To be honest whenever I try searching the group archive I usually find reasonable debate about these things, rarely stumble on the hating/disparaging remarks that I seem to remember. So for all I know there were only ever a small handful of such posts made, but this got merged with widespread complaints from this group about the youtube TOS, to create a perception that the group generally didnt like youtube at all.
This thread from last summer seems like a good example, theres a lot of attention to the positive aspects and only the occasional hint of a wider dislike for youtube nd all it stands for: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/47073 Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here are the good things about YouTube; They've brought self-video > publishing to the masses--literally, by making it dead simple to > post video to the web. They made it easy to share (but not remix > unfortunately) videos we love with embed codes. They've done a lot > of this in a social way, with comments, buddy lists, playlists, > groups and even video commenting and RSS feeds. > > Sure there are some problems with YouTube, but we should really > appreciate it for what it is. They've attained a lot of the goals > that early vloggers set out to do in the beginning.; to get as many > people as possible communicating with each other via video on the > Internet. > > The early problems with their terms of service kinda sucked (which I > still believe are due to lazy lawyering and and over reliance on > boiler plate), and I am still not a big fan of their player. But > ultimately they've accomplished a lot and have moved this whole > thing forward more than a lot of us have. > > I ain't no YouTube hater. > > > Bill Streeter > LO-FI SAINT LOUIS > www.lofistl.com > www.billstreeter.net > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Rice" <eric@> wrote: > > > > Actually, I'd admit, I raged on YouTube back in the day when it > opened on this list, and > > have had a change of opinion seeing how the market responded... > Videoblogging Yahoo > > Group, circa probably, what, early 2005? My account is from June > and I was a bit late to > > the YT party then, since their TOS was horrible back then. > > > > That's part of the reason I bailed from the list for a while, it > felt so judge, jury, and > > executioner about vlogging. Like we are the center of the universe > or something since > > have coherent conversations. > > > > We're not. We just suffer from the same problem that > 3248734928347298 web 2.0 > > startups in the bay area here suffer from. We think our shit don't > stink and that unwashed > > Walmart mass culture doesn't matter because *we* might object to > it. > > > > The Horror! > > > > ER > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], "Bill Cammack" > <BillCammack@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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 > > > > > > > > > >
