Youtube and it's impact, a danger to politicians? (No Spam)

[Siberys]

EDIT: Forgot to place this in the title. This is a NO SPAM Topic.

YouTube - Fox News YouTube Story Only Includes Republican Responses
YouTube - Did George W Bush Invade Iraq to Avenge His Daddy?
YouTube - Google YouTube Purchase Means End of Fox News?
And other videos-
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Now, just a note for the above, there's obviously more videos you can search yourselves. While it is rather one sided by me having "LiberalViewer" as all my examples, that doesn't mean you can't search yourself for other people who are involved.

LiberalViewer does make valid points though. Youtube started off as something really small, and now is insanely huge. It's big enough to effect politicians, and since there are a LOT of people who actually go to youtube now that it's out, in my honest opinion, people are getting a broader view of the news and politics. Sure, there are still people who believe that republicans are the best or democrats are better, but I think that day and age is dying. With the internet being so gargantuan, even with just youtube, I actually haven't heard anybody speak that way.

Before, I had heard people say "I voted for X candidate because he's a republican/democrat." Ever since, ever since youtube came out, I've never heard this.

So, I guess the point of this thread and where topic discussion starts are these questions-

Do you think youtube has an impact on how people view politics and do you think that is going to effect most if not all americans by a future date?
Do you think that there will be politicians, who run for presidency, will at least be careful of there words if not actually legit in what they say due to youtube?
And do you think that youtube's main purpose for it's political side is to capture the bad points of politics, or do you see benefits in this, benefits as in not just for politicians but for people as well?

I leave this without my opinion for now, and if there is something I either agree or disagree on, then I will respond.

[dragon wench]

I guess I see YouTube as the next step in the evolution of things like broadsheets, and political cartoons in newspapers.
Political cartoons have often had a huge impact on politicians.

The difference, of course, is that YouTube has such an incredibly wide reach.

[Dowaco]

What's youtube?

Seriously, I have never been to that site. I think you have to remember that not everybody has a computer, and of those that do, not everyone has cable. And of those that are computer savvy enough to get their news online, not all of those can vote. I'll say impact is minimal for now. I think lots of people still get their news from TV networks.

[dragon wench]

More and more advertisers are moving online from more conventional forms of media, such as newspapers. IMO, there is a very good reason for that. Not only does online have more reach, but much of the intended (hoped for) audience goes online to get their news, entertainment information etc. I know several people who have been involved in the print media, and they tell me the dominent trend is towards an online presence. Increasingly, people between the ages of 18 and 35 (roughly) tend to surf the internet for their news and information. Further, Google was looking to buy YouTube. An entity like Google would not be seeking to purchase YouTube if there was not huge potential for profit (and, hence, that means viewers).

I hope this is not too far off topic Sib.

[Dowaco]

Do you think youtube has an impact on how people view politics and do you think that is going to effect most if not all americans by a future date?
Do you think that there will be politicians, who run for presidency, will at least be careful of there words if not actually legit in what they say due to youtube?
And do you think that youtube's main purpose for it's political side is to capture the bad points of politics, or do you see benefits in this, benefits as in not just for politicians but for people as well?
.

The first question is open ended. Do I think it will have an impact? yes and no. As Dragon Wench pointed out, this will mostly affect young people. Do I think it will effect most if not all Americans by a future date? You have to specify the date. I would answer no, not in the next ten years. And looking at fifty years down the road, new technologies may supplant this. Affecting all Americans is an almost impossible benchmark. I will say that it has the potential to affect most middle to upper middle class and wealthy young people.

Do I think politicians will be careful with their words? No, not any more careful than they are now. Video and audio tape has been around for a long time and that never stopped a politician from lying or from putting their foot in their mouth.

Not knowing anything at all about the site except from looking at the links you provided, It would seem to have potential for much more than politics.

[Sean The Owner]

Do you think youtube has an impact on how people view politics and do you think that is going to effect most if not all americans by a future date?
Do you think that there will be politicians, who run for presidency, will at least be careful of there words if not actually legit in what they say due to youtube?
And do you think that youtube's main purpose for it's political side is to capture the bad points of politics, or do you see benefits in this, benefits as in not just for politicians but for people as well?

1) i believe that anything that talks about the government will have an impact on how people view politics, so youtube definetly will, especially since theres so many people looking at it everyday.

and it will affect more americans than anyone else because that is pretty all anyone talks about since they are at war right now...

