YouTube users are mindless brutes that occasional produce a work of quality but only through sheer luck (Keen 2007). Numerous user archetypes serve as counters to this point of view. Talented individuals like musicians, artists, and comedians, recognize YouTube power to publicize and give free performances. Google has recently launched a successful campaign to establish a large classical music community on YouTube (Wakin 2008). How does this constitute cultural erosion? Keen could argue that the majority of the other videos are devoid of value. There certainly exist numerous YouTube videos that are of truly minimal quality, but it seems unfitting to categorize the YouTube population by the lowest common denominator.
Film technology has existed and been available to individuals in the past. However, certain barriers such as price and technological know-how have prevented widespread use. The proliferation of Internet users and the creation of YouTube have had the dual effect of opening up a new forum for both displaying videos and creating audience to watch them. While pessimists might key in on a specific user archetype to condemn the system as a whole, it is clear that YouTube fosters the production and circulation of myriad items of cultural value. While some may have more to contribute than others, the spirit of YouTube gives everyone a shot, a trait that is commendable on its own.

Wakin, D. J. (2008). Getting to Carnegie Via YouTube. New York Times. New York.

Keen, A. (2007). “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture.” Doubleday/ Currency.

Personally, I felt that the Burgess and Green article gave a more fair view of situation. To me, Keen seemed to be a very bitter web critic who went on a 5 page diatribe to express his most heartfelt enmity towards YouTube. Keen attacked what I believe to be a minority of YouTube users, albeit a substantial minority. Claiming that YouTube users are just mindless monkeys who put anything and everything on camera sells short the rest of the users who could add culturally valuable content. Take for example a budding musician who uses YouTube to launch his career. Keen chooses to ignore this example and instead selects a random kid banging away senselessly on his instrument. It is true to say that YouTube is a willing host for ALL media, including very insignificant and stupid videos. However, some of these videos can be exceptionally funny for whatever reason. What is so bad about publishing a goofy video that people enjoy watching with no strings attached? To rebut Keen, I am much more optimistic about its ability to host culturally valuable video as well as support numerous other causes. This segues nicely into the Burgess and Green article, which recognizes the value in the “participatory culture” to increase activism and diffusion. I thought that the example of Peter Gabriel’s charity, Witness, was especially poignant in that it was a clear-cut example of how technology possesses the capability to raise awareness to social inequalities and how sites like YouTube can be so useful for disseminating the information. They do concede that given the nature of video sharing, the cause can become distorted through poor labeling and other issues. However, the power and potential still remains for much good to be done with YouTube. As such, it does not seem right to blame the whole for the lowest common denominator.

My initial reaction to this week’s readings was to remember the “Virtual Revolution” documentary, which retraced the Internet’s early days. Back then, the Internet was not yet commercialized and functioned as a miniature public sphere. It was not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole, but very much of a distinct population. As a tool, the Internet fostered dialogue amongst individuals with differing ideals. This inclination towards democratic values seems to be very much in line with Papacharissi’s idea of the Internet serving as a public sphere for this mission. The downfall to the early usage of the Internet was the very thing that both Papacharissi and Dahlberg discuss: commercialization. A wider scale version of the early model is highly problematic because the Internet is ripe with opportunities to make money. Accompanying this practice of corporatization was a necessary decline of the individual power of the Internet user, and a step away from democracy. This is not the say that all commercialization of the Internet is necessarily undemocratic. For example, the Internet is a forum for smaller organizations, whose voices might otherwise be drowned out, to advertise and communicate to large groups of people. My biggest concern is that the nondemocratic aspects of commercialization do and will continue to outweigh the democratic ones. In the spirit of economics, corporations will tend to act in a way that maximizes benefits and minimizes costs. Often those practices are not the most beneficial to society on a case by case basis. The effect of this might be an overshadowing of democratic uses by corporations by less democratic ones in the interest of cost efficiency.

Also addressed by both authors was the limited access to Internet usage. Within this idea there are subcategories such as full access versus limited access versus limitations on access. The lattermost of the three may refer to language or educational barriers that hinder creation of and participation in a new online public sphere. Democracy may never reach its glorious days of ancient Athens because so many inequalities exist that prevent full participation by citizens. However, perhaps the spirit of democracy, albeit not perfect, which is embedded in our constitution and political system may approach an admirable level. What the Internet’s part in the future is may be highly debated, but it is certainly conceivable that it can become an unrivaled equalizing force.

