-
Website
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/ -
Original page
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/youtube-is-not-the-internet-but-she-has-a-point/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Ari Herzog
122 comments · 23 points
-
Don Lafferty
59 comments · 3 points
-
Danny Brown
80 comments · 32 points
-
Dale Cruse
65 comments · 6 points
-
gerardmclean
44 comments · 7 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
The Old Value-Cost Conversation
1 day ago · 108 comments
-
F Rockstars- Let’s Make Construction Sexy
2 days ago · 89 comments
-
Never Give Up- No, Give Up
2 days ago · 65 comments
-
Beyond Blogging Now Available
2 days ago · 50 comments
-
Holiday Photo Project
6 days ago · 107 comments
-
The Old Value-Cost Conversation
A big fan as you know.
Mandy and I had this discussion the other week strangely enough in an attempt to thrash out some next marketing moves and work out what really would be best.
SO we considered this...How would we conduct our business and attract new business if the Internet didn't exist? How would we spread the word so to speak?
We came up with some useful insights about direct (leaflet) marketing etc but its the same old problem... cost. I think because we have the website set up now and we have such an seo'd search position, apart from the upkeep and website building / expansion, we have very little marketing direct costs.
It was hard to envisage a model without the internet but a useful exercise none-the-less. We didn't draw any conclusions (as yet) apart from we will keep doing what we're doing - adding new products, keeping in touch with our previous customers etc and spread the word at whatever opportunity.
The internet makes us all beholden to one another, but it is time for me to think about limiting that.
But this episode does demonstrate the shrinking of the public space, despite the internet. What we need to do is work to assure that the public space -- both rl and virtual -- is enlarged and secured.
One outcome is that it would deprive Laura Ross of her sanctimonious complaint and menacing hints about why she was banned.
Sounds funny but all the podcast I have ever created are on my site, yes bandwidth is high, but I would not have it any other way. People need to look at the bigger picture objections are just that objections. Unless you own site/service you can't expect them to treat you as you would treat yourself.
Thanks for the reminder, by posting this Chirs
To that point you really dont have any voice on the internet that someone isnt allowing you to have. All the backbones, NOCs and switching stations are owned by someone somewhere and i bet they are out to make a buck. They could roll up the carpets anytime as well. We'd all like to think that the internet is a free for all, but in reality we know it isnt.
A good friend and google fanboy gave me a good proverbial punch in the gut the other day as I railed on the overuse and blind trust people put in the google monolith. When i finished by dissertation he calmly said "you do realize that the line you're on, the server your site is on and the email you're pulling down is someone elses... right?"
Consider me Pwned.
I am using internet all-day..
web browsing, chatting, blogging,
and gaming.
I can't stop myself from minimizing using it..
I think I am already addicted to it,
(A heads up: I believe the video and the YouTube account in question belong to someone named Michael Goodspeed and not Laura Ross. I think the synthisized female voice may have added to the confusion. Perhaps Laura linked it on Facebook?)
mp/m
Google going away isn't a concern any time soon. The more immediate issue is Google changing policies. We've seen this happening already. When Gmail goes down a lot of companies lose their email. Google Analytics changes your favorite feature there is no way to get it back. This is the double-edged sword of cloud computing.
The Internet was forged in the panic of the cold war and designed to withstand a nuclear attack. It turns out nuclear weapons don't hold a candle to Google and Yahoo!
Mike at #10 has a great point - and as Bostonians, perhaps you and I should look to the thoughts of one of our own from two centuries ago. Is it time to revisit Emerson's "Self-Reliance" with a 21st century perspective?
Nothing except for the inconvenient fact it is their site. Those who do this are hypocrites. They want to tell other people how to behave but they don't think they should be included in their own principle.
I prefer freedom to protection from hate, security, or whatever else people use as excuses to enslave one another. I think banning content because some group doesn't like it is childish and short-sighted. They don't realize by their intolerance of the views of others and their use of pressure to enforce it they are doing the exact thing against which they preach.
The completely unfettered Internet, unfettered from official control, is the best chance those with a minority opinion have to be heard. Don't screw it up by being a hypocrite and telling other people what to do with their property. Nobody is stopping you from creating YourOwnTube except your inability to attract customers.
Facebook, Google, blogs, Youtube...even Twitter - to my knowledge any of these sites can cancel your account and pull your content, content that you worked hard to create, networks you worked hard to forge and don't really have any proper way to back up either. Unlike a "real" publication like a news/magazine article, chapbook, pamphlet, or book, which are solid, your work can just be deleted. In essence it is similar to burning books, especially when it tramples on free speech.
There are a couple of wrenches to consider in the mix with this idea of "free speech" though:
1) Youtube is a public forum that children have easy access to. Profanity and sexual topics are acceptable in an adult forum, but how do we create security for our children? Tonnes of kids use Facebook and watch Youtube and saying to parents to not let them is like telling parents to not let their kids have access to bubble gum. Even if you use a net nanny, it's annoying. Just like developing children shouldn't be watching SouthPark because they don't get the satirical humour, they shouldn't be seeing a lot of online media content, but as a parent, I find it frustrating that this stuff is in such wide circulation, and sympethize with Youtube in this regard. If your kid isn't watching it, their classmates are so they learn the content anyhow. It is irresponsible of society to just leave this stuff lying around in the name of "free speech". I do believe we are our neighbour's keeper to a certain degree, and that includes their kids. In real life we have bars and clubs where kids just do NOT go, and it should be the same for the internet. Once there is a bouncer at the door to keep Johnny out, maybe site managers could be laxer on their content rules.