2) shouldnt politicians be careful of what they say all the time? since there will always be someone against them and twisting their words i would say they should be careful constantly

3) it seems to be mostly bad points that they focus on, but to truely know something you need to know the good and the bad, so it is good in a way when you point out the bad things...they should put more positive things on there though...

well, cutting out the politicians from this question, it will benefit people because some people have to work during the night, so they might miss the news and would then be able to watch it online later so they know whats going on.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Do you think youtube has an impact on how people view politics and do you think that is going to effect most if not all americans by a future date?
Do you think that there will be politicians, who run for presidency, will at least be careful of there words if not actually legit in what they say due to youtube?
And do you think that youtube's main purpose for it's political side is to capture the bad points of politics, or do you see benefits in this, benefits as in not just for politicians but for people as well?

1)Yes, it does. Patric Goldstien, Los Angeles Times:

Welcome to the new media universe, where for millions of video junkies, the best TV network in America isn't Comedy Central, MTV, ESPN or even HBO, but YouTube, the amazing website whose video clips are viewed more than 100 million times each day. Launched last year, the website has enjoyed an astounding ascent, being bought last week by Google for $1.65 billion. In an era increasingly defined by audience-driven events, YouTube represents the triumph of bottom-up culture and another sign that old media businesses, from record companies and TV networks to newspapers, are going to see more of their audience migrating to the Internet.
.......
"YouTube is already having an impact on this year's election cycle. In years past, political candidates were sold essentially in the same way as movie stars, in carefully staged settings and market-tested ads. Now the scripted veneer has been stripped away by young volunteers, armed with video cameras, who stalk opposition candidates, record their gaffes and post them on YouTube."

2) No, I don't think the politicians will be more careful. We will enjoy their blather for the rest of our life. Do you really believe that in 30 years a politician spewing nonsense in front of a camera will become extinct?

3) I think sensational and controversial news sell better, so to speak. Plus people love funny clips. The "good points" of politics are not really funny, at least most of them are not. On the other hand, the "bad points"... :devil:
The benefits for a politician? A funny "negative ad" run by any popular indepentent website should be beneficial if this ad is about a competitor.
The benefits for the public? Laughter is one. I am not sure about any other possible benefits. Awareness perhaps? I think the impact of any news greatly depends on the amount of trust and respect a person has for the source of information.

[Xandax]

Well, before YouTube can start to impact "politics" or most other longer term aspect of life, we need to figure out if the concept is here to stay.

Google has purchased YouTube, no doubt because their own Video-sharing service couldn't compete, which speaks towards the massive potitential which is in online services.
However this entier concept (called Web 2.0 in IT - Web 2.0 is basically "userdriven content" as far as I recall my buzzwords) looks to be very much like the "dot com" bubble to many observers of the industry. A load of hot air to be frank.

YouTube faces massive copyright infringements due to hosting/sharing copyrighted material - just recently they had to delete some 30.000ish clips (BBC NEWS | Business | YouTube cuts 30,000 illegal clips) and more are to come.
This is a problem for YouTube because they have no real control over what gets uploaded and have to be reactive towards others claims. Thus, the service could (would?) run into same legal issues such as for instance P2P services where the service provide is held responsible for the users usage of the service. Heck, even a forum as this has Buck as responsible for our actions on the service (hence forum rules and moderators).

This could seriously hamper services such as YouTube, because if much of the actual content gets removed; that is the content which holds value outside the type of "here is my dog in the park" or "granny on visit for her birthday"; then the value of this service will diminish.
This resembles the dot com wave/bubble very very much, because at the launch of personal websites for instance it was thought that buisnesses would conduct their majority of buisness that way - and now everybody could have a webpage. This also resulted in everybody and his dog getting a "Hi,here I am"-type webpage and a load of garbage drowning out the actual quality content on the web. Which is just what YouTube risks ending up as if it can't get the copyright under control; simply a provider of "Hi, here I am" type content.