“What a wee little part of a person’s life are his acts and his words! His real life is led in his head, and is known to none but himself”

Twain, as a renowned author, concedes that even the most eloquent of writing or speech can not accurately portray an individual because no one can truly know a person, save that person them self. This concept, coupled with the trivial nature of most tweets, indicates that something like Twitter is completely devoid of true self-expression. Furthermore, were one to express their inner feelings accurately, doing so on a forum so open as Twitter suggests the need to be heard instead of to merely speak. This ties directly into my experience using Twitter where I felt foolish posting about trite subjects because there was no genuine need for me to speak my mind. I tend not to dwell on things such as an extremely long lunch line in my mind, so for me it was superfluous to mention it for others to read. The fleeting thought in my mind is then over exaggerated by the nature of tweeting about it. Furthermore, I never even considered posting anything nearing private information. I chose not to use a picture or to post any personal information. I think that doing so, especially posting about daily routines and habits, might constitute a genuine privacy risk. For predators, insight into a potential victims routine paired with photographs and person information could create a toxic combination. Admittedly, my pessimism prevented me from forming a reflex to tweet (for better or for worse), and may have reduced my tweeting potential. Nonetheless, I still contend that incessant tweeting, mainly targeting banal ones, offers no method for genuine expression or communication with others.

I also used decided to expand my Twitter use to explore the other possibilities outside of my group of classmates. Many celebrities use Twitter as a way to diffuse information, or just to throw bait to the swarms of hungry fans. For my case study, I decided to become a follower of teen heartthrob Justin Bieber. The verdict for me: still useless. I learned that Justin Bieber took a trip to Japan where he was apprehensive, yet intrigued by Japanese cuisine. Certainly some pertinent information might appear on his Twitter like release dates of new albums and the like, but they are enveloped and discarded amongst the deluge of trivial tweets. I believe the greatest impetus for his 2,000,000 followers is a desire to feel proximity to him. Drooling fans want to read anything and everything that he writes in order to “know” him in a deeper more meaningful way. The catch is that there is no underlying morality or practicality in reading what he has to say. His word, if it is even he writing all of the time, is given importance because of his name and celebrity. To me this is no different than Michael Jordan advertising Hanes underwear or any other arbitrary celebrity testimonial. The ultimate goal for the Bieber twitter is not to connect personally with fans, but to garner and maintain fans that will translate into higher attendance at concerts and greater record sales. This may be a very cynical point of view, but better to be cynical than naïve.

However, I found this argument to be truly contrived, finding only vague similarities between the two. Foremost among the differences, is the structure of the two. The panopticon relies on a socially, or legally, established authority which is respected by the “prisoners,” because of high potential of recourse by the authority. While the Internet does have some authorities, they are completely unable to exert their influence on the majority of Internet users. This distinctions becomes even more sharp when you consider that the only reason the psychology of the panopticon is effective is because the “prisoners” have the illusion that they are being watched. Internet users do not restrict their actions unless this authority is perceived as being present. Many users find ways to conceal their internet usage or believe that they do in the case of a present authority. Without this authority, or with the belief that they have evaded it, the psychological burden of being monitored and punished breaks is lifted and the panopticon fails. I find a commonality among the Internet and the panopticon in that people may be monitored at any time without their knowledge. However, the purpose of the panopticon is show authority and dissuade action and for this reason Internet monitors cannot do so in a panoptical way.

The Jones reading on Facebook security was both accessible and intuitive. It discussed Facebook usage in the context of personal privacy which it found was generally quite lax. Yet, most of the conclusions and statistics that were in the article seemed very predictable and as such only really told me what I already knew, albeit in more exact terms. To wrap up, an overwhelming number of college students use Facebook for social networking. Most of these people are ignorant of, or indifferent to, the privacy policy and settings that Facebook provides. As a result, users divulge an inordinate amount of private information, which can be used for a great number of ends. To compound this problem, Facebook takes certain shortcuts in the predictable cataloguing of its profiles such that many profiles can be located and downloaded my Internet trawlers. The article concludes with the prediction that increased pervasion of Facebook will increase disclosure and the security risks will persist and possibly worsen as a result.

I very much agree with the findings of her study about the transition between different SNS as an indicator or maturing interests. I myself went through the same transition. I began using a Myspace which featured a background of the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Californication album cover. Around 9th grade I switched to Facebook and tucked away the Red Hot Chili Peppers into my “Favorite Music” category. Now, in college, Facebook has become a very basic part of my life. I receive e-mail updates so I don’t spend as much time on Facebook as I used to however. But, I still see it as a reflection of my personality and as a part of my identity. I choose to include some information in my profile such as favorite books, movies, quotes, etc. and a link to a YouTube video of the final fight in Undefeatably, widely regarded as one of the worst filmed martial arts scenes for its senseless yelling, shirtripping, and cheesy one line retorts. Presenting this information gives insight into my interests as well as my sense of humor, something very dear to me. This motivation plays directly into the concept of “I” versus “me” that was incorporated into her argument. My Facebook allows me to communicate who Peter Yen is as opposed to me trying to get to know myself. In this sense, Livingstone’s point about older teenagers using SNS to establish and maintain their social roles holds true to my case. I would not say that I grub for attention or climb the social ladder per se, but my activity, and especially my photographs, indicate my group of friends, and my extracurricular activities. In that sense Facebook is a good way to know where you fit into your social context or to figure out where another person belongs. This the basis for “Facebook Stalking” which entails looking through information and photographs of somebody with whom you are not friends. Often networks permit participants to view one another’s profile without having direct contact. While there is a joking stigma attached to this sort of “creeping” on people’s profiles, it is widely practiced and widely accepted. For many people, it may be flattering that people with whom they have not met personally are seeking out information on them via their profile. In any case, what is most important for Facebook, especially for people of our age, is the self-image that is presented.