2) Hate groups and speech is real. There are groups out there that are founded in destructive ideologies, and when your free speech overlaps in the imaginary Venn Diagram with their vocab and/or topics, your trotting on ze edge if you are posting this material. How is a group like Youtube supposed to sort out the complex ethical arguments to screen content and serve a high volume site at the same time? Some transparent and understandable criteria is needed.
These caveats aside, one thing I think is very wrong is for a user's content to be pulled without some sort of acceptable warning system or expalanation of what you are doing wrong. This is what really gets my goat. Arguably, a user of Youtube is getting use of the service for free, but places like twitter and facebook have staff who are getting paid and enormous VC investment, and that is based on user #s, so users are important and need fair and equitable treatment, even if the service is "free".
AN ALTERNATIVE MODE?
Have you checked out www.neternity.org ? I've chatted with @imranawar on Twitter who started this organization, because I love his idea of creating an online "Legacy". As far as I can see, he is trying to do what organizations like Facebook and Youtube are not, and that is creating something of sure and lasting value to the user, something that would even be guaranteed to live on after you are gone -- a real digital legacy. To me that is exciting stuff that Youtube et al have missed out on completely. In the past it was only nobility that would have such a legacy, but this sort of service to me represents a true democratization of the net.
However, there's one question that comes to mind when I hear about the alleged "censorship" of people's content on site's like YouTube/Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. That question is: why are we still beating this dead horse? Seriously, arguing that somehow network television or YouTube needs to protect "free speech" demonstrates a completely inane failure to understand corporate America. YouTube is part of Google, which is a corporation, not a nation state or government entity. Google does not have a bill of rights or a constitution to uphold. They do, however, have to run a for-profit corporation and protect their own interests and those of their shareholders. Google, like television networks, will feed you gobs and gobs of horseshit about how they're being altruistic (don't be evil), but their only duty is to drive ad revenue to bolster their top line and demonstrate value to their shareholders. If anything gets in the way of that one singular and all-important motive, then kiss it goodbye. TOS, Privacy Policies, SLAs, etc. are barely worth the paper they're (not even) printed on. Anything legal agreement can -- no, WILL -- be changed in the interest of one corporate motive: to deliver shareholder value.
The funniest part about all of this is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with running a business like (you guessed it) a business. If you don't like it, host your own content. Distribution on Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. may appear free, but it's not. I blogged about this several months ago.
My point: quit yer' bichin' about the policing that Google and other sites are doing of the content that they're distributing for you at no direct to cost to you. Whatever you may think, once you upload your content, you're giving them the right to do whatever they want with it -- use it for their own profit, remix/modify it or (the horror!) take it down if they deem it inappropriate in any way, shape or form.
few months ago i had a similar post on my blog referring to fakebook people.... Where i did advice that th ebest way is to use a personal blog, promote it make it stronger, support it with these tools, and always keep a local backup.
another good and lovely post by you chris :)
cheers,
Jean.
But, the bigger points here are about content ownership and the potential impact of loss of a given service to your organisation. As far as content ownership goes the best thing by far you can do is slap a Creative Commons license on everything you ever produce and then give it all away - allow it to be remixed, mashed up etc. Why? If you voluntarily give permission for your work to be used you are more likely to be accredited and get your personal brand spread. Secondly do you really think any kind of license is going to stop the unscrupulous from taking your work and doing whaterver they like to it? If they do can you find them? And do you have the resource to prosecute them? Face it, what you put in the public domain whether on a blog or on YouTube or wherever no longer belongs to you - you have given it away.
Secondly is the issue of what happens if google pull the plug tomorrow? Well obviously back ups are a good idea. But, is the server in your office, or the harddrive in your laptop really more reliable than all of googles servers? These people have back up procedures for their back up procedures. Disclosure - I am a fan. I have recently put everything I can onto the cloud via google apps. The cost saving compared with my previous inhouse server based MS Exchange systems measure in £thousands annually and I've previously had to restore everything from tape backup when my server blew up - it's not fun! I can honestly say I am looking forward to the day when I can plug a relatively dumb terminal into the internet and do all the work remotely.
Of course sometimes accounts will get closed down by heavy handed censors, of course there are lowlifes out there who will rip off your work, of course you take risks when you put yourself out in the public domain of social media - but the alternative is the electronic equivalent of agrophobia - do you really want to stay in your own house for the rest of your life?
Keep in mind that YouTube was valued at so many billions of dollars because of the likelihood of working with advertisers. Advertisers don't like unsafe, unpredictable entities. The more "free" the service, the less valuable it is to big business.
Corporate communism is real. Rense.com, PrisonPlanet.com and other sites like them are real and spreading a message too few want to hear. It's here. It's coming. It's going to get bigger. Follow the money. Tell advertisers you WANT what YouTube is censoring. If you're an advertiser tell YouTube you don't support censorship if you don't. The almighty dollar rules folks.
That violence is appreciated by networks is good...that sex is not is bad. But they are apples and oranges, fruit of our most primal instincts, relics of our real, live (not digital) past. We'll go there again. Freely or by force of nature, we will go there again. Or our kids will, or theirs.
Great post. Thanks for allowing free speech (well, I do pay for computers, upgrades, I purchase the Bill the Man, and I pay a variety of bills like power and phone and dsl and service providers and web-servers and domain name holders and...) here on your website.
http://twitter.com/franswaa