Is YouTube....bad?

[Alex]

When it comes to amateur porn at least one layer of filters is a very good thing.

Just because two people are naked and rubbing bits is not enough reason to subject other people to it. There needs to be some minimum of skill and production value to the enterprise.

Or so GD's heard.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I think this is not in the spirit of CP's point.

I get CP's point, but she did ask for our thoughts, and I think that it's very likely that someone (who might not otherwise have in 'in') will very probably produce something that will be taken notice of by .....oh, forget it. I have to say that I really don't care enough about You Tube to quibble over perceptions.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Now that I think about it, for many people spamming a friends list with a funny YouTube video is somehow once again acceptable. Just after they were all trained to stop sending me that crappy email joke of the day or the glurgy partriotic tribute or the latest "your couch could be killing" urban legend.

yes, but at least they're links instead of attachments - right?

[Alex]

I think I might prefer the text version. Because as you say the description that accompanies the YouTube link is generally "you've go tto see this" or "Funny!"

And I feel kind of obligated to look on the off chance that it is the funniest thing since grandma broke her hip. At least with the stupid/glurgy/legendy emails I can read the first two lines see it is crap and then delete it.

[Not Afraid]

Is YouTube "bad"? As Chris said, morally? No. But, there's a LOT of bad crap that ends up there - more bad than good IMO. Personally, I think it's a giant waste of time and, of all of the hundreds of links I've been pointed to on YouTube, I think maybe 5 were actually worth viewing. I just don't have the time nor the inclination to watch sub-par videos. I don't even watch TV because I can't seem to find anything that is worth watching in amongst all of the crap. I certainly don't want to spend my time passivly watching someone else's stupid pet tricks or whatever it is.

I'm sure there are good things on YouTube, but I'm not up for finding the needle in the very large haystack.

Now, if the Bruce and Norman Yonemoto, The Damaged Californians, Bill Viola, Hidja Keating posted their videos on YouTube, I'd be all over it, but that kind of thoughtful presentation doesn't seem to be available on YouTube.

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I think I might prefer the text version. Because as you say the description that accompanies the YouTube link is generally "you've go tto see this" or "Funny!"

Well, I wasn't sure if he was referring to what was under the YouTube video itself. Oftentimes, descriptions in YouTube are keyworded properly, if you're lucky, or it's keyworded with stuff that isn't even relevant to the subject being viewed.

I use YouTube for refreshing my memory on certain work topics, I catch old commercials. Sadly, I have to sift through badly keyworded items because someone wanted to get more hits on their video of dumb skateboarding tricks.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Now, if the Bruce and Norman Yamamoto, The Damaged Californians, Bill Viola, Hidja Keating posted their videos on YouTube, I'd be all over it, but that kind of thoughtful presentation doesn't seem to be available on YouTube.

This is for you, NA.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by mousepod

This is for you, NA.

That's a great site! There used to something similar where I saw many a video - it may have been first generation of this. Love it. Thanks, Jesse!


(Oh, and nice la Chien Andalus graphic!)

[flippyshark]

One thing I don't like about YouTube is that the video compression makes everything look extra-crappy. Convenience trumps quality a lot in this digital age, and YouTube is a pretty extreme case in point.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I'm sure there are good things on YouTube, but I'm not up for finding the needle in the very large haystack...I don't even watch TV because I can't seem to find anything that is worth watching in amongst all of the crap.

And I abstain from TV for the same reason. But when many people whose tastes I feel akin to recommend a series, I'll eventually Netflix the DVDs. Most times, I've enjoyed those suggested shows.

Similarly, I wouldn't browse YouTube on my own, even if I had a clue as to how. But I watch most linked-to videos, and have rarely been too disappointed. Oftentimes, in fact, I've been very glad to have something pointed out to me that I wouldn't have otherwise seen.

I like our YouTubery thread here on the LoT ... and I'm glad when something is sort of "must see" that gets a separate thread outside of that (the recent George Takei thing comes to mine ... lordy I'm glad I saw that).


If I'm going to link to some YouTube thing, I try to give a hint as to what's on the other end. But I'll click on the generic "funny" if I trust the sense of humor of the link's creator. At worst, a bad YouTube video has wasted 3 minutes of my time. A television series on DVD has the capacity to waste far more than that.


Meanwhile, the inventors of YouTube were selected (indirectly) as Time Magazine's Men of the Year ... no small feat. Bad or good, YouTube has ratcheted-up the use of the internet in a revolutionary way. Personally, I don't feel like putting Day of the Mold out there for all the world to see ... but huzzah and good luck to all those who want to share their stuff (or other people's stuff) with the rest of the planet.