The global divide is the disparity in connectivity between highly developed nations like the US or Sweden and developing nations. The main question she adressed was what did the future hold for these nations? Would it be more likely that the internet will allow the developed nations to pull even further ahead of developing ones, or will it be the leveler of the playing field? I am inclined to agree with that the gap between these nations will widen in the next few decades. Currently, computing is becoming increasingly sophisticated and digital technology is exponentially expanding with new products like the iPad hitting the market and setting the bar for competitors. However, in third world countries, they are still struggling for basic access to a computer, let alone the internet. Economic, social, and political changes must occur in these countries in order for them to at least slightly bridge this gap. Yet, when the time comes, developed nations will have been living in the network age for several generations.

The Social Divide focuses on the disparity in connectivity of people within the same nation and whether the Internet maintains the inequalities, creates new ones, or will bring a parity of classes closer to site. These inequalities are already visible in the statistics; they show that there are distinctions between class, race, and gender. Norris wonder not whether there will be inequality in the future–that much is certain–but whether relative inequalities in use will follow the same trajectory as previous forms of “communication technologies.” Only time will tell, but it seems to me that Internet access and training is the keystone to bridging this divide. The economic and social barriers which place individuals into lower classes will likely be the factors preventing their connectivity. Already there are attempts to provide free Internet access to members of these classes who cannot other get it, but they are being done retroactively, almost two decade into the life of the Internet.

The democratic divide adresses whether or not digital technologies will alter or enforce the distribution of political power. The two the camps, the cyber-optimists and the cyber-pessimists, disagree on this highly contentious point. The former would argue that widespread Internet use will promote political participation and awareness. The latter would argue that increased connectivity will sustain inequalities and breed new ones because the technology-intensive nature of the Internet will benefit the rich in the long and short run. Norris argues that both are two specific and suggests that digital technologies have the ability to mediate between the state and the citizen, noting that “insurgents” as being most greatly impacted. The insurgents she describes, being less hindered, are more likely to adapt and reinvent themselves via the Internet than are institutions rooted in tradition or already owning large amounts of assets. She goes on to say that the Internet is most exploitable by the most rich, but after that those with significantly fewer resources can use ingenuity to nearly replicate the advantages attained by the rich. I agree with here position here. In this capacity, the Internet can provide a great leveling of the playing field between established political institutions and new ones which want to disrupt the establishment. Unlike the cyber-optimist point of view that people will magically become interested in politics because the Internet is available, Norris’ situation is much more likely because the interest and desire already exists and is just channeled through the Internet.

Blogging from hospital bed–>dependence on it.

“You can’t convey tone over a blog.” This is a more old fashioned view. Many people find ways around this barrier.

Wilson’s porn video is evidence of how new forms of media can be preserved forever.

“Sometimes it’s easier to open up to people who aren’t looking at you” Pure friendship like Carter describes may be easier via the internet because barriers are removed and honesty can be easier.

Blogging as expression v audience?
-Seems to have started as a way to connect with people, but the following is toxic: her primary motivation is the number of people who view her blog. This cycle continually perpetuates itself and pushes the blogger into revealing more and more of his/herself on the blog.

Now back to social capital…

The two articles were studies into the way that SNS are most frequently and most effectively used. The one study focused on Facebook usage amongst college students while the other focused on a corporate SNS called Beehive. Beehive is IBM’s internal SNS which hosts interactions between members and provides a forum for exchanges or professional and personal information. The results of both studies suggest that increased use of the SNS promotes a growth of social capital. Both also showed that the SNS was a useful tool in not only maintaining old connections (bonding social capital) but in creating new ones as well (bridging social capital). However, the relative prevalences of these connections are based on a variety of factors. These factors were lost on me amid the statistics.

I think that Beehive cannot be compared to Facebook because of its definitive limits. While one could not possibly meet or connect with everybody in either SNS, Facebook provides the larger scope. Additionally, Facebook, for the casual user, tends to reflect a part of one’s life removed from work. This could be a major reason why Beehive was not a daily part of most of the user’s routine: people tend to separate socializing and work. This does not hold true for the frequent users. They seemed to connect the work hemisphere with the social one and used Beehive to build social capital. Yet, I suspect for most employees using Beehive, there is an omnipresent concern that they may be judged in their workplace for the content posted on their pages. For this reason, I do not believe that people would be as open and honest as they might on an open SNS like Facebook.