If we transfere this to the Web 2.0 age, then blogs and WIKIS are now the big thing, and content such as YouTube is on the rise, and these element influence some (many?) people based on the authors statement, however all this web-content suffers from the huge flaw that .... it is easy to fake and it is up to people themselves to fix/correct.
A general ironic statement about this is the "If it is on the web, it must be true"-statement. Also a problem with Web 2.0 is that people tend to read what they agree with most. If you are anti-bush you're more likely to read/view anti-bush material and blogs, and vice versa. This means that while a wealth of information, people tend to seek out the most relevant to themselves and their beliefs, instead of perhaps the most relevant to the issue.
This is behaviour which is quite visible in the real world as well with people wathcing TV or reading speficic magazines/newspapers, so I don't see why the information being webbased would suddenly change much in the way the majority of people digest and access information. No doubt that us tech-savy people will get more and more of our news online, faster and from more variated sources (I use only online sources of news because of convience), however the average joe and the majority of people are not us yet. Perhaps in a number of years, but for now, most fall into the comfort of reading/viewing what they already agree with.

Anybody who lived to see the "dot com" bubble burst should be wary about the Web 2.0 age, because it shows the same signs. And it is beginning to recive hype with little to no foundation as well, so I'd wait some 3-5 years before judgeing if the methodology is mature enough to actually be usefull.
So far - as a IT professional - I view the entier Web 2.0 as nothing more then a fun way to share fun stuff with a little quality amongst it. Much like webpages are/were throughout the late 90s ("Hi, here is my dog, isn't she peerdy "), a sort of Americas Funniest Homevideo ... online edition

So to return to the topic. I do not think YouTube or similar services will (or rather, I should say: "should influence") influence anything of importance for years to come, however I do no doubt some people will be sawyed by the techonology (or rather methodology) and some will attempt to exploit/utilize it, but I do not think the effect would be significant. But especially because we do not know whether or not Web 2.0 will be the next "dot com" buble-burst (as I mentioned) and because the information on the web is to easily taken out of context, forged or so subjectively biased that nobody can trust it outright - I do not see much seriousity in it currently. It is to easy to publish online with no control.

[Mr_Snow]

I tend to agree with Xandax about the problems of youtube.

I also put Youtube in regards to information in the same catagories and blogs & wiki's, to me they are not news/information they are opinions.

Also remember that the term "next big thing" & "it's going to replace" are buzz words that are used to generate hype and almost always never come to fruition (newspapers anyone? weren't they meant to die out :speech: :laugh: :laugh: ).

And do i think it'll sway anyones opinions? No more than anyother form of media.

[Xandax]

Now this is what I was talking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/techn ... ref=slogin

Snippet from article:

The site late last week began purging copyrighted material from Comedy Central, including clips from YouTube stalwarts like “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” “The Colbert Report” and “South Park.”

The usability - and thus effect in term of previous posts - of YouTube is hugely dependent on what content will remain onces the purges are done.

[Silur]

Oh, this Web 2.0 BS is annoying me to an early grave! I have a well developed allergy towards people like Dale Dougherty, Jeff Pulver, etc who show up to take credit for the work of thousands of people and put their label on it. The Internet and the web is like an organism, changing in big and small ways every day - often in all directions at once.... and I have to work in the wake of these people! Rant, rant, rant...

I'd have to agree with Xandax, and I believe it is unlikely that it will have any major impact even if it actually does take off. There are a great number of problems:

Copyright infringement and censorship is an issue from the provider point of view, which usually means that any material which is opposed to by sufficiently prominent entities will be pulled. Investigating the validity of each claim is expensive and time-consuming, neither of which add anything of value to Google's shareholders. In a clash between Joe Average and the MPAA, who is Google going to side with?

Publishers are in most countries responsible for published material for libel and slander, and of course various restrictions on publishing of national secrets, trade secrets, etc that can apply - and the fact that most who publish aren't news agencies means they are generally less protected; protection of your sources, for instance. There are a number of websites who have found this out the hard way.

From the casual users perspective, there is an immense information overload, with a signal to noise ratio far beyond detectability. Also, with everyone diseminating their version of the absolute truth, it is hard to find trustworthy sources and even harder to verify their information. There is even a risk of truth becoming a post-modernistic "choose your own reality" affair, where atrocities simply disappear in the ever louder cacophony... (and there may be reason to believe that this has already happened - more than twice ).

In short, lots and lots of videos of people being (mildly) mean to their pets, or showing off their offspring, grand parents, cars, houses, etc, but very little in the form of revolutionary newsflashes. Oh, and lots of pornography of course.

...but I'm hoping I'm dead wrong, and people stand up and take back the power stolen from them by the government, news agencies, well funded interest groups, mega-corporations, religious fanatics of all kinds (especially all the monotheistic ones), investment banks, military, etc. To the information barricades, sisters and brothers!

Now there I go, being a pinko Communist